Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[Simple_Jack]

So, Simple_Jack can only assert that:

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

is an inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo

 

He cannot actually provide an accurate translation, nor can Malcolm Smith.

 

The best that Simple-Jack can come up with is to provide quotes from Malcolm Smith who has re-interpreted a clear and simple statement that completely demolishes the main stumbling blocks of Buddhist dogma, anatta and dependent origination - which, incidentally are useful tools in the right hands and which also exist within the teachings of Advaita Vedanta.

 

I think that I'm done here now because if anyone readingh this doesn't get it now, they never will: -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

Dependent origination and anatta are provisional truths that are to be applied to specific stumbling blocks that occur in some (but not all) aspirants. Once they have done their job they are thrown away. The thorn has removed another thorn - best not to leave it/them sticking in your flesh to cause ongoing suffering/stress.

 

Buddhism is nondual.

And to really nail it: -

 

 

Of course it does.........because they're both nondual

 

Wow, I think you've just proven my statement a couple pages back:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526893

 

I can understand why you would arrive at that conclusion especially considering your background in Advaita; conflating the Buddha's teachings of anatman into an affirming-negation to arrive at a transpersonal or universal consciousness. The only thing you accomplish by stating the above is making buddhadharma even more nebulous than it already can be to those unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy and praxis....

 

I totally understand why you would prefer to keep it that way on this board though.

[Simple_Jack]

Yup, just another case of extreme prejudice shown towards Buddhism, by the eternalists of TTB's.

 

Bump.

[Apech]

Does anyone know which sanskrit/tibetan word is translated as consciousness in the text being quoted?

[Simple_Jack]

 

Yes, this is how to accurately understand this Tantra according to how its taught in Dzogchen:

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

 

Soh wrote:

"Hi Namdrol,

As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind.

I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7?replies=200 ).

He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real.

What is your comment on this?

Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?"

Malcolm wrote:

"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.*"

-------------------

And here's someone from your yahoo group having this same conversation with Jean-Luc Achard, obviously his answer was ignored...

? wrote:

"That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?"

Jean-Luc Achard wrote:

"Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected."

*"chain of dependent origination" refers to the specific theory of dependent origination which is the 12 nidanas aka. the 12 links of dependent origination. The general theory of dependent origination is "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases

 

 

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

Malcolm wrote:

In Dzogchen, the realization of emptiness occurs when one accomplishes the third vision. Prior to this, emptiness is merely correct inference. Khenpa Ngachung explains this as one of the superiorities of Dzogchen i.e. that one can discover one's real nature prior to the realization of emptiness. This feature allows one to eradicate the coarse obscurations even while below the path of seeing, where traditionally, in Mahāyāna systems, it is held to be impossible.

---------------------

Jax wrote:

Interesting Malcolm Smith, hadn't heard that. However I can cite many examples that equate realization of Kadag at trekchod with realization of emptiness. Are there even more varying opinions beyond these two?

also trekchod is equated with realization of Mahamudra. Surely you concede Mahamudra realization is also the full realization of emptiness... No?

Malcolm wrote:

Hi Jax:

Realizing treghö and practicing tregchö are two entirely different things. One practices tregchö until realization. The practice of trencho however is only possible when one is free from doubts about one's primordial state i.e. the basis [gzhi].

---------------------

Malcolm wrote:

Tregchö is a practice. It has a result. The practice of Mahāmudra, Lamdre and Tregchö is basically the same i.e. equipoise in an instant of uncontrived awareness.

Jax wrote:

Yes, Malcolm, I know that. But I am saying when the fruit of trekcho view is realized, that is the same as Mahamudra. Since that is the "same" as Mahamudra, and realization of Mahamudra contains the full realization of two-fold emptiness, then trekchod realization contains full realization of two-fold emptiness as well. Hence practice of thogal is not necessary for realization of two-fold emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:

Hi JAx:

No one every said that thogal was necessary for realizing twofold emptiness.

---------------------

Jax wrote:

Is there another emptiness realized beyond two-fold emptiness at the third thogal vision?

Malcolm wrote:

Hi Jax:

No, there is not.

---------------------

Jax wrote:

then the Third Vision of Thogal realization of emptiness is not superior to the two-fold emptiness realized upon realization of Kadag at trekchod?

Malcolm wrote:

The answer to your question is no, it is not superior. The third vision is basically the equivalent of the first bhumi in the sutra system.

However, in tregchö one does not eradicated the coarse obscurations prior to realization of emptiness.

 

 

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

 

"There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything."

- from The Unwritten Tantra

 

Bump.

[Simple_Jack]

Never mind.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

That's an interesting position but I actually proved conclusively that absolute Consciousness does exist in the higher Buddhist teachings by quoting the Kunjed Gyalpo earlier in this thread.

In order to take up less space in this thread and to save you the necessity of refering back you can refer to my my signature below.

It's exactly that that I was responding to. These sorts of texts must be approached from a Buddhist frame of reference to be understood as intended by the original writer/speaker.

 

In Dzogchen, 'basis' means 'basis of conscious experience', not 'an ontological absolute to reality as a whole'. 'Source' similarly means 'source of conscious experience', not 'source of all things'. 'Fundamental nature' similarly means 'basic characteristic of experience', not 'ontological basis'.

 

If you read statements in Dzogchen texts without understanding that: 1)Emptiness is one of the three aspects of the basis 2)The three aspects of the basis are of one taste and 3) It's about experience, not ontology; it is easy to misunderstand and think that Dzogchen treats consciousness as some ultimate essence, like Brahman in Vedanta.

 

But Brahman in Vedanta and consciousness in Buddhism are completely different ideas. In Vedanta, it is an ontological absolute that exists from its own side unaffected by causes and conditions. In Buddhism, it is a D.O. empty aggregation like everything is, with the three aspects of the basis in the manner outlined above.

 

Now, if you have the Vedanta POV that is fine by me. Different people take different routes. I have no interest at all in changing your mind about that.

 

However, don't mix it up with the Buddhist POV by mistakenly superimposing the Vedanta view on top of the Buddhist one, from reading something as though the words are used the same way as in Vedanta with the same POV. That is like mixing chocolate and casserole. I like both, but not mushed together into confused sludge. When reading Buddhist stuff, interpret what you're reading from that viewpoint to understand what the speaker/writer meant.

[Simple_Jack]

Malcolm wrote:

 

Nyibum* states:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

 

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less this.

 

*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig

 

Malcolm wrote:

Yes, I believe so. So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation.

 

We can trust Nyibum about this because his father invented/revealed the Nyinthig tradition and he himself was a great scholar who studied widely.

 

Malcolm wrote:

I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.

 

Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:

 

Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,

there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

 

An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):

 

Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.

 

In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.

 

Malcolm wrote:

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.

 

Malcolm wrote:

It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.

 

Malcolm wrote:

Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.

 

Malcolm wrote:

The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.

 

Bump.

[Simple_Jack]

IIn Dzogchen, 'basis' means 'basis of conscious experience', not 'an ontological absolute to reality as a whole'...

 

'Basis' according to Nyibum means one's own 'unfabricated mind'.

[gatito]

It's exactly that that I was responding to. These sorts of texts must be approached from a Buddhist frame of reference to be understood as intended by the original writer/speaker.

 

In Dzogchen, 'basis' means 'basis of conscious experience', not 'an ontological absolute to reality as a whole'. 'Source' similarly means 'source of conscious experience', not 'source of all things'. 'Fundamental nature' similarly means 'basic characteristic of experience', not 'ontological basis'.

 

If you read statements in Dzogchen texts without understanding that: 1)Emptiness is one of the three aspects of the basis 2)The three aspects of the basis are of one taste and 3) It's about experience, not ontology; it is easy to misunderstand and think that Dzogchen treats consciousness as some ultimate essence, like Brahman in Vedanta.

 

But Brahman in Vedanta and consciousness in Buddhism are completely different ideas. In Vedanta, it is an ontological absolute that exists from its own side unaffected by causes and conditions. In Buddhism, it is a D.O. empty aggregation like everything is, with the three aspects of the basis in the manner outlined above.

 

Now, if you have the Vedanta POV that is fine by me. Different people take different routes. I have no interest at all in changing your mind about that.

 

However, don't mix it up with the Buddhist POV by mistakenly superimposing the Vedanta view on top of the Buddhist one, from reading something as though the words are used the same way as in Vedanta with the same POV. That is like mixing chocolate and casserole. I like both, but not mushed together into confused sludge. When reading Buddhist stuff, interpret what you're reading from that viewpoint to understand what the speaker/writer meant.

OK

 

Although, if you'd read through this thread, you'd have seen that I've specifically advised against trying to mix up the two approaches (Emptiness and Advaita)

 

Furthermore, I think that you misunderstand Brahman - but leaving that aside, would you mind giving me the exact "Buddhist" definition of Consciousness please?

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Edit to add: -

 

Could you also do the same for mind please?

 

Thanks

Edited February 25, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

would you mind giving me the exact "Buddhist" definition of Consciousness please?

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Edit to add: -

 

Could you also do the same for mind please?

 

Thanks

 

This is the foundation for all sects and tenet systems of Buddhism:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.niza.html

 

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed

 

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

"The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

"'When this is, that is.

"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

"'When this isn't, that isn't.

"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

"'In other words:

"'From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

"'From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

"'From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

"'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

"'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

"'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

"'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

"'From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

"'From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"'Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness.[1] Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html

 

Viññana Sutta: Consciousness

 

At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

 

Nalakalapiyo Sutta: Sheaves of Reeds

 

On one occasion Ven. Sariputta and Ven. MahaKotthita were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then in the evening, arising from his seclusion, Ven. MahaKotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Sariputta: "Now tell me, Sariputta my friend: Are aging & death self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making — do they arise spontaneously?"

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that aging & death are self-made, that they are other-made, that they are both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — they arise spontaneously. However, from birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death."

"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: Is birth... Is becoming... Is clinging/sustenance... Is craving... Is feeling... Is contact... Are the six sense media self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making — do they arise spontaneously?"

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that the six sense media are self-made, that they are other-made, that they are both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — they arise spontaneously. However, from name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media."

"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: Is name-&-form self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making — does it arise spontaneously?"

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form."

"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: is consciousness self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making, does it arise spontaneously?"

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness."

"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?"

"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. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"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. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

"It's amazing, friend Sariputta. It's astounding, friend Sariputta, how well that was said by Ven. Sariputta. And I rejoice in Ven. Sariputta's good statements with regard to these 36 topics.[1] If a monk teaches the Dhamma for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to aging & death, he deserves to be called a monk who is a speaker of Dhamma. If he practices for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to aging & death, he deserves to be called a monk who practices the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma.[2] If — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, and lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to aging & death — he is released, then he deserves to be called a monk who has attained Unbinding in the here-&-now.

"If a monk teaches the Dhamma for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to birth, he deserves to be called a monk who is a speaker of Dhamma. If he practices for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to birth, he deserves to be called a monk who practices the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. If — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, and lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to birth — he is released, then he deserves to be called a monk who has attained Unbinding in the here-&-now.

[similarly with becoming, clinging/sustenance, craving, feeling, contact, the six sense media, name & form, and consciousness.]

"If a monk teaches the Dhamma for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to fabrications, he deserves to be called a monk who is a speaker of Dhamma. If he practices for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to fabrications, he deserves to be called a monk who practices the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. If — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, and lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to fabrications — he is released, then he deserves to be called a monk who has attained Unbinding in the here-&-now.

"If a monk teaches the Dhamma for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to ignorance, he deserves to be called a monk who is a speaker of Dhamma. If he practices for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, & cessation with regard to ignorance, he deserves to be called a monk who practices the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. If — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, and lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to ignorance — he is released, then he deserves to be called a monk who has attained Unbinding in the here-&-now."

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

 

OK

 

Although, if you'd read through this thread, you'd have seen that I've specifically advised against trying to mix up the two approaches (Emptiness and Advaita)

 

Furthermore, I think that you misunderstand Brahman - but leaving that aside, would you mind giving me the exact "Buddhist" definition of Consciousness please?

 

Thanks in anticipation

 

Edit to add: -

 

Could you also do the same for mind please?

 

Thanks

 

Bump

[Simple_Jack]

Bump

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

 

Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you.

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

"And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.

"And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.

"And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html

 

Khajjaniya Sutta: Chewed Up

 

At Savatthi. "Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

"And why do you call it 'form'?[1] Because it is afflicted,[2] thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling.

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. [3]

"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by form. But in the past I was also chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form. And if I delight in future form, then in the future I will be chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past form, does not delight in future form, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present form.

"[He reflects:] ''I am now being chewed up by feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. But in the past I was also chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness. And if I delight in future consciousness, then in the future I will be chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past consciousness, does not delight in future consciousness, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present consciousness.

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.

"And what does he tear down and not build up? He tears down form and does not build it up. He tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not build it up.

"And what does he abandon and not cling to? He abandons form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not cling to it.

"And what does he discard and not pull in? He discards form and does not pull it in. He discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pull it in.

"And what does he scatter and not pile up? He scatters form and does not pile it up. He scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pile it up.

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who neither builds up nor tears down, but who stands having torn down; who neither clings nor abandons, but who stands having abandoned; who neither pulls in nor discards, but who stands having discarded; who neither piles up nor scatters, but who stands having scattered.

"And what is it that he neither builds up nor tears down, but stands having torn it down? He neither builds up nor tears down form, but stands having torn it down. He neither builds up nor tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having torn it down.

"And what is it that he neither clings to nor abandons, but stands having abandoned it? He neither clings to nor abandons form, but stands having abandoned it. He neither clings to nor abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having abandoned it.

"And what is it that he neither pulls in nor discards, but stands having discarded it? He neither pulls in nor discards form, but stands having discarded it. He neither pulls in nor discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having discarded it.

"And what is it that he neither piles up nor scatters, but stands having scattered it? He neither piles up nor scatters form, but stands having scattered it. He neither piles up nor scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having scattered it.

"And to the monk whose mind is thus released, the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:

'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man — you of whom we don't know even what dependent on which you're absorbed.'"

[Simple_Jack]

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_c.htm#citta

 

Citta: 'mind', 'consciousness', 'state of consciousness', is a synonym of mano and viññāna see: khandha and Tab. 1. Dhs divides all phenomena into consciousness citta mental properties cetasika and materiality rūpa.

 

"Mind", in Mahayana, is one's own alaya[-vijnana].

Edited February 25, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[C T]

Does anyone know which sanskrit/tibetan word is translated as consciousness in the text being quoted?

I believe the Sanskrit equivalent for (Buddhist) consciousness is Vijnanaskandha. In Tibetan, rnams shes kyi phung po.

[gatito]

I believe the Sanskrit equivalent for (Buddhist) consciousness is Vijnanaskandha. In Tibetan, rnams shes kyi phung po.

 

That's interesting.

 

So from that, if we inserted it, the quote would read: -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

From the beginning, pure and total aggregate of thought, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

which makes no sense at all to me now

 

Perhaps, the actual word translated to "consciousness" by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu or on Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's behalf and widely circulated was meant to be "consciousness" in the english sense?

 

After all, thoughts come and thoughts go - there's nothing that can be described as "pure and total" and "the supreme source" and "abides in the all-transcending condition" about (a) thought(s).

 

However, those description could all be applied to consciousness in the english sense.

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of the Kunjed Gyalpo, so, could someone explain my error and that of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in plain english?

 

In other words, could I have the actual translation of: -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

please?

 

Anyone?

 

And I'll also throw this question out to everyone: -

 

What's the Buddhist definition of consciousness and the Buddhist definition of mind please - in plain english with no circular references back to other Buddhist terms that would need to be defined and/or use of other foreign or complicated words?

 

I'm a simple soul - please don't add to my confusion.

 

Please also remember these words of the Buddhas if you reply: -

 

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[Apech]

I believe the Sanskrit equivalent for (Buddhist) consciousness is Vijnanaskandha. In Tibetan, rnams shes kyi phung po.

 

 

I think its unlikely that this term would be used in this way in this context. The reason I asked is that translation of terms from sanskrit and tibetan which relate to consciousness is a minefield of nuance and misunderstanding. This is well known by translators. There are a number of words like citta, manas and so on which could be termed mind or awareness and so on as well as vijnana which as has been pointed out appears in the 12 steps of dependent origination and does not exist without an object. The idea of a kind of free floating overall consciousness is absent in Buddhist terminology as far as I am aware ... but of course many writers and speakers talk as if it is a valid Buddhist concept. So if anyone has the root text of the dzogchen material it would be interesting to see what term is being used here and rendered as consciousness. Without this the debate is going to be fruitless and circular.

[gatito]

I think its unlikely that this term would be used in this way in this context. The reason I asked is that translation of terms from sanskrit and tibetan which relate to consciousness is a minefield of nuance and misunderstanding. This is well known by translators. There are a number of words like citta, manas and so on which could be termed mind or awareness and so on as well as vijnana which as has been pointed out appears in the 12 steps of dependent origination and does not exist without an object. The idea of a kind of free floating overall consciousness is absent in Buddhist terminology as far as I am aware ... but of course many writers and speakers talk as if it is a valid Buddhist concept. So if anyone has the root text of the dzogchen material it would be interesting to see what term is being used here and rendered as consciousness. Without this the debate is going to be fruitless and circular.

 

That's something that I've noticed as well - (i.e. fruitlessness and circularity).

 

I'm glad that I'm not the only one - I was beginning to think that I was wrong about that too

[Creation]

The term being translated as "pure and total consciousness" in the "All Creating King" is "bodhicitta". This is the primary term for the enlightened state in Dzogchen Semde. Something to watch out for is the presentation in Semde is different from Mennagde, for example Mennagde focuses on distinguishing sems and rigpa.

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Creation

[gatito]

The term being translated as "pure and total consciousness" in the "All Creating King" is "bodhicitta". This is the primary term for the enlighented state in Dzogchen Semde. Something to watch out for is the presentation in Semde is different from Mennangde, for example Mennangde focuses on distinguishing rigpa from marigpa. This is not just theoretical, but relates to practice.

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Well that makes more sense to me, thanks.

 

 

Bodhi means "awakening" or "enlightenment". Citta derives from the Sanskrit root cit, and means "that which is conscious"

 

So I'm still with: -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!

 

From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

unless someone can come up with something that makes more sense

[C T]

I think its unlikely that this term would be used in this way in this context. The reason I asked is that translation of terms from sanskrit and tibetan which relate to consciousness is a minefield of nuance and misunderstanding. This is well known by translators. There are a number of words like citta, manas and so on which could be termed mind or awareness and so on as well as vijnana which as has been pointed out appears in the 12 steps of dependent origination and does not exist without an object. The idea of a kind of free floating overall consciousness is absent in Buddhist terminology as far as I am aware ... but of course many writers and speakers talk as if it is a valid Buddhist concept. So if anyone has the root text of the dzogchen material it would be interesting to see what term is being used here and rendered as consciousness. Without this the debate is going to be fruitless and circular.

Ah, ok, from the perspective of Dzogchen, its still (tib.) rnam shes. According to Longchenpa in the book The Practice of Dzogchen, consciousness arises only in conjunction with the 12 links (as you have mentioned). He said it begins as the 3rd link comes into effect, where its said that those aspects of the deluded mind which arises to analyse modes of objects are called consciousnesses (rnam shes), and this continues on to the 4th link, which is the desire to distinguish objects by designations such as 'this is an object' and 'this is an appearance', and then the consciousness apprehends the named objects as forms. Longchenpa asserts that this is the primary delusion into the existents (samsara), and it is name-and-form (Ming-gZugs) which then cause the 5th link to take birth, and so on.

[gatito]

Seems very complicated to me

 

I'm sitting here knowing that I exist and knowing that I know that I exist but it seems that I don't actually exist at all - according to Buddhist theory

 

What's also rather strange is that I know that I exist even in the complete absence of mind and body, space and time, so my existence certainly isn't predicated on a mind (deluded or otherwise )

 

I therefore have to conclude that either Longchenpa was wrong or it's anothe one of those "bad translations"

 

This is a big problem (i.e. finding sruti in Buddhism - lots of smriti - but *%&!-all sruti).

[C T]

Seems very complicated to me

 

I'm sitting here knowing that I exist and knowing that I know that I exist but it seems that I don't actually exist at all - according to Buddhist theory

 

What's also rather strange is that I know that I exist even in the complete absence of mind and body, space and time, so my existence certainly isn't predicated on a mind (deluded or otherwise )

 

I therefore have to conclude that either Longchenpa was wrong or it's anothe one of those "bad translations"

 

This is a big problem (i.e. finding sruti in Buddhism - lots of smriti - but *%&!-all sruti).

This is why i will try to absent myself more from these discussions from now on.

 

It really serves no useful purpose in terms of the intention to reach some accord on the understanding of how to promote and sustain goodwill, peace and understanding, so such discussions actually go against the grain of Dharma practice. Sometimes it punctuates the mind quite similar to the sensation of dragging fingernails across a blackboard.

[gatito]

^^^

And sadly, that's also my conclusion - In fact, this seems to promote the opposite.

 

ironically, it seems that a meeting of minds is really only possible face-to-face and there seems to be no stomach for that here.

 

I hope we meet sometime and that I can offer you my hospitality to atone for the offence

[themiddleway]

This is why i will try to absent myself more from these discussions from now on.

 

It really serves no useful purpose in terms of the intention to reach some accord on the understanding of how to promote and sustain goodwill, peace and understanding, so such discussions actually go against the grain of Dharma practice. Sometimes it punctuates the mind quite similar to the sensation of dragging fingernails across a blackboard.

I believe that -the much quoted- Loppon Namdrol came to the same conclusion.

 

From Namdrol : "I can see really clearly that we need to go beyond Buddhist provincialism. We even complain about sectarianism among Buddhists. We also war with each other about such things whose Karmapa is the real one; which is better, gzhan stong or rang stong; is yogacara as high as madhayamaka or not; is Theravada Hinayāna or not; is Mahāyāna or the tantras the real teaching of the Buddha or not. If we do not go beyond these kinds of petty intellectual differences, we will never survive as a species and we will continue to destroy ourselves.'

[C T]

^^^

And sadly, that's also my conclusion - In fact, this seems to promote the opposite.

 

ironically, it seems that a meeting of minds is really only possible face-to-face and there seems to be no stomach for that here.

 

I hope we meet sometime and that I can offer you my hospitality to atone for the offence

Offence? None taken, G.

 

Be great to get together some day for tea and chat! You bet!!