Nature of Mind vs Mind
-
-
-
Hi
Jackson, I do not see any distinction between mind and nature of mind,
or awareness and mind, unless by mind you mean delusional conceptual
constructs, then certainly nature of mind is empty of whatever
constructs [of subjective self, of object substantiality] of the
conceptual mind in the sense that all constructs are delusional like
rabbits with horns or unicorns, they are not true, so they are not the
true nature of mind (but even conceptual thoughts is also an expression
of the nature of mind), and further mind [as dualistic consciousness]
can be distinguished from rigpa [which is jnana, knowledge, or non-dual
wisdom] - ignorance/wisdom, both are equally manifestation of the nature
of mind, but are like one coin with two sides... and all are empty of
extremes [existence/non-existence/both/neither]
from top to bottom, be it ma-rigpa [ignorance] or rigpa
[gnosis/knowledge]. One ground, two paths - samsara and nirvana... Even
though ma-rigpa and rigpa are both of the nature of mind, one leads to
suffering and one is liberation. So when Dzogchen texts talk about
distinguishing mind from rigpa, it is talking about this. Now in
Dzogchen, the terminologies with the original discourses of the Buddha
that I quoted from, i.e. the Pali suttas, are different - in Dzogchen,
much like Yogacara, 'Consciousness' is defined as 'dualistic
consciousness, dualistic mind' which is an expression of ma-rigpa, in
contrast to non-dual wisdom or rigpa. In Pali suttas however,
consciousness is just mere knowing, already implicitly non-dual by nature (though
that can be enmeshed with ignorance depending on whether one is awakened
so to speak), but in Pali suttas, consciousness is not defined as
dualistic consciousness in contrast to wisdom.
-
Good
article on Vedanta vis-a-vis Shentong (but as I said whether Shentong
is taught as an eternalistic extreme depends very much on the teacher): http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx - "If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist
ÅšÄ�ntaraká¹£ita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu
Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging,
eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that
the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but
rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in
the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found
in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara
Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as
an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the
Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst
Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars
like Ś�ntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the
word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing
eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains
unchanged.
The Hindu âtmà is not only non-dual cognition but is also unchanging, eternal, and truly existing. Sankaràcàrya defines existence (sat) in his Tattvaboda as that which remains the same in all the 3 times (past, present, future). In the commentary by Gaudapàda (who was Sankaràcàrya’s Guru’s Guru), of the Màndukya Upanishada, in verse number 96, he calls the eternally really existing non-dual cognition is non-relational, i.e., free from reference points. In the 37th verse of the same work it is said that this non-dual, eternal, really existing cognition is free from all sense organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by ÅšÄ�ntaraká¹£ita as a wrong view."
www.byomakusuma.orgAlthough he was from around the 8th century, he became popular among the Hindus ...See More
-
-
Nature of mind vs mind is upon attained supreme, there is this compassionate mind 'encapsulated' as a vow to liberate beings known as mind. Otherwise, beings could never be resurrected to the nature of mind
I only see manifestation instead of a source and substance of manifestation. Awareness is manifestation... it is not even 'that which expresses manifestation', 'that' is empty of a 'that' and is always this flowing stream of manifestation. However, in Dzogchen some may express this distinction between mind and nature of mind... in contrast to Mahamudra, though I do not see this distinction as being necessary based on my experience, though it could just be a manner of expression. As Malcolm/Loppon Namdrol pointed out: nature of mind is to mind as wetness is to water or heat is to fire, and that "If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other." So to set up certain distinction also leads to a certain danger (unless correctly understood in context) as awareness easily becomes reified as an unchanging, truly existing, independent source and substratum behind manifestation like Brahman... but in fact just this mind-stream itself is the clear light of awareness, awareness is always in terms of mind-stream as HHDL puts it. It is just a stream/flow of clear light as wisdom, or a stream/flow of clear light 'enmeshed' with ignorance... but nothing to be reified. Clear light is permanent in the way HHDL puts it: "It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted…" ( http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light )