Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@pegembara said: The defiled citta is always associated with sense objects and is ever wavy/stormy, and the waves are Viññāṇa.
But aren't the defilements here unskillful mental states like craving, aversion and delusion?
You say the defiled citta is always associated with sense objects and vinnana, but that would imply a Buddha doesn't experience sense objects or consciousness, which doesn't make sense.
I still think the distinction between vinnana and prajna is pivotal here. Vinnana is the basic function of consciousness while prajna is a higher knowing.
Defiled citta associated with sense objects and vinnana doesn't mean that pure citta cannot be likewise associated. The difference lies in the knowledge of their true nature (see the Fire Sermon). The pure citta doesn't get baited by Mara but the defiled one does. That is wisdom(panna). The Buddha wisdom is that all that arises passes away and all dhammas are not self.
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe dhamma anatta
You are not alive from your perspective without the experience sense objects or consciousness!
@pegembara said: You are not alive from your perspective without the experience sense objects or consciousness!
That's why I queried what you said.
I think the simplest way to view mind ( citta ) is like a space where different stuff can arise.
The activity of the defiled mind is characterised by the taints, the activity of the undefiled mind by prajna / panna. The first two verses of the Dhammapada are relevant here.
@lobster said:> Would you say this 'mind space' is the emptiness in which mind forms
or is the filling the mind form?
More like an actual space which can be expansive or constricted and "coloured" by different mental states. In Tibetan Buddhism they talk about the sky-like nature of mind.
Space resembles Mind on the relative and ultimate.
On a relative level out of the mind are coming the thoughts as spontaneously
Space encompasses everything like the sun and moon.
So does Mind
Out of space is born everything like the black hole etc.
Out of the Mind is born everything like forms, sounds and rays.
Space has no centre
So does Mind has no centre
Space is causeless; unborn
So is Mind
But Mind is never the Emptiness
Mind has similarities to this Emptiness but is never similar.
Emptiness is self aware
Mind is self aware
That shows somehow a self identity which is maintained as causeless.
The integration between Emptiness and the Self that is the core of Dzogchen practice.
Lankavatara Sutra about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system
shows what is Enlightened Mind and Karma Mind.
So Mind can function on the relative and the absolute level, accordingly are the Buddhist Dharma Teachings arranged.
Best wishes
KY
THEN SAID MAHAMATI to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?
The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralised discriminating-mind are related to the external world which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its maya-like appearances.
Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits.
Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.
Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilement upon its face it is like an actor and plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises.
The principle of intellection becomes divided and mind, the functions of mind, the evil out-flowings of mind, take on individuation. The sevenfold gradation of mind appears: namely, intuitive self-realisation, thinking-desiring-discriminating, seeing, heari.
@KaldenYungdrung said: Lankavatara Sutra about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system shows what is Enlightened Mind and Karma Mind. Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits.
Agree Alaya Vinjana is the store house conciousness where karma etc. is stored.
But the Alaya without Vinjana that could be seen as active Emptiness. In Shunyata everything is stored and Emptiness encompasses everything.
But one cannot find Alaya because it is empty and not sense-based etc.
Could mean thoughts appear spontaneously out of Alaya / Emptiness / Tong pa Nyid
@SpinyNorman said:
Here they are:
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
in Abhidhamma it says there are 14 unskillful mental states, delusion, greed, hate, doubt, etc
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
in Abhidhamma it says there are 25 skillful mental states, wisdom, renunciation, loving-kindness, compassion etc,
not only in Abhidhamma, these skillful and unskillful mental states are mentioned in sutta too
in Abhidhamma it is mentioned that there are 89 types of mind and in one 'moment' (cittakshana) only one mind (citta) arises and falls away
and several mind states accompanied with each type of mind (citta)
@pegembara said: You are not alive from your perspective without the experience sense objects or consciousness!
That's why I queried what you said.
I think the simplest way to view mind ( citta ) is like a space where different stuff can arise.
The activity of the defiled mind is characterised by the taints, the activity of the undefiled mind by prajna / panna. The first two verses of the Dhammapada are relevant here.
Here is the question. Without different stuff arising, can space be discerned? Can space be separated from form? Are they conjoined like the two sides of a coin or disjoined?
The 1st 2 verses from Dhammapada is all about kamma which is still mundane(as opposed to transcendent) right view.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"Therefore, Subhuti, disciples should leave behind all distinctions of phenomena and awaken the thought of the attainment of Supreme Enlightenment. A disciple should do this by not allowing their mind to depend upon ideas evoked by the world of the senses - by not allowing their mind to depend upon ideas stirred by sounds, odors, flavors, sensory touch, or any other qualities. The disciple's mind should be kept independent of any thoughts that might arise within it. If the disciple's mind depends upon anything in the sensory realm it will have no solid foundation in any reality. This is why Buddha teaches that the mind of a disciple should not accept the appearances of things as a basis when exercising charity. Subhuti, as disciples practice compassion and charity for the welfare of all living beings they should do it without relying on appearances, and without attachment. Just as the Buddha declares that form is not form, so he also declares that all living beings are, in fact, not living beings."
"Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: 'I must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been liberated.' Why is this so? If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."
"Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."
"Subhuti, how can one explain this Sutra to others without holding in mind any arbitrary conception of forms or phenomena or spiritual truths? It can only be done, Subhuti, by keeping the mind in perfect tranquility and free from any attachment to appearances."
"So I say to you -
This is how to contemplate our conditioned existence in this fleeting world:"
"Like a tiny drop of dew, or a bubble floating in a stream;
Like a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
Or a flickering lamp, an illusion, a phantom, or a dream."
I remember reading somewhere that mind is thoughts, intentions, perceptions, interpretations, volitions.
This was from a Buddhism basic course.
Seems like anything surrounding individual personality and not the physical body. (Senses)
So we have the senses(body) consciousness(awareness) and then mind (as above)
I guess it's just a definition but it seems to be described in so many ways. Hard one to pin down.
@Earthninja said:
I remember reading somewhere that mind is thoughts, intentions, perceptions, interpretations, volitions.
This was from a Buddhism basic course.
Seems like anything surrounding individual personality and not the physical body. (Senses)
So we have the senses(body) consciousness(awareness) and then mind (as above)
I guess it's just a definition but it seems to be described in so many ways. Hard one to pin down.
I fully agree with you about this right view / explanation about the hierarchy of the human.
The person has indeed the mind of the senses and consciousnesses as his/her boss.
Then it was told in different way that this mind is the false mind because it is the cause for suffering etc.
So it is this Mind which makes a false self called ego, that is to conquer in Buddhism:
When this Mind is conquered then the Enlightened Mind is reached.
Many people forget, that the aim (for Buddhists) in Buddhism, is to become enlightened (sooner or later).
I fully agree with you about this right view / explanation about the hierarchy of the human.
The person has indeed the mind of the senses and consciousnesses as his/her boss.
Then it was told in different way that this mind is the false mind because it is the cause for suffering etc.
So it is this Mind which makes a false self called ego, that is to conquer in Buddhism:
When this Mind is conquered then the Enlightened Mind is reached.
There is nobody to conquer the mind, you are the mind. Mind is trying to conquer itself so it suffers, always projecting some state in the future.
You are the ego, who is it that wants to transcend the ego and reach enlightenment?
Many people forget, that the aim (for Buddhists) in Buddhism, is to become enlightened (sooner or later).
Yes, the seeker is always searching for the remedy to free itself from it's self imposed prison bars.
@pegembara said: Here is the question. Without different stuff arising, can space be discerned?
Yes, it's like in meditation when the mind calms and there are no thoughts "occupying" space.
No it can't.
Note that space is discerned with the absence of thoughts. In other words, space is the absence of stuff. Stuff and no stuff cannot be separated like 2 sheaves of reed. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall.
The first sound in Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C Minor is silence. This monumental work begins with an eighth-note rest. Contained in that diminutive unit of silence is the last moment of calm before fate intervenes, the last second before learning life-changing news. It is the end of innocence before Beethoven’s infamous four-note motif launches the fateful first movement.
Thoughts, feelings and sensations. That's it. All of what we think of as life, our relationships, our work, our practice, our hopes and fears, our body, our sense of self, our children, our car, our iPod, etc - it's thoughts - stories that pass through experience - it's feelings - it's what going on emotionally, and it's sensations - it's sensory sensations of hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling and touching ... that is our life. Life is experience. Life is mind. There isn't any world out there we can touch directly.
Yet we constantly project the display of mind into solid stuff that is actually out there. When we look, when we know .... we see that life has no more substance than a dream. As each appearance is examined ... we see that it is empty of substance .. where is it, we cannot say. What is it, we cannot say. Where did it come from, we cannot say. It's mysterious. It's undefinable. It's like a mirage, like a dream, without substance.
It's all mind. It's all experience.
This is the nature of the Mahamudra of perception.
This mind, as well, is a mere movement of attention
That has no self-nature, being merely a gust of wind.
Empty of identity, like space.
All things, like space, are equal.
When we turn attention to what is aware of all this experience ... what knows experience? What do we find? Nothing.
Though we have this sense that 'something' is aware of all these appearances which seem to arise and fall .... when we ask "what is aware?" .. and rest in the gap that follows this .... we do not see anything .. our knowing reveals .. nothing. Nothing - no-thing.
This is the nature of the Mahamudra of awareness.
When speaking of 'Mahamudra'
It is not an entity that can be shown.
There the mind's suchness
Is itself the state of Mahamudra.
When we rest in knowing, it's clear that there seems to be arisings, yet nothing can be found. These are both equally there, and yet not there. Nothing, and seemingly something. At one and the same time, we can know the inseparability of appearance and emptiness ... luminous emptiness.
There's nothing we can really say ... it's just like this ... empty, and yet at once apparent... suchness.
@pegembara said: No it can't. Note that space is discerned with the absence of thoughts. In other words, space is the absence of stuff. Stuff and no stuff cannot be separated like 2 sheaves of reed. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
Yes it can. It's like noticing the space in a room.
When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
@pegembara said: No it can't. Note that space is discerned with the absence of thoughts. In other words, space is the absence of stuff. Stuff and no stuff cannot be separated like 2 sheaves of reed. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
Yes it can. It's like noticing the space in a room.
When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
Knowing is not space or floating consciousness. It is not a thing.
Knowing what? That there are no thoughts? Absence of things.
There is no mirror/knower! They are all empty, without a self.
The body is the bodhi tree,
The mind is like a clear mirror.
At all times we must strive to polish it,
And must not let the dust collect.
Shen-hsiu
Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?
@pegembara said: Knowing is not space or floating consciousness. It is not a thing.
I didn't say it was a "thing". What do you think sati is?
Quote: When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
You don't have to.
This sure sounds like this "knowing" can stand on its own.
When there are no experience or stuff, there is still consciousness or knowing. Only consciousness or knowing. Even a verb can be made into a noun.
Knower knowing the known.
Without the known, what can knowing know?
They arise dependently and are therefore anatta. Nothing stands alone.
@pegembara said: When there are no experience or stuff, there is still consciousness or knowing.
That was point I was making, though I think you've become fixated on the basic function of consciousness. Sati and panna are also ways of knowing.
Actually I was quoting you there. There is a real danger of making this empty process into an entity eg. knower, the absolute, Consciousness as per Advaita.
There is no knowing without the known. Everything is empty. Sabbe dhamma anatta.
@pegembara said: When there are no experience or stuff, there is still consciousness or knowing.
That was point I was making, though I think you've become fixated on the basic function of consciousness. Sati and panna are also ways of knowing.
Actually I was quoting you there. There is a real danger of making this empty process into an entity eg. knower, the absolute, Consciousness as per Advaita.
There is no knowing without the known. Everything is empty. Sabbe dhamma anatta.
I'm well aware of drifting into an Adaita view and regularly make this point myself.
What I actually said was: "When there are no thoughts there is still knowing", with reference to the mind. The point I think you are missing is that sati-sampajana and prajna/panna are also forms of knowing.
Mind is the infinite universe stuck in a body, enslaved by temporary biology/biochemistry, conditioning and attachment (Dukkha).
Consiousness is the on/off status of the mind.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Pretty nifty.
I'm reading the debate between @SpinyNorman and @Pegembara and find that I agree with both from this point of view.
My take on it all can drift all over the place and sometimes Advaita creeps in. It can fit depending on how we look at it but in the end it gets dismissed.
I do think that if a kind of Advaita consciousness is happening, it isn't aware of itself yet except through relative being like us. Once enough of us can see it, perhaps Maitreya will materialize.
I can't help but be agnostic when it comes to this stuff because I do have a vivid imagination.
@pegembara said: Knowing is not space or floating consciousness. It is not a thing.
I didn't say it was a "thing". What do you think sati is?
Quote: When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
You don't have to.
This sure sounds like this "knowing" can stand on its own.
When there are no experience or stuff, there is still consciousness or knowing. Only consciousness or knowing. Even a verb can be made into a noun.
Knower knowing the known.
Without the known, what can knowing know?
They arise dependently and are therefore anatta. Nothing stands alone.
Who knows ?
The knower or the watcher ?
In case of the watcher what is seen? Is there here difference between object and subject ?
There is only knowing. Who knows is not a valid question.
"Which fabrications, lord? And whose are the fabrications?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "If one were to ask, 'Which are the fabrications, and whose are the fabrications?' and if one were to say, 'Fabrications are one thing, and these fabrications are something/someone else's,' both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when there is the view that the life-principle is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From ignorance as requisite condition come fabrications. Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings — 'Which aging & death? And whose is this aging & death?' or 'Is aging & death one thing, and is this the aging & death of someone/something else?' or 'The soul is the same as the body,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another' — are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising."
In case of the watcher what is seen? Is there here difference between object and subject ?
No subject without the object.
I, the one who sees, see words on the screen.
No seer without the seen. No thinker without thoughts.
In case there is a watcher who is aware ?
In case there is no watcher who is aware ?
Not a valid question.
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain...
"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
when we take the mind in the context of six sense bases mind is the brain
when we take 'thinnang sangathi passo', a thought (dhamma dhatu/mano-rupa) contacts the brain (mana ayathanaya) and mind-consciousness (mano vinnana) arise
and
there is remembering = citta (mind) =pancca-skandha (five aggregates) = nama-rupa (name-form) which arises and as soon as it arises it falls without residue
but
because we are ignorant we think 'there is someone/something, i saw someone/something' and we cling to that someone/something
so
for us there is residue to continue
and
for us that is five aggregates of clinging
when we refer to internal sense base, mind = brain = mana
when we refer to consciousness, mind = mano-vinnana = vinnana
when we refer to experience, mind = remembering/thinking =citta
@upekka said:
when we take the mind in the context of six sense bases mind is the brain
At the Buddha's time, I doubt the level of understanding of how the senses operate is the same as today.
The "eye" is the organ of sight- not merely the eyeball but the whole works that allows seeing ie. cornea, retina, optic nerves and pathways, visual cortex of the brain.
Mind cannot just be brain but where ideas and intellect arise. Brain and everything is inside "mind". Mind is not a thing but a dependently arisen phenomenon just as eye is actually not a thing(empty).
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
Anytime you're trying to define something that is a concept, you are going to run into bumps when trying to pin it down.
Thoughts = imagination/faery tales/ a story.
Mind is a thought.
@Earthninja said: Anytime you're trying to define something that is a concept, you are going to run into bumps when trying to pin it down.
Of course, but on a discussion forum there is little choice but to use conceptual language.
The particular challenge here is that we're on a pan-Buddhist forum, and concepts are described differently in different schools.
@Earthninja said: Anytime you're trying to define something that is a concept, you are going to run into bumps when trying to pin it down.
Of course, but on a discussion forum there is little choice but to use conceptual language.
The particular challenge here is that we're on a pan-Buddhist forum, and concepts are described differently in different schools.
That's what I'm saying, not only different schools but even individual interpretation.
Some people really believe mind is a real thing, although not tangible.
Which is why it's good sometimes to point out that this is a concept.
Frees up a lot
Once the mind knows, it lets go of its own accord. It is bound to let go of its own accord. The mind attached is the mind that doesn't yet know, doesn't yet understand with discernment. Once the full heart knows, it fully lets go, with no concern or regrets. All the concerns that used to bother and disturb the mind vanish of their own accord because discernment sees right through them. Once it sees everything clearly and distinctly, what is there left to grope for? The problems of the heart that used to be broad and wide-ranging now become more and more restricted. Problems concerning outside affairs become less and less, as I have said in previous talks.
So we follow the connections, follow the seeds on in. Day by day, the defilements become more and more restricted, more and more restricted. This is because the bridges that connect them to sights, sound, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and the various things of the world in general have been cut away from the mind by using continual mindfulness and discernment to the point where we have no more doubts. It's as if the outside world didn't exist. There remain only the preoccupations that form — blip, blip, blip — in the mind. This is where the rebellious monarch lies. The one who concocts and creates, the one who struggles and writhes restlessly in big and little ways, lies right here.
When we go ransacking through the mind until everything is smashed completely to smithereens with nothing left — in the same way that we used discernment to investigate phenomena in general — then when the mind of unawareness is ransacked in this way, ultimately the supreme defilement — unawareness, the emperor of the round of rebirth — is completely obliterated from the mind. At this point, how can we help but know what it is that causes birth on this or that level? As for where we will or won't be reborn, that's not important. What's important is seeing clearly that this is what has caused birth and death.
When we go ransacking through the mind until everything is smashed completely to smithereens with nothing left — in the same way that we used discernment to investigate phenomena in general — then when the mind of unawareness is ransacked in this way, ultimately the supreme defilement — unawareness, the emperor of the round of rebirth — is completely obliterated from the mind. At this point, how can we help but know what it is that causes birth on this or that level? As for where we will or won't be reborn, that's not important. What's important is seeing clearly that this is what has caused birth and death.
This article is about removing ignorance from the mind:
"...ultimately the supreme defilement — unawareness, the emperor of the round of rebirth — is completely obliterated from the mind."
The"mind" in Buddhism probably includes form, feelings, consciousness, perception, and formations (skandas), but it can also transcend them through awareness and discernment.
Thus I have heard from a repeatable source ~Bodhidharma~
In Buddhist "practice" The mind is the root from which all things grow! ....(even ones curiosity about what the mind is ...so it would seem )
Nirvana = Mind turned inwardly recognising its true nature
Samsara = Mind turned outwards lost in its projection
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@Shoshin said:
Thus I have heard from a repeatable source ~Bodhidharma~
In Buddhist "practice" The mind is the root from which all things grow! ....(even ones curiosity about what the mind is ...so it would seem )
Nirvana = Mind turned inwardly reflecting upon its true nature
Samsara = Mind turned outwards lost in its projection
Interesting to me because after some reflection I've seem to come to equate mind with life.
I don't think I can agree with that definition of nirvana but that's another thread.
@Earthninja said: Some people really believe mind is a real thing, although not tangible.
According to you dropping a brick on your foot isn't real either, so oi dunno.
But what is your definition of "real"?
Hahaha! That's funny. I never said dropping a brick on your foot isn't real. I said there is no sufferer. Or separation.
There is pain, but it happens for no one.
Real is what can be experienced directly.
The experience of a painful sensation is real.
That there is a sufferer is not real, eg it is just a thought.
Comments
Defiled citta associated with sense objects and vinnana doesn't mean that pure citta cannot be likewise associated. The difference lies in the knowledge of their true nature (see the Fire Sermon). The pure citta doesn't get baited by Mara but the defiled one does. That is wisdom(panna). The Buddha wisdom is that all that arises passes away and all dhammas are not self.
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe dhamma anatta
You are not alive from your perspective without the experience sense objects or consciousness!
That's why I queried what you said.
I think the simplest way to view mind ( citta ) is like a space where different stuff can arise.
The activity of the defiled mind is characterised by the taints, the activity of the undefiled mind by prajna / panna. The first two verses of the Dhammapada are relevant here.
Would you say this 'mind space' is the emptiness in which mind forms
or is the filling the mind form?
More like an actual space which can be expansive or constricted and "coloured" by different mental states. In Tibetan Buddhism they talk about the sky-like nature of mind.
Space resembles Mind on the relative and ultimate.
On a relative level out of the mind are coming the thoughts as spontaneously
Space encompasses everything like the sun and moon.
So does Mind
Out of space is born everything like the black hole etc.
Out of the Mind is born everything like forms, sounds and rays.
Space has no centre
So does Mind has no centre
Space is causeless; unborn
So is Mind
But Mind is never the Emptiness
Mind has similarities to this Emptiness but is never similar.
Emptiness is self aware
Mind is self aware
That shows somehow a self identity which is maintained as causeless.
The integration between Emptiness and the Self that is the core of Dzogchen practice.
Best wishes
KY
Lankavatara Sutra about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system
shows what is Enlightened Mind and Karma Mind.
So Mind can function on the relative and the absolute level, accordingly are the Buddhist Dharma Teachings arranged.
Best wishes
KY
THEN SAID MAHAMATI to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?
The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralised discriminating-mind are related to the external world which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its maya-like appearances.
Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits.
Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.
Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilement upon its face it is like an actor and plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises.
The principle of intellection becomes divided and mind, the functions of mind, the evil out-flowings of mind, take on individuation. The sevenfold gradation of mind appears: namely, intuitive self-realisation, thinking-desiring-discriminating, seeing, heari.
"Universal Mind" looks like a poor translation of alaya-vijnana, which is usually translated as "store-house consciousness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses#.C4.80layavij.C3.B1.C4.81na
Agree Alaya Vinjana is the store house conciousness where karma etc. is stored.
But the Alaya without Vinjana that could be seen as active Emptiness. In Shunyata everything is stored and Emptiness encompasses everything.
But one cannot find Alaya because it is empty and not sense-based etc.
Could mean thoughts appear spontaneously out of Alaya / Emptiness / Tong pa Nyid
Best wishes
KY
in Abhidhamma it says there are 14 unskillful mental states, delusion, greed, hate, doubt, etc
in Abhidhamma it says there are 25 skillful mental states, wisdom, renunciation, loving-kindness, compassion etc,
not only in Abhidhamma, these skillful and unskillful mental states are mentioned in sutta too
in Abhidhamma it is mentioned that there are 89 types of mind and in one 'moment' (cittakshana) only one mind (citta) arises and falls away
and several mind states accompanied with each type of mind (citta)
Here is the question. Without different stuff arising, can space be discerned? Can space be separated from form? Are they conjoined like the two sides of a coin or disjoined?
The 1st 2 verses from Dhammapada is all about kamma which is still mundane(as opposed to transcendent) right view.
Diamond Sutra
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page1.html
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe dhamma anatta
I remember reading somewhere that mind is thoughts, intentions, perceptions, interpretations, volitions.
This was from a Buddhism basic course.
Seems like anything surrounding individual personality and not the physical body. (Senses)
So we have the senses(body) consciousness(awareness) and then mind (as above)
I guess it's just a definition but it seems to be described in so many ways. Hard one to pin down.
I fully agree with you about this right view / explanation about the hierarchy of the human.
The person has indeed the mind of the senses and consciousnesses as his/her boss.
Then it was told in different way that this mind is the false mind because it is the cause for suffering etc.
So it is this Mind which makes a false self called ego, that is to conquer in Buddhism:
When this Mind is conquered then the Enlightened Mind is reached.
Many people forget, that the aim (for Buddhists) in Buddhism, is to become enlightened (sooner or later).
Best wishes
KY.
There is nobody to conquer the mind, you are the mind. Mind is trying to conquer itself so it suffers, always projecting some state in the future.
You are the ego, who is it that wants to transcend the ego and reach enlightenment?
Yes, the seeker is always searching for the remedy to free itself from it's self imposed prison bars.
Yes, it's like in meditation when the mind calms and there are no thoughts "occupying" space.
It's worth noting that mind is the 3rd foundation of mindfulness, see section 3 here:
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn10
No it can't.
Note that space is discerned with the absence of thoughts. In other words, space is the absence of stuff. Stuff and no stuff cannot be separated like 2 sheaves of reed. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
The first sound in Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C Minor is silence. This monumental work begins with an eighth-note rest. Contained in that diminutive unit of silence is the last moment of calm before fate intervenes, the last second before learning life-changing news. It is the end of innocence before Beethoven’s infamous four-note motif launches the fateful first movement.
http://www.njsymphony.org/news/detail/james-roe-reflects-on-beethovens-fifth-symphony-ahead-of-njso-finale
Thoughts, feelings and sensations. That's it. All of what we think of as life, our relationships, our work, our practice, our hopes and fears, our body, our sense of self, our children, our car, our iPod, etc - it's thoughts - stories that pass through experience - it's feelings - it's what going on emotionally, and it's sensations - it's sensory sensations of hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling and touching ... that is our life. Life is experience. Life is mind. There isn't any world out there we can touch directly.
Yet we constantly project the display of mind into solid stuff that is actually out there. When we look, when we know .... we see that life has no more substance than a dream. As each appearance is examined ... we see that it is empty of substance .. where is it, we cannot say. What is it, we cannot say. Where did it come from, we cannot say. It's mysterious. It's undefinable. It's like a mirage, like a dream, without substance.
It's all mind. It's all experience.
This is the nature of the Mahamudra of perception.
This mind, as well, is a mere movement of attention
That has no self-nature, being merely a gust of wind.
Empty of identity, like space.
All things, like space, are equal.
When we turn attention to what is aware of all this experience ... what knows experience? What do we find? Nothing.
Though we have this sense that 'something' is aware of all these appearances which seem to arise and fall .... when we ask "what is aware?" .. and rest in the gap that follows this .... we do not see anything .. our knowing reveals .. nothing. Nothing - no-thing.
This is the nature of the Mahamudra of awareness.
When speaking of 'Mahamudra'
It is not an entity that can be shown.
There the mind's suchness
Is itself the state of Mahamudra.
When we rest in knowing, it's clear that there seems to be arisings, yet nothing can be found. These are both equally there, and yet not there. Nothing, and seemingly something. At one and the same time, we can know the inseparability of appearance and emptiness ... luminous emptiness.
There's nothing we can really say ... it's just like this ... empty, and yet at once apparent... suchness.
Songs of Naropa
Thrangu Rinpoche
Yes it can. It's like noticing the space in a room.
When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
Knowing is not space or floating consciousness. It is not a thing.
Knowing what? That there are no thoughts? Absence of things.
There is no mirror/knower! They are all empty, without a self.
The body is the bodhi tree,
The mind is like a clear mirror.
At all times we must strive to polish it,
And must not let the dust collect.
Shen-hsiu
Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?
Hui-neng
I didn't say it was a "thing". What do you think sati is?
Quote: When there are no thoughts there is still knowing.
You don't have to.
This sure sounds like this "knowing" can stand on its own.
When there are no experience or stuff, there is still consciousness or knowing. Only consciousness or knowing. Even a verb can be made into a noun.
Knower knowing the known.
Without the known, what can knowing know?
They arise dependently and are therefore anatta. Nothing stands alone.
That was point I was making, though I think you've become fixated on the basic function of consciousness. Sati and panna are also ways of knowing.
it is worth and easy to practice the 1st foundation of mindfulness to understand Buddha's Teaching
(kayanupassana- mindfulness of body)
Actually I was quoting you there. There is a real danger of making this empty process into an entity eg. knower, the absolute, Consciousness as per Advaita.
There is no knowing without the known. Everything is empty. Sabbe dhamma anatta.
Metta.
I'm well aware of drifting into an Adaita view and regularly make this point myself.
What I actually said was: "When there are no thoughts there is still knowing", with reference to the mind. The point I think you are missing is that sati-sampajana and prajna/panna are also forms of knowing.
to me:
Mind is the infinite universe stuck in a body, enslaved by temporary biology/biochemistry, conditioning and attachment (Dukkha).
Consiousness is the on/off status of the mind.
Pretty nifty.
I'm reading the debate between @SpinyNorman and @Pegembara and find that I agree with both from this point of view.
My take on it all can drift all over the place and sometimes Advaita creeps in. It can fit depending on how we look at it but in the end it gets dismissed.
I do think that if a kind of Advaita consciousness is happening, it isn't aware of itself yet except through relative being like us. Once enough of us can see it, perhaps Maitreya will materialize.
I can't help but be agnostic when it comes to this stuff because I do have a vivid imagination.
It's also interesting to relate the discussion here to recent conversations about the unconditioned, Buddha Nature, the Deathless, and so on.
The not knowing , i guess that is the core in Buddhist teachings.
But the basi> @pegembara said:
In case of the watcher what is seen? Is there here difference between object and subject ?
In case there is a watcher who is aware ?
Eeek, too many questions! Maybe you could just give your answer?
Also, could you explain how your 2 minds fit in here ( sems and Rigpa I think? )/
There is only knowing. Who knows is not a valid question.
"Which fabrications, lord? And whose are the fabrications?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "If one were to ask, 'Which are the fabrications, and whose are the fabrications?' and if one were to say, 'Fabrications are one thing, and these fabrications are something/someone else's,' both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when there is the view that the life-principle is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From ignorance as requisite condition come fabrications. Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings — 'Which aging & death? And whose is this aging & death?' or 'Is aging & death one thing, and is this the aging & death of someone/something else?' or 'The soul is the same as the body,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another' — are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.035.than.html
No subject without the object.
I, the one who sees, see words on the screen.
No seer without the seen. No thinker without thoughts.
Not a valid question.
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain...
"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html
when we take the mind in the context of six sense bases mind is the brain
when we take 'thinnang sangathi passo', a thought (dhamma dhatu/mano-rupa) contacts the brain (mana ayathanaya) and mind-consciousness (mano vinnana) arise
and
there is remembering = citta (mind) =pancca-skandha (five aggregates) = nama-rupa (name-form) which arises and as soon as it arises it falls without residue
but
because we are ignorant we think 'there is someone/something, i saw someone/something' and we cling to that someone/something
so
for us there is residue to continue
and
for us that is five aggregates of clinging
when we refer to internal sense base, mind = brain = mana
when we refer to consciousness, mind = mano-vinnana = vinnana
when we refer to experience, mind = remembering/thinking =citta
At the Buddha's time, I doubt the level of understanding of how the senses operate is the same as today.
The "eye" is the organ of sight- not merely the eyeball but the whole works that allows seeing ie. cornea, retina, optic nerves and pathways, visual cortex of the brain.
Mind cannot just be brain but where ideas and intellect arise. Brain and everything is inside "mind". Mind is not a thing but a dependently arisen phenomenon just as eye is actually not a thing(empty).
There seem to be quite a lot of different ideas about "mind" across the different Buddhist schools!
Anytime you're trying to define something that is a concept, you are going to run into bumps when trying to pin it down.
Thoughts = imagination/faery tales/ a story.
Mind is a thought.
Of course, but on a discussion forum there is little choice but to use conceptual language.
The particular challenge here is that we're on a pan-Buddhist forum, and concepts are described differently in different schools.
Well said @SpinyNorman
Sometimes right speech is poetic, alludes to, symbolic, multilayered, inducing by countering and so on.
As I said to the Buddha only this morning, 'Do you mind if I kill you?'
@SpinyNorman said:
Do you mind that this is the case @SpinyNorman ?
Oi dunno.
Never mind
That's what I'm saying, not only different schools but even individual interpretation.
Some people really believe mind is a real thing, although not tangible.
Which is why it's good sometimes to point out that this is a concept.
Frees up a lot
"What is mind in Buddhism?"
The practice.....
Mind is the cause of ignorance.
Ignorance doesn't have a cause in Buddhism.
This article is about removing ignorance from the mind:
"...ultimately the supreme defilement — unawareness, the emperor of the round of rebirth — is completely obliterated from the mind."
According to you dropping a brick on your foot isn't real either, so oi dunno.
But what is your definition of "real"?
The"mind" in Buddhism probably includes form, feelings, consciousness, perception, and formations (skandas), but it can also transcend them through awareness and discernment.
Thus I have heard from a repeatable source ~Bodhidharma~
In Buddhist "practice" The mind is the root from which all things grow! ....(even ones curiosity about what the mind is ...so it would seem
)
Nirvana = Mind turned inwardly recognising its true nature
Samsara = Mind turned outwards lost in its projection
Interesting to me because after some reflection I've seem to come to equate mind with life.
I don't think I can agree with that definition of nirvana but that's another thread.
@David It should have read "Recognising" its true nature ....Thanks for pointing this error out....
Hahaha! That's funny.
I never said dropping a brick on your foot isn't real. I said there is no sufferer. Or separation. 
There is pain, but it happens for no one.
Real is what can be experienced directly.
The experience of a painful sensation is real.
That there is a sufferer is not real, eg it is just a thought.