Questions on No Self
-
Hmm, so readers pls ignore it if you find anything too confusingOriginally posted by Omniknight:Hanor conversations are very misleading when you ignore context
-
Though I must say, after re-reading Thusness's writings as well as well as my own postsOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Hmm, so readers pls ignore it if you find anything too confusing
, it wil be really helpful if one can understand the meaning and essence behind it 
-
The concept of 'noself' in Buddhism is quite difficult to grasp. I use the concatenated word instead of the hypenated 'no-self' or 'non-self' or two separate words 'no self'. On the surface it may be just semantic. But something tells me that there is a difference amongst them. I can't explain.
If I may say, it is the opposite of oneself. I think the idea is to rise above self.
So, the question is - what are we refering to?
The material self?
The conscious self?
The metaphysical self?
Neither of the above, or
The aggregates that make up self?
Also, the scientific (natural science or nature) should not be confused with the Buddhism concept. Therefore 1/2 second MRI detection of brain activity before hand-muscle activity is perfectly correct. In fact, 1/2 sec is too long. It should be in region of nano-seconds, just like computer. What takes place as thought in the brain and the action that follows is almost instantaneous as to make it 'natural', without volition. Of course, it has to be conditioned too - that is 'why raise the hand'? To signal, to response, to stretch, to defend, etc.
Even in sleep when one is supposedly 'unconscious', the hand could be raised bcos you dreamt somebody was about to hit you! -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Hi TheGoodEarth, welcome to our forum.
The concept of 'noself' in Buddhism is quite difficult to grasp. I use the concatenated word instead of the hypenated 'no-self' or 'non-self' or two separate words 'no self'. On the surface it may be just semantic. But something tells me that there is a difference amongst them. I can't explain.
I agree careful usage of the words 'no-self' or 'non-self' or 'not-self' or any sort of variations is needed, and if need to, explanations must be given.
Because there are a few ways to understand it... if you say 'not-self', then naturally there will be the question 'if this is not-self, then naturally there must be something else that is the self, right?'
In reality, Anatta is taught in order to 'negate' our false conceptions, but no other propositions is given to establish another 'self' apart from 'not-self'. If someone teaches a 'self' apart from 'not-self', he is holding onto the eternalist teachings of the Hindus.
On the other hand, if we say 'No-Self', which I often use this term, some of us may think that it is saying that the Self is non existing, the nihillistic understanding.
Actually, the point Buddha is trying to make is that the separate, constnatly existing Self acting as an Agent (observer, doer, thinker, etc) cannot ultimately be found, and 'self' is merely just transient aggregates arising spontaneously out of conditioned arising. If the 'self' cannot ultimately be found, it is not right to say whether the self is 1) existing, 2) non-existing, 3) both existing nor non-existing, 4) neither-existing and non existing.
One who still thinks that 'self does not exist' as if self is an entity that do not exist, is still holding on 'a thicket of [false] views':
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."If I may say, it is the opposite of oneself. I think the idea is to rise above self.
Anatta is not about rising above oneself. If you say, rise above oneself, you are still dealing with relative truths. Because when you say 'rise above oneself', you are still assuming that is a 'self' that one must rise above, whether to serve others or to act compassionately, etc.
This is VALID, as long as you know you are just dealing with the conventional and relative truths, and not about liberating insights. Ultimate reality also does not cancel out relative truths, as long as you do not confuse them.
If you are a selfless, compassionate person, a Mother-Theresa-like person, you will gain much virtuous karma. You will enjoy the fruits of your selfless generosity, etc.
However, liberation requires a quantum leap of perception in reality, and is not just a matter of 'rising above oneself' or doing selfless service to others. So being selfless is very good, but at the same time to liberate you must practise developing insights and wisdom through awareness. -
(continued from above)
So, the question is - what are we refering to?
Now we must first establish the understanding that Anatta is solely talking about the Ultimate Reality. And Buddha taught Anatta, he is talking about ultimate reality and no more.
The material self?
The conscious self?
The metaphysical self?
Neither of the above, or
The aggregates that make up self?
So 'the material self, the conscious self, the metaphysical self' or etc etc 'selves', all these are relative truths. That is to say it is as true as saying 'you are TheGoodEarth, I am An Eternal Now'. When we communicate, with inevitably will need to use conceptual models to communicate and understand things.
There is no problems with this, but due to our ignorance we posit ideas that our conventional self has inherent existence, has permanency, and is truly 'ourselves'. When we begin to think like that, we become attached to everything, to our material self, conscious self, etc. We are bonded.
Now back to Anatta. As I said earlier, Anatta (no-self, noself, etc) is solely about the ultimate reality. It is a Dharma Seal, a Characteristic of Phenomenon. All samsaric phenomenon exhibits three characteristics: it is Impermanent, Suffering and No-Self. All phenomon existence exhibits these characteristics of Ultimate Reality at all moments.
Therefore, that is to say, our material self, conscious self, metaphysical self, and so on, are ALSO of the nature of Anatta, and Anicca and Dukkha (No-Self, Impermanence, Suffering).
Which is to say, ultimately speaking, there is NO such thing as a 'Material Self' or 'Conscious Self' or 'Metaphysical' that is inherently existing, and in reality they are just made up of the 5 aggregates, transient and ever-changing, arising out of conditions. There is ultimately no 'Self' that can be found in these transient aggregates! There is no fixed self, only a momentary Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, ceases as it arises, conditions the next rebirth. Only when we come to the realisation of the Dharma Seals through intuitive experience (and not mere theoretical understanding), will all our bonds and dualistic attachment naturally drops.
Therefore in Buddhism, if you want Liberation, you have to practise Insight. You have to observe moment to moment these characteristics displaying themselves in moment to moment reality. You have to be very aware at all moments.
As my friend Thusness said:
(12:21 AM) Thusness: what is the role of insight meditation?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why bare attention?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why naked awareness?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: when insight meditation is taught and Buddha said when hearing just the sound...this and that...
(12:23 AM) Thusness: what Buddha wanted is to experience directly what awareness is, the arising, the ceasing, the clarity, the non-dual nature
(12:23 AM) Thusness: in DO
(12:24 AM) AEN_____: icic..
(12:24 AM) Thusness: not to note it with thought or place any conclusion on any experience.
(12:25 AM) Thusness: "this is impermanence" is not about noting and place any conclusion about a phenomenon arising.
(12:26 AM) Thusness: but experience impermanence directly, not in words
(12:26 AM) AEN_____: icic.. yea
(12:26 AM) Thusness: be impermanence and know what is it really...
(12:26 AM) Thusness: see what clarity is, not what it should be
(12:27 AM) Thusness: it is luminous and yet empty...experience it directly...it is so.
(12:27 AM) AEN_____: icic..
(12:27 AM) Thusness: break the solidity until there is no holding simply thus.Also, the scientific (natural science or nature) should not be confused with the Buddhism concept. Therefore 1/2 second MRI detection of brain activity before hand-muscle activity is perfectly correct. In fact, 1/2 sec is too long. It should be in region of nano-seconds, just like computer. What takes place as thought in the brain and the action that follows is almost instantaneous as to make it 'natural', without volition. Of course, it has to be conditioned too - that is 'why raise the hand'? To signal, to response, to stretch, to defend, etc.
I differ slightly from this understanding.. though what you said is close. I think it is not that volition is not involved in all actions, but when it does, it merely conditions action to arise in a simultaneous and spontaneous way as Conditioned Arising/Dependent Origination, however thoughts/volition is not a discrete agent, controller or doer of an action. So, everything (including volition and action) arises as dependent origination in naturalness, there is no 'Self' involved.
Even in sleep when one is supposedly 'unconscious', the hand could be raised bcos you dreamt somebody was about to hit you![/b]
Only when we review our past thoughts and volition do we assume a dualistic relation between volition and action, because we assume that our volition is our 'self', 'doer', 'controller'. Such dualistic ideas must be dissolved through insights to gain liberation.
This is why people only consciously become aware about it after the volition has arisen -- it is only after the mind 'reviews' what it has done, that he becomes consciously aware about it.
Also since an enlightened, liberated person no longer views 5 skhandas such as Perceptions, Volition and Consciousness as 'self', 'permanent', 'inherently existing', to him he has seen that 5 Skhandas are Empty. To him, what arises, self-liberates simultaneously.
P.S. a personal question, what tradition of Buddhism do you come from? Theravada Buddhism? -
Elaboration:
Precisely because he still sees 'Self' as an entity, and not empty transient aggregates, he is still holding onto a false view 'Self does not exist'!Originally posted by An Eternal Now:One who still thinks that 'self does not exist' as if self is an entity that do not exist, is still holding on 'a thicket of [false] views':Because there are a few ways to understand it... if you say 'not-self', then naturally there will be the question 'if this is not-self, then naturally there must be something else that is the self, right?'
Reality does not necessary has to go with rationality. If all is 'not-self' then there must be a 'True Self' is a logical deduction. An inherent assumption due to the dualistic mechanism of our thinking mind. No-self is teaching to break this routineness and experience what Awareness and Reality as it is not what should it be according to rationality.
In reality, Anatta is taught in order to 'negate' our false conceptions, but no other propositions is given to establish another 'self' apart from 'not-self'. If someone teaches a 'self' apart from 'not-self', he is holding onto the eternalist teachings of the Hindus.
As the Buddha taught about the emptiness of both self and not-self duality: Tuvataka Sutta (Sn 4.14):
[W]hen a person is inwardly quiet there is nowhere a "self" (atta) can be found. Where then, could a "non-self" (niratta) possibly be found?
On the other hand, for a more thorough and seemingly ridiculous examination about the True Self teachings and how it relates to Non-Duality (of Subject & Object), please read: No-Self vs True Self by Dharma Dan.So 'the material self, the conscious self, the metaphysical self' or etc etc 'selves', all these are relative truths. That is to say it is as true as saying 'you are TheGoodEarth, I am An Eternal Now'. When we communicate, with inevitably will need to use conceptual models to communicate and understand things.
Though I must also stress that these concepts are almost taken as Truth somehow. Why is this so? Every perception, every view established somehow leads to stubborn attachment. This is how consciousness works and the amazing power of 'bonds'. -
Don't anyhow say...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Reality does not necessary has to go with rationality. If all is 'not-self' then there must be a 'True Self' is a logical deduction. An inherent assumption due to the dualistic mechanism of our thinking mind. No-self is teaching to break this routineness and experience what Awareness and Reality as it is not what should it be according to rationality.
A fish swimming in the ocean... sure, the fish is there but is not the fish part of the ocean? Self and no-self is rational... but then self and no self is also dualistic...
A fish that is not AWARE that is it part of the ocean and not CONSCIOUS of the other "things" that make up the ocean; hahaha a stupid fish, an ignorant fish, a suffering fish... UNAWARE and UNCONSCIOUS... Now replace "fish" with "you" and OCEAN with UNIVERSE. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I've said very clearly mah... No-Self is beyond duality of self and not-self, or existence and non-existence.
Don't anyhow say...
A fish swimming in the ocean... sure, the fish is there but is not the fish part of the ocean? Self and no-self is rational... but then self and no self is also dualistic...
Oh yes, fish and ocean are not two things. Fish is irremediably oceanic, and ocean is irremediably... fishy. Otherwise, ocean will obstruct fish, fish will obstruct ocean. Ocean is fish, fish is ocean. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.A fish that is not AWARE that is it part of the ocean and not CONSCIOUS of the other "things" that make up the ocean; hahaha a stupid fish, an ignorant fish, a suffering fish... UNAWARE and UNCONSCIOUS... Now replace "fish" with "you" and OCEAN with UNIVERSE.[/b]
One with wisdom is not aware of ocean, he is aware AS ocean.
He is not aware of other things, he is aware as other things.
Thinking of oneself and others still occurs, but is merely thoughts self arising and self liberating.
Thoughts are like the waves in an ocean, nothing to attached to. Gone when it is not attached. Without staying even for a moment. -
Good, now comes the difficult part... apply what you just said to daily living... instead of escaping into the mountains...
Apply what you just said to Compassion for your fellow man.
The one that realizes emptiness, no self, loses everything or gain everything? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Yes yes... practise in daily living, though meditation is also an important part of daily living
Good, now comes the difficult part... apply what you just said to daily living... instead of escaping into the mountains...
Apply what you just said to Compassion for your fellow man.
So both in movement and stillness, one must be able to maintain and not separate them.
A good reminder for myself, Thusness also said the same thing anyway.. actually what u lack now and urgently is the practice of naked awareness to authenticate what u know.The one that realizes emptiness, no self, loses everything or gain everything?
No gain, no loss, no ignorance, no wisdom. [/b]
"Sariputra, the Characteristics of the
Emptiness of All Dharmas
Are Non-Arising, Non-Ceasing, Non-Defiled,
Non-Pure, Non-Increasing, Non-Decreasing." -
I am simple minded. I am certainly conscious right now - to formulate this reply and to signal my fingers to strike the right keys!
The fish is part of the ocean but the ocean is not part of the fish!
I am myself now, have senses and therefore feelings. My bodily needs has just signaled to me that I am hungry. If I have no self - then I don't have to feed myself!
But I do, and I am going to make something to eat! Is this duality, emptiness or selfishness in an ocean with fishes? -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
There is no problem with simple mindedness -- ultimate reality is very simple, only that we have ignorantly become identified with our conventional self and thus unable to see No-Self/Anatta.
I am simple minded.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
I would say you are aware. You might also be conscious, but consciousness is only when you review what you have done, that is consciousness. That means Awareness first, Consciousness arises later. In fact Awareness is always here, all the time, everything is an expression of Awareness.
I am certainly conscious right now - to formulate this reply and to signal my fingers to strike the right keys!
Now, What is the difference between awareness and consciousness? I have posted in the previous post:Actions may arise immediately out of Prajna before one makes conscious mental statements about it.
Here, awareness is not filtered through mental perceptions and consciousness. It just presents by itself, self-arising and self-luminous/aware.
My dharma teacher gave an example...
Someone used to ask him "What is Awareness?" He didn't reply him, but used a sharp object to poke him.. he immediately withdraw his hand and shouted "ouch!"
This is before dualistic knowing, yet there is awareness.
This means that everything is expressing by ITSELF in clarity. It is pure presence. Further elaboration on no-mind, no-consciousness, pure presence:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/shikantaza.html
C. WITHOUT THINKING (hishiryo): This is no-thought (munen; wu-nien) or no-mind (mushin; wu-hsin): pure immediacy in the fullness of things as they are.
1. About "not-thinking";: (1) noetic attitude: nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating); (2) noematic content: pure presence of things as they are (genjokoan).
a) Noetic attitude is nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating): Consciousness is no longer an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object but is, rather, an open dynamic field in which objects present themselves.
b) Noematic content: The object is no longer an object that is the target of an intentional act but is, rather, the object itself as it presents itself within the open dynamic field of consciousness.
c) Aspects of "without thinking":
(1) No subject-object distinction: The subject has disappeared—this being the Zen interpretation of Buddhist anatta or no-mind.
(2) Immediacy: Without a subject standing back, the experience is one of immediacy within the dynamic field of consciousness.
(3) Fullness: Because the object is not filtered through an intentional act, it presents itself in its fullness.
(4) Such immediacy and fullness are genjokoan, "pure presence of things as they are."Then my teacher asked him, why did you shout? He said "I was in pain." Then he said the perceiving of the pain, the immediate withdrawing and shouting are all (nondual) Awareness... the notion "I was in pain" is a (dualistic) thought.
Here, Dualistic Knowing "I feel pain" is consciousness. So what is consciousness? Dharma Dan says:
This is dualistic knowing, the 'post 1/2 second'.
Coming directly after a physical sensation arises and passes is a separate pulse of reality that is the mental knowing of that physical sensation, here referred to as “consciousness” (as contrasted with “awareness” in Part III).
Consciousness is the activity of mental differentiation of an experience. That means, raw sensate data is interpreted to be 'Red', 'Yellow', etc. You are conscious of the differentiations of the colours and the other features of the sense objects. This is Consciousness.
Consciousness is also defined as dualistic knowing, means there is a Subject and Object relation. Subject is your self, Object is the object that you are aware of. This is consciousness, consciousness is dualistic as opposed to Awareness, which is non-dualistic, immediate knowing.The fish is part of the ocean but the ocean is not part of the fish!
Fish and ocean are not separate, otherwise, fish cannot even swim at all! If they are separate then fish and ocean will reject each other.
Ocean is like the space for the underwater world. Space has no form, and precisely because it has no particular form it encompasses all form. But more than that, Form IS irremediably Spacious! Therefore Heart Sutra says, Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness. Why? Let me explain from what I can remember regarding the analogy my dharma teacher gave.
If I stand up from my chair now, will the space reject and obstruct me from standing up? Now, I walk forward two steps. Has space increased or decreased as a result? Now, I sit back on the chair. Again, does space prevent me from sitting down? From this exercise we can conclude that Space and Myself are really not two separate things, and are in fact 'one body'.
Another rather similar way to point out the fact that Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness is this with regards to the spatial metaphor is this. (Source: Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time)
We normally understand objects such as cups to be "in" space, which (as explained above in relation to time) implies that in themselves they must have a self-existence distinct from space. However, not much reflection is necessary to realize that the cup itself is irremediably spatial. All its parts must have a certain thickness, and without the various spatial relations among the bottom, sides, and handle, the cup could not be a cup. Perhaps one way to express this is to say that the cup is not "in" space but itself is space: the cup is "what space is doing in that place," so to speak.I am myself now, have senses and therefore feelings. My bodily needs has just signaled to me that I am hungry. If I have no self - then I don't have to feed myself!
Again, you are confusing ultimate reality with relative truths. Relative truth is about facts that can be derived by conceptuality. Logically and conceptually speaking, you ARE TheGoodEarth and you are hungry.
ULTIMATELY speaking, TheGoodEarth is just empty, transient sensations and perceptions, made up of the 5 aggregates, arising and ceasing moment to moment and no existing self can be found in it!
Even 'hunger' is just completely empty, transient sensations of unpleasant sensations in the stomach as well as mental perceptions, yet no entity called 'hunger' can be found.
This is the kind of insight that is NOT derived from conceptuality and logic, but is of intuitive and experiential nature. It is the kind of insights that can LIBERATE us from our bonds to our deep-rooted ignorance of duality, binding us to samsara due to not perceiving the nature of Emptiness.
Therefore, don't mix up Ultimate Reality with Relative Truths. Anatta is talking about Ultimate Reality, but at the same time TheGoodEarth is your name, relatively speaking.
All is fine AS LONG AS we do not identify with them, and become attached to them as if they are inherently existing. That is to say, we don't believe in it as ultimate Truth or Reality, and see them as it is: merely relative truths based on our conceptual model. We are also able to perceive its nature of Emptiness, thereby not grasping on them ignorantly and becoming bonded.But I do, and I am going to make something to eat! Is this duality, emptiness or selfishness in an ocean with fishes?
No.
Relative perspective: you're just hungry, you need something to eat.
Ultimate perspective: all these are just transient, luminous and empty sensations, self-arising out of conditions in a spontaneous and interdependent manner. -
With regards to the word 'Awareness', there are really countless names attributed to it, whether its Buddha Nature, or Thusness nature, or Mind Essence, or whatever. My dharma teacher in one lesson listed more than 10 names shown in the sutras that refers to the same thing.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I would say you are aware. You might also be conscious, but consciousness is only when you review what you have done, that is consciousness. That means Awareness first, Consciousness arises later. In fact Awareness is always here, all the time, everything is an expression of Awareness.
I can't remember the names now, but Padmasambhava said the same thing in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:
...22.This intrinsic awareness is free of the eight extremes, such as eternalism and nihilism, and the rest.
Thus we speak of the Middle Way where one does not fall into any of the extremes,
And we speak of intrinsic awareness as uninterrupted mindful presence.
Since emptiness possesses a heart that is intrinsic awareness,
Therefore it is called by the name of Tathagatagarbha, that is, "the embryo or heart of Buddhahood."
If you understand the meaning of this, then that will transcend and surpass everything else.
Therefore, it is called by the name of Prajnaparamita, that is, "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Because it cannot be conceived of by the intellect and is free of all (conceptual) limitations from the very beginning,
Therefore it is called by the name of Mahamudra, that is, "the Great Symbol."
Because of that, in accordance with whether it is specifically understood or not understood,
Since it is the basis of everything, of all the bliss of Nirvana and of all the sorrow of Samsara,
Therefore it is called by the name of Alaya, that is, "the foundation of everything."
Because, when it remains in its own space, it is quite ordinary and in no way exceptional,
This awareness that is present and lucidly clear
Is called by the name of "ordinary awareness."
However many names may be applied to it, even though they are well conceived and fancy sounding,
With regard to its real meaning, it is just this immediate present awareness (and nothing else)... -
Thank you for your long explanation. I am 'suffering' from indigestion.
Consciousness should include awareness and vice-versa. The two are different yet the same and vice-versa. This aspect on duality is much easier to understand. From my simple mind - consciousness is being awake, alert while awareness is 'come to know' or to realise. Hence, I would say that you have to be 'conscious' first before there can be 'awareness'.
As for fish and ocean: the fish is dependent on the ocean (assuming this is the natural habit of fishes) but the ocean is not dependent on fishes. Without ocean, there would be no fishes. Without fishes, there is still the ocean.
Thus, the fish is part of the ocean but the ocean is not part of the fish.
As for being hungry, it is the physical self that I have to cater to. The no self requires no catering to. As it is not an entity, it has no need either. -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
If you don't understand any part I was saying, please state so and I will try my best to explain it in simpler terms.
Thank you for your long explanation. I am 'suffering' from indigestion.
As far as I know, the way I explained the differences between Consciousness and Awareness in Buddhism is very clear.. I think you should understand this part, or do you not?
Post update: upon further reading, I have realised you have used Awareness and Consciousness in a totally different context and therefore missed what I meant. So please read further on as I explain.Consciousness should include awareness and vice-versa. The two are different yet the same and vice-versa.
The two aspects are different because Awareness is ever-present, but Consciousness does not necessarily need to arise. Consciousness is a mental perception of the objects of sensate reality based on symbols planted in our memory, it is mentally perceiving the existence of some objects.
A baby is Aware, but he has very little consciousness (but there is still egocentric consciousness, or 7th consciousness). Before he becomes 1 years old, he is hardly even conscious of the differences between his body and his environment (see: http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/harris21.shtml). When you show him things, he is unable to recognise them, and virtually everything has not much meaning and symbols attached to them. His mind is blank. He just sees them, but there is not much meaning to it. Only when you tell them 'This is sweet', 'This is daddy', they start to recognise them slowly. Then their consciousness of it is strengthened.
That is the definition of Consciousness in Buddhism, as opposed to Awareness, just immediate pure presence. So now you understand what I mean by Awareness first, Consciousness arises later in review?
Yet at the same time, Awareness and Consciousness are not-two, so even to say 'Awareness first, Consciousness second' is ultimately not right, it is just an analogy based on linear analysis (but Ultimate Reality cannot be analysed by linear analysis). But I do not know whether you know the significance of awareness & consciousness are not-two.
What this means is that dualistic Consciousness is equally an expression of non-dual Awareness, the only difference is that ignorant people becomes identified with the contents of consciousness ('me', 'you', 'red', 'blue', etc) and take the relative truths as Ultimate Truth. That means imposing a layer of perceptions upon Reality. If we keep identifying with them, we will never be able to know our Buddha Nature.
Enlightened people still thinks in term of subject and object, he still thinks 'yellow', 'An Eternal Now', 'daddy', etc. But at the same time he is aware through insights that ultimately there is no subject object differentiation, that there is no separate self, and the conceptual models he's using are just relative truths. As a result he is not identified with thoughts and perceptions -- thoughts and perceptions then arises and liberates by themselves. At this time, it is Consciousness-Turns-Into-Wisdom.
Whereas, sentient beings think that there is really a separate self in here, and an outer object out there. Which means the basic duality of Subject and Object. They do not know their Emptiness.This aspect on duality is much easier to understand. From my simple mind - consciousness is being awake, alert while awareness is 'come to know' or to realise. Hence, I would say that you have to be 'conscious' first before there can be 'awareness'.
Then you are using the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' in different terms than in Buddhism. I am using the terminologies based on Buddhism's teachings. That is to say, when Consciousness is mentioned in 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus, or other descriptions, it is used to describe a dualistic, mental differentiation of sense objects, in oppose to Awareness which is immediate pure presence of our 6 sensate realities, instrinsically luminous (aware).
So, your usage of the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' is used in a different context than Buddhism's. That might be the source of all the confusion. By now from what you read above you should be able to differentiate between 'awareness' and 'consciousness'.
Post update (re-written): Oh yes and, when you said 'consciousness means being awake', and the waking state is the basis of awareness, I think there is some confusion here with terminologies here.
First of all, I need to know what you mean by 'come to know' or 'realise' things. Do you mean mentally knowing an object, or becoming aware of our environment? I suppose when you said 'Aware', you mean becoming aware of our environment, as in our 5 senses are functioning in waking state and perceiving the 5 sense objects.
Actually in Buddhism, consciousness is not about waking state or not waking state. It is about what is arising at this very moment. In ultimate reality there is no demarcation of Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep states, because all states are Empty, there's only what conditioned arising is presenting as our reality. All three states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep), and all consciousnesses are equally empty, and are equally dream-like and unreal (means ungraspable, transient and empty)
There are 8 consciousnesses. (http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol8no1a.htm: Returning to the Quintessence of Buddha)
...All of us have a “transient-invisible-body (Antara-bhava)”. While we are alive this is called “mind-consciousness”. It is commonly referred to as the “soul”. When we are asleep, this mind-consciousness does not sleep. Instead, it combs through the past records that are stored in the eighth mind-consciousness (All of us have eight consciousness. In addition to the \six sense-consciousness, namely, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind, there are the seventh [Klista-mano-vijnana] and eighth [Alaya-vijnana] mind-consciousness. The eighth consciousness is the planting field of the mind. The seeds of all our encounters, both virtuous and evil, of our aeons of many past lives are planted here. The seventh mind-consciousness gives rise to the “transient-invisible-body”.) When a person is dead, his six sense-organs, namely, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind stop functioning. His sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch and perception also cease to function. Thereafter, the seventh mind-consciousness no longer resides in the body. It leaves the body and begins to search for the right conditions for rebirth to the next life. (At this stage, the mind-consciousness is called a “transient-invisible-body”. It is an intermediate existence between death and rebirth to the next life.) The right conditions of rebirth are found within a period of 49 days, on each of the seven cycles of the seventh day after the person has passed away ( i.e. 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, … 49th day)...
So, during waking states there are 8 consciousnesses. During dream state there is only 7th and 8th consciousness, other consciousness rests dormant. Then in deep sleep state, even 7th consciousness temporarily subsides. All consciousness simply arises out of the various conditions, like the ripening of karmic seeds from the 8th consciousness.
However you must know that Awareness is the intrinsic nature of all experiences, without Awareness how can there be consciousness (mental differentiations of sense objects, or objects of awareness)?
Our Buddha Nature, the nature of reality of all states and arising, is Luminous(Aware)-Emptiness. And all phenomena are expressions of Luminous-Emptiness. Whether waking, dream, and deep sleep, all are expressions of Awareness and Emptiness.
(will be posting more later on) -
Now back to replying.
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Yes what you said is right in terms of relative truths. That is supposing fish as an entity, ocean as another entity.
As for fish and ocean: the fish is dependent on the ocean (assuming this is the natural habit of fishes) but the ocean is not dependent on fishes.
Without ocean, there would be no fishes. Without fishes, there is still the ocean.
Thus, the fish is part of the ocean but the ocean is not part of the fish.
What I'm talking about is not about seeing fish and ocean as entities conceptually and logically, if you think of them as entiteis you will see separateness. It's just how the mind understands things.
What I'm talking about is right at that very moment, fish and ocean are inseparable and non-obstructive. Entities are just our concepts and supposes a permanence and continuity of a 'something', though this 'something' cannot be found ultimately, it is just a process of transient and empty aggregates. And they are interdependent and are one with water/space in a higher sense. Why do I say so?
Like the space and cup, time and object metaphor I pasted previously form 'Mahayana Deconsturction of Time':
...We normally understand objects such as cups to be "in" space, which (as explained above in relation to time) implies that in themselves they must have a self-existence distinct from space. However, not much reflection is necessary to realize that the cup itself is irremediably spatial. All its parts must have a certain thickness, and without the various spatial relations among the bottom, sides, and handle, the cup could not be a cup. Perhaps one way to express this is to say that the cup is not "in" space but itself is space: the cup is "what space is doing in that place," so to speak. The same is true for the temporality of the cup. The cup is not an atemporal, self-existing object that just happens to be "in" time, for its being is irremediably temporal. The point of this is to destroy the thought-constructed dualism between things and time. When we wish to express this, we must describe one in terms of the other, by saying either that objects are temporal (in which case they are not "objects" as we usually conceive of them) or, conversely, that time is objects -- that is, that time expresses itself in the manifestations that we call objects. Probably the clearest expression of this way is given by Dogen: "The time we call spring blossoms directly as an existence called flowers. The flowers, in turn, express the time called spring. This is not existence within time; existence itself is time."[20] This is the meaning of his "being-time" (uji):
I'm not saying Fish as an entity is similar to Ocean, I'm just saying Fish is one with Ocean, therefore Fish is Ocean, Ocean is Fish, they're one. My terms may be a little confusing though.
Of course you can say, well, the fish may or may not be there. It might be shark, or what not. Or just water, no fish. Then there is water-shark, water-water. It is just 'what water is doing at that time'. Either case there is still no separation between space/water/time and object.As for being hungry, it is the physical self that I have to cater to. The no self requires no catering to. As it is not an entity, it has no need either.
When you say physical self and catering to our hunger, you are dealing with relative truths, concepts. Relatively speaking there is a physical self to cater to.
But at the same time there is really no self to be found in the physical body, physical self is also empty ultimately.
Hunger is just utterly empty, transient sensations arising and passing away moment to moment arising out of conditions, ungraspable.
If you see 'No Self' as separate from physical self, then you have one of the 6 wrong views that the Buddha said above.
No-Self is the Dharma Seal -- the Nature/Characteristics of ALL existence. Means, your Physical Self is also of the nature of Anatta: No-Self. Your physical self is also ultimately empty. -
quote:This aspect on duality is much easier to understand. From my simple mind - consciousness is being awake, alert while awareness is 'come to know' or to realise. Hence, I would say that you have to be 'conscious' first before there can be 'awareness'.
I would like to add on since TheGoodEarth doesn't seem to know what I meant by 'Awareness'.
Then you are using the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' in different terms than in Buddhism. I am using the terminologies based on Buddhism's teachings. That is to say, when Consciousness is mentioned in 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus, or other descriptions, it is used to describe a dualistic, mental differentiation of sense objects, in oppose to Awareness which is immediate pure presence of our 6 sensate realities, instrinsically luminous (aware).
So, your usage of the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' just happens to be the opposite of what Buddhism is using them for. That might be the source of all the confusion.
Awareness, our Buddha Nature, is not only limited to waking state. It is in Waking, Dream state, and Deep Sleep (no consciousness whatsoever) states. Like a mirror, Awareness takes up whatever form that arises on conditions.
If there is red, mirror reflects red as it is. Blue, then mirror reflects blue as it is. No colour, then mirror reflects no colour, as it is.
Waking state, mirror reflects waking state as it is. Dreaming state, mirror reflects dreaming state as it is. Unconscious, mirror reflects unconscousness as it is.
However, this analogy has its flaw. It may sound like the mirror is a constant factor amidst changes. No. If one sees the mirror as apart from changes, then one still sees dualistically. The mirror is just an analogy, Awareness is just our Luminous knowing nature that is ever present and not separate from conditions and ever-changingness. Awareness is in timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). A mirror as an entity does not exist, only moment to moment reflecting/knowingness not apart from manifestation. Just 'Isness Presence'.
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=242880
...Q: Coming back to sleep. Do you dream?
M: Of course.
Q: What are your dreams?
M: Echoes of the waking state.
Q: And your deep sleep?
M: The brain consciousness is suspended.
Q: Are you then unconscious?
M: Unconscious of my surroundings - yes.
Q: Not quite unconscious?
M: I remain aware that I am unconscious... -
A longer list (but far from complete) of namesOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:With regards to the word 'Awareness', there are really countless names attributed to it, whether its Buddha Nature, or Thusness nature, or Mind Essence, or whatever. My dharma teacher in one lesson listed more than 10 names shown in the sutras that refers to the same thing.
I can't remember the names now, but Padmasambhava said the same thing in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:
...22.This intrinsic awareness is free of the eight extremes, such as eternalism and nihilism, and the rest.
Thus we speak of the Middle Way where one does not fall into any of the extremes,
And we speak of intrinsic awareness as uninterrupted mindful presence.
Since emptiness possesses a heart that is intrinsic awareness,
Therefore it is called by the name of Tathagatagarbha, that is, "the embryo or heart of Buddhahood."
If you understand the meaning of this, then that will transcend and surpass everything else.
Therefore, it is called by the name of Prajnaparamita, that is, "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Because it cannot be conceived of by the intellect and is free of all (conceptual) limitations from the very beginning,
Therefore it is called by the name of Mahamudra, that is, "the Great Symbol."
Because of that, in accordance with whether it is specifically understood or not understood,
Since it is the basis of everything, of all the bliss of Nirvana and of all the sorrow of Samsara,
Therefore it is called by the name of Alaya, that is, "the foundation of everything."
Because, when it remains in its own space, it is quite ordinary and in no way exceptional,
This awareness that is present and lucidly clear
Is called by the name of "ordinary awareness."
However many names may be applied to it, even though they are well conceived and fancy sounding,
With regard to its real meaning, it is just this immediate present awareness (and nothing else)...
....6.As for this sparkling awareness which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
And as for its being something desirable, it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness.".... -
notice: a large chunk of my replies have been re-written especially the third part of the post on 23 July 2007 · 07:16 PM
-
now i know that buddhism was a waste of my time.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:A longer list (but far from complete) of names
....6.As for this sparkling awareness which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
And as for its being something desirable, it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness.".... -
Why?Originally posted by Omniknight:now i know that buddhism was a waste of my time. -
because there is God but you decided to be smart and tell me there is no GodOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Why? -
I thought I was always clear about one point. God as personal creator does not exist, period.Originally posted by Omniknight:because there is God but you decided to be smart and tell me there is no God
I never said anything more than that.
And what has that got to do with whether you wasted time practising Buddhism? -
There is also something you must know. Nothing is ever created, ever. Nothing is ever born and all is empty, unborn.
Look at my forum signature:
The world exists only when we think about it; creation stories are for children. In reality the world is created every moment. ~ Jean Klein
You can talk about Source, but Manifestation is the Source, ultimately. Just like waves do not exist apart from ocean.
If you see manifestation as apart and created from a Source, then that is because you are caught up with ideas that the world is inherently existing, created in time. This is a fallacy. All there is is what is apparently happening in Awareness, arising and passing away simultaneously moment to moment.
"There is only Source appearing. All that manifests is always and only the appearance of Source-the apparent universe, the world, the life story, the body- mind, feelings, the sense of separation, and the search for enlightenment. It is all the one appearing as two-the nothing appearing as everything." -- Tony Parsons
Oh and, don't think too much and practise. Don't think about creation theories and creator and things like that. Buddha said these topics are useless and does not lead to Liberation.
Lastly, Source is not an entity or a 'something' that can be found anywhere and is empty of inherent existence. Unfortunately whenever you think of a Creator or a God, it's almost inevitable to think of it as some sort of entity. -
I must admit I have a hard time digesting big chunks. So, this small bite is easier:
Then you are using the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' in different terms than in Buddhism. I am using the terminologies based on Buddhism's teachings. That is to say, when Consciousness is mentioned in 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus, or other descriptions, it is used to describe a dualistic, mental differentiation of sense objects, in oppose to Awareness which is immediate pure presence of our 6 sensate realities, instrinsically luminous (aware).
Yes, I am certainly using the literal meaning though I said the two are not far apart in ordinary usage.
So, your usage of the terms 'Consciousness' and 'Awareness' is used in a different context than Buddhism's. That might be the source of all the confusion. By now from what you read above you should be able to differentiate between 'awareness' and 'consciousness'.
1) Conscious as in awake and able to response (medical term?). There are various levels (states) of consciousness - from asleep to alert. Even unconsciouness (comatose) has different states. For me, if I am totally unconscious, I am certainly not aware of what's going, even if my eyes were opened and my ears were not plugged.
2) Aware - to know, come to know, take cognizant of. When I am awake (conscious at any states), I can tell what's going on - like its raining, what I have not done, when to travel, etc.
I find it hard to de-link this usage and connect to the Buddhist's terminology.