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.
The five skandhas
The Buddha says that we are not the five skandhas (form/matter,feeling,perception,formations,consciousness) and that after enlightenment attachment to them is not present and after parinirvana the burden is dropped totally.But what remains then?
0
Comments
Doesn't he say we are just the five aggregates?
Nor does the thought occur, ‘I will be.’
When these formations terminate and cease,
Regarding them, what is there to lament?
“Just pure arising of phenomena,
The pure persistence of formations with a cause,
Seen as it truly is, there is no fear, O Chief.
“When one with wisdom looks upon the world
As one would look upon a heap of grass and sticks,
One can’t find any ownership;
There won’t be grief because there is no ‘mine’.
“I’m weary of this corpse, and I’m fed up;
Existence lost its spell, and there will be
No other corpse when this one here breaks up.
Utterances of Arahant Adhimutta
The Buddha said that the five clinging-aggregates are not-self. He called the five clinging-aggregates a burden, the taking up of which is "the craving that makes for further becoming" and the casting off of which is "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving" (SN 22.22).
The casting off of the burden and awakening are synonymous. The burden is totally dropped in this very life, so to ask what remains after death is a pointless question. As Sariputta answered a similar question put forth by the venerable Kotthita:
I'm having trouble finding this passage in MN 2. The closest I can find is this:
Bhikkhu Bodhi has an almost identical translation:
Either this passage isn't from MN 2 and someone just got the citation wrong, or it's a very liberal translation.
The dead body until it decays
There is nothing more to his supramundane teaching than that.
:smilec:
Enlightenment is mere khandas.
Khandas without the "you".
:smilec:
To the contrary, one of the khandas clings to the khandas.
I recommend the following suttas to you:
Phagguna Sutta
Parileyyaka Sutta
Kind regards
As Jewish people do not accept the New Testament as holy scripture,so maybe the Theravada Buddhist do not accept the second and third turning of the Dharmawheel and the corresponding scriptures.There you can read that we all have the Buddhanature,we are potential Buddhas!
When an Arhant passes away into Parinirvana, he enters into what is called 'Nirvana Without Remainder'.
Mahayana Buddhism however encourages enlightened beings to return and continue the bodhisattva path to Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. The Lotus Sutra (a Mahayana text) also states the the mindstream of Buddhas like Shakyamuni continues to benefit sentient beings (perhaps appearing in other worlds?) - however, Theravada Buddhism generally does not agree that mindstreams of liberated and enlightened beings can continue after death. My personal view is inclined to the Mahayana side.
Does Theravada Buddhism agree that the "mindstreams" of unenlightened beings can continue after death?
Thanks,that is very helpfull.
I do not know that either,but by definition mindstream means kontinuum.
The memory of one’s former births
Knowledge of the appearance, disappearance and re-appearance of beings in the cycle of existence (samsara)
The knowledge to achieve the total eradication of desires.
The Buddha spoke of past lives memories dating aeons back.
However, that one has out of body experiences or siddhis like remote viewing doesn't mean a 'soul' travelled outwards (such a theory is rejected by the doctrine of Anatta and Dependent Origination). It just means a different set of condition allows a manifestation of consciousness in a different/non-physical setting. There is no 'Self' and no 'Locality' to Consciousness, it doesn't matter how far, if the condition is present (such as through samadhi), Buddha can even appear in Tāvatiṃsa heaven in a thought instant to teach dhamma to her mother. As my friend 'Thusness' commented several years ago on someone's astral travelling, Next is her experience of ‘astral traveling’, is in a stage of absorption and then out of a sudden awareness, the eyes of awareness may allow her to witness something that is altogether different from the physical place but this does not necessary mean that ‘consciousness’ has left and re-enter the body. Consciousness is propelled by causes and conditions. According to her conditions of absorption and clarity, just IS.
Venerable Dhammanando in reply to the question the question 'Who is reborn':
The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"
The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.
Rizenfenix:
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4215
Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.
Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.
One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…
Btw... there are Pali texts that suggest and give credence to Antarabhava, but I digress, and leave the following info for people to ponder and decide -
From http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/lofiversi...php/t17918.html,
Basically, Ajahn Brahm (and the forest monks of Ajahn Chah) believe
there is an antarabhava, partly from the numerous accounts in the
Suttas, and according to Ajahn his personal experiences dealing with
the dying in Thailand (I have not inquired further on this). Hoping he
has written on this and will be published.
From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/7751?viscount=100,
> >*Intermediate State between Existences*
> >
> >In contrast to the orthodox stand, there is significant Pali canonical
evidence strongly suggestive of an intermediate state between one existence and
another, a view supported by Theravada fundamentalists. Various suttas from the
Nikayas clearly talk about a state of existence before actual rebirth as a
another sentient being. Let me quote some examples from them.
> >
> >In Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 3Cool the Buddha states that for conception to
occur, one of the conditions is that the being to be reborn (gandhabba) has to
be present at the moment of union between the father and mother. Here, it is
implicitly stated that there is an intermediate state of existence between death
in the previous existence and rebirth in the next.
> >
> >There are various references to the rebirths of bodhisattas as well as other
beings, which also imply as much. According to Sampasadaniya Sutta (DN 2Cool and
Sangiti Sutta (DN 33), some beings "enter the mother's womb unknowing, stay
there unknowing and leave it unknowing", while others "enter the mother's womb
knowing, stay there knowing, and leave it unknowing". One who "enters the
mother's womb knowing, stays there knowing and leaves it knowing� is, according
to the commentary, a bodhisatta in its last rebirth. This is confirmed by
several suttas that describe the bodhisatta's moment of entry into the mother's
womb as "being mindful and fully aware�. [Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14);
Acchariya-abbhuta Sutta (MN 123); Pathama-tathagata-acchariya Sutta (AN 4: 27);
Bhumicala Sutta (AN 8:70)].
> >
> >There are references to a fivefold typology of non-returners, one of which is
called antaraparinibbayi (�attainer of Nibbana in the interval�Wink, in the
Samyutta Nikaya (SN 48:15, 24, 66, 51:26, 54:5, 55:25); Purisagati Sutta (AN
7:55) and Samyojana Sutta (AN 4:131). Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his "The Connected
Discourses of the Buddha: a new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya", Volume II
(Note 65, Pp 1902-1903), argues (with support from Samyojana Sutta) that the
antaraparinibbayi is "�one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth
(upapattisamyojana) without yet having abandoned the fetter of existence
(bhavasamyojana)."
> >
> >Orthodox Theravadins argue against this interpretation of the
antaraparinibbayi because in the Kathavatthu (e.g. Kv 366), an Abhidhamma text
regarded by them as canonical, the idea of antarabhava (intermediate life) was
strongly refuted.
> >
> >However, there is further evidence to consider. In Metta Sutta (Khp 9, Sn
1:Cool there is reference to bhuta (those who have been born) and sambhavesi
(those seeking birth). Several suttas [Channovada Sutta (MN 144); Channa Sutta
(SN 4:35:87); Catuttha-nibbana-patisamyutta Sutta (Ud 74)] mention the states of
"here or beyond or between the two". Kutuhala Sutta (SN 4:44:9) also tells of "a
being [that] has laid down his body but has not yet been reborn in another
body".
> >
> >All the above references from the suttas implying an intermediate state of
existence should provide sufficient food for thought by Theravadins and ample
reason to keep an open mind regarding the mystery of dying and rebirth.
> >
> >Although fundamentalist Theravadins may subscribe to a belief of an
intermediate afterlife, it does not necessarily mean that they accept all of the
bardo (�gap in between� or intermediate state) teachings postulated by the
Vajrayana tradition.
Most people think Nibbana is some state totally void. In other words, the nibbana without remainder is what people generally regard nibbana to be.
So the Buddha said there was another nibbana, namely, with feeling.
The Buddha did not mention the five aggregates.
He simply said "everything that is felt becomes cold right there".
nibbana without remainder is an obscure teaching found in one or so suttas
He does however, mention that nirvana with remainder means the sense faculties are still present.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html
§ 44. {Iti 2.17; Iti 38}
[Alternate translation: Ireland]
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.1
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."2
These two proclaimed by the one with vision, Unbinding properties the one independent, the one who is Such:3 one property, here in this life with fuel remaining from the destruction of the guide to becoming, and that with no fuel remaining, after this life, in which all becoming totally ceases. Those who know this state uncompounded, their minds released through the destruction of the guide to becoming, they, attaining the Teaching's core, pleased with ending, have abandoned all becoming: they, the Such.
Notes
1, 2.
With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates (see the Glossary). While the arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else. For a discussion of this point, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, pp. 21-37.
3.
Such (tadi): An adjective to describe one who has attained the goal. It indicates that the person's state is undefinable and not subject to change or influence of any sort.
as you questioned, the Buddha did not mention the five aggregates
the sutta simply states what it states, with the differentiating aspect of the "fuel" being feeling (rather than the five aggregates)
one also needs to practise this
not just practise non-attachment towards what felt in the present but mentally penetrate the fact that "all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here"
kind regards
dd
So now that you mentioned... I don't think five skandhas are very appropriate to describe the experience of an arhant who has achieved nirvana with fuel. However, I am not aware of texts that talk about whether arhant experiences five skandhas or not.
five clinging aggregates (puncca upadana skandha) are rupa (form?), vedana (feeling?), sanna (perception?), sankhara (volitional activity?) and vinnana (consciousness?)
consciousness is the tainted mind, tainted with greed, aversion and delusion
to arise consciousness there should be rupa or vedana or sanna or sankhara
vedana and sanna are for all (arahats and ordinary people) when the consciousness arise with the help of rupa {rupa-rupa (form), sabda-rupa (sound), gandha-rupa (smell), rasa-rupa (taste) or sprsa-rupa (touch)}
but
mind of an arahat is not tainted with greed, aversion and delusion there is no sankhara (cause) for future becoming (effect)
so
still it is possible to use pancca skandha (five-aggregates) for arahat too
but
their mind is not tainted (kusala vinnana)
and
mind of other people is tainted (akusala vinnana)
so other people have pancca upadana skandha (five-clinging-aggregates)
this is what i gathered
According to 'Thusness', a practitioner who has an initial enlightenment experience or a realisation of non-dual and anatta may first still have all five aggregates but experiences no separate self or agent behind these aggregates, but later even the five aggregates becomes transformed into the eighteen dhatus, without anymore conception and volition. Mental processes and formations are transformed to pure consciousness, pure awareness, and in this model consciousness and awareness are synonymous. So in Thusness's model, rupa (form), vedana (sensation) and consciousness (vinanna) of the five skandhas are still present after the transformation, what is removed are sanna and sankhara. There is just pure awareness, pure sensation, clarity in all six sense doors, but what is dropped are the perception, conception, recognition, judgement, and the mental formations/intentions which forms karma, one is no longer reacting to conditioning and there is the experience of impersonality (which means sense of self is further dissolved even after the initial insight into anatta). What is left is as a teacher puts it, 'perfect sensate directness'.
Then there is another model by my Taiwanese teacher (Mahayana, Zen lineage), who says that practice removes the 3 latter skandhas of perception/conception/, volition, and consciousness. The first two skandhas are what's left. So it is actually the same as above except according to this view, consciousness is also removed, and in this view 'consciousness' is differentiated from 'awareness'.
This is in line with the Mahayana teaching of transforming dualistic consciousness to non-dual wisdom. In other words, consciousness is still a dualistic function as it projects a subject-object dichotomy, and discriminates pure non-dual experience into various objects.
What is left again, is similarly 'perfect sensate directness', and to quote my Taiwanese teacher, all six senses are still perfectly functioning naturally and are all the activities of Buddha-Nature. All are the luminous expression of Pure Awareness. So basically both are saying the same thing.
And this corresponds to the Buddha's suggestion regarding an arhant still having fuel: "His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain" - note that five sense faculties = the skandha of rupa or form, and 'cognizant of pleasure & pain' refers to vedana, but he did not mention other skandhas.
this is vedana (feeling?)
therefore sanna and vedana are sabba citta sadarana (common to all)
thinnan sangathi passo = (internal sense faculty + external sense faculty + consciousness)
without happenning this through six sense bases how one can continue living?
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Zen%20Master%20Dogen
As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.
....... This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.
Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.
- Zen Master Dogen
I don't think they are "wrought by mind" they are mind. That is all the mind is, isn't it?
But part of the mind (citta) is luminous and uncompound. Beyond permanence and impermanence?
om mani peme hum
The jewel is in the lotus
the jewel is the deathless enlightenment and the lotus is the mind I think... part of the lotus is in the mud of desire..
When we talk about 'Awareness', we should not think of some permanent entity or background or some ultimate witness, rather 'Awareness' like the word 'Self' or 'Weather' does not truly exist somewhere apart from thinking and talking about it, and is simply a convention for the mind-stream, the flow of experiencing, much like the word 'Weather' does not refer to a locatable permanent entity but is really a convention for the flow of weather patterns changing every moment, wind, clouds, rain, lightning, etc. Similarly what we call Awareness, Knowingness, is empty of a permanent Self, is empty of anything substantial - rather it is really these beginningless, ceaseless, dependently originated stream of manifestations that are expressing each moment as perfect clarity, luminosity, vividness, without an origin or source. All along the transience is the self-luminous radiance that rolls and knows; no separate and permanent observer is real or needed.
We will also come to understand deeply what both Zen Master Dogen and Ch'an Patriarch Hui-Neng mean by "Impermanence is Buddha-nature", "[T]o see mountains and rivers is to see Buddha-nature. To see Buddha-nature is to see a donkey's jaw or a horse's mouth." We will also understand that in non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. Therefore as Dogen puts it, it is not the case that birth turns into death. Birth itself is No-Birth, Death itself is No-Death, because each expression is complete in itself and abides in its own expression, completely selfless (lacking a persisting identity - i.e. a 'self' undergoing birth turning into death, rather it is more like there is no self behind each arising and each arising is complete as it is). We won't think of liberation in terms of some substance transcending manifestation, but rather seeing the true nature of manifestation itself is liberation (seeing that there is no one behind to transcend anyway). We will not grasp on 'luminosity' as some permanent metaphysical essence beyond everything, but see everything as luminosity. We will not think of some ultimate reality or unconditioned Brahman 'beyond the comings and goings of form', but rather, we realise that what dependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and does not cease.
Ven. Jinmyo Renge osho puts it: "each thing is sunya or empty of all of our ideas about and knowledge of anything, that it is impermanent, that it is the radiance of the Luminosity of experience."
Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche says: "If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Sàntarakùita’s refutation, we find that both agree with the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta, which is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition and that the Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather an changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6<sup>th</sup> century Hindu and the 9<sup>th</sup> century Buddhist (both were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is a Hindu view and is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but also it was refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Sàntarakùita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘pariõàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged."
Zen teacher Steve Hagen (one of the clearest Zen teachers I've come across): "there's another mind that is unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned. Unlike "your mind," it is unbound, for there is nothing beyond it. To this Mind, there is no "other mind."
This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself - the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events."
so then all skandhas could be considered essentially the fifth one, consciousness.... i think....?
I take a very literal view of the Buddhist mind as being nothing more or less than the compound realisation of the aggregates in any given moment. That explains everything I need explained and also, to me, is perfectly explained.
namaste
without rupa or vedana or sanna or sankhara there is no base for the consciousness to arise
Yes, of course. That is what the mind is to me. And that is all it is in my view.
(You spoke of "desire realm" and things "Beyond permanence and impermanence," these are concepts that I do not understand)
I don't understand it well myself. I simply asked a guy I know who studies buddhism and he said the abhidharma says the citta is permanent. I elaborated the om mani pema hum because that is what I thought of.
xabir:
Do you know if the tradition you study with is in the rangtong or shentong view of emptiness. I am just curious.
How about you? Are you studying Shentong?
....
Something I wrote in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loC5ztXw5oI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjI0HrwOV2E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDPEI2vVPE&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUSJ4GDJxs&feature=channel
Seeing, hearing, smelling, etc... even thoughts, when realised as not divided into an observer and observed, inside and outside, then everything is experienced as the display of consciousness. To see everything is consciousness is non-dual insight, but there must be further insight into anatta and emptiness to realise the empty nature of consciousness. This is the transition from Stage 4 to Stage 5 and 6 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
It is not that manifestation are 'display of THE Consciousness' - there is no 'The Consciousness' as Consciousness is empty, in the same way we cannot accurately say that 'Clouds and Rain are the display of THE Weather', as 'Weather' as such is a convention but utterly without substantiality, essence, and location.
In other words, we may have notions of an all-pervasive Awareness, or Self, and experientially it is non-dual and this is a correct experience. But it is like the word 'Weather' - you can say everywhere you look into the sky, weather is not apart from that, but is there a truly existing 'Weather' apart from thinking about it? Is it located somewhere, or is it only these patterns of weather that dependently originate moment to moment? Similarly 'Awareness', 'Self' is simply a convention but is ultimately 'empty' - it is simply these self-luminous manifestation that dependently originate, it is just the stream of aggregates. That is why the Buddha talks about five skandhas instead of a One Consciousness, however non-duality (no subject and object) is already automatically implied by fully understanding anatta and five aggregates or eighteen dhatus. It is not that all five skandhas are just one awareness - that is just non-dual insight, but the insight into anatta is to see that the 'one awareness' cannot be found in or apart from the skandhas and dhatus, that there is simply the stream of aggregates. The experience is however still non-dual. When we understand that 'Awareness' like 'Weather' isn't something inherent, we also free ourselves from notions like 'things happening in Awareness' - just like you cannot say 'things happen in Weather' - weather isn't a findable essence or container of those phenomena, rather there is just those stream of phenomena which are conventionally called 'weather'.
Next is... can there be Consciousness without conditions? In Buddhism, no. In other religions, Consciousness is treated as a metaphysical essence, Self, substance, an ultimate source of everything that is one with yet transcends all manifestation, God, that has inherent existence. But in Buddhism we do not understand Consciousness in such ways. We have to factor in dependent origination.
So in other words, those in other religions who experience non-duality (subsuming subject and object into undivided One Mind) may claim something like "All There Is Is Consciousness", but they disregard conditions. They treat Consciousness as something inherent. But in Buddhism, we have to factor in causes and conditions. As Thusness commented on my friend Longchen's insight into Emptiness after realisation of non-dual,
I can see the synchronization of emptiness view into your non-dual experiences --. Integrating view, practice and experience. This is the essence of our emptiness nature and right understanding of non-dual experience in Buddhism that is different from Advaita Vedanta teaching. This is also the understanding of why Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable. Everything as the One Reality should never be understood from a dualistic/inherent standpoint.
And as Longchen also wrote, "the conditions and factors are also inseparable from the non-dual oneness."
To understand the relationship between Dependent Origination and Consciousness one must study the Buddha's teachings on the 18 dhatus, the relation of conditions to the manifestation of consciousness, emphasis on anatta and emptiness instead of just emphasizing on discovering Brahman, One Consciousness, etc. It is not to deny All is Mind, but it is to understand All is Mind "due to" its empty nature and luminous essence, due to dependent origination and anatta. It is to see Consciousness not as an ultimate source of everything, but as interdependently originated manifestation, as Vajrahridaya puts it: there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
First of all Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting the world, but rather Awareness is a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.
One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.
Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma explains, "With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind."
Also, Nagarjuna explains, "When sound and ear assume their right relation, A consciousness free of thought occurs. These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics, But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually."
When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.
it is simply another aggregate (namely consciousness)
the views of these teachers are "stuck" in mind
:coffee: