buddhist hinduism?

[Jnana]

an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Yes.

Do we have an abhidharmic reference for this term or state of mind "pramana"?

Read Dignāga and/or Dharmakīrti.

Why do I not always experience perception at this level?

It's a matter of training. Basically, if one attends to concepts then non-conceptual direct perception may not be noticed.

For Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's instructions on this point see Mahāmudrā and Related Instructions, pages 158-160 (The Fifth Meditation).

All the best,

Geoff

[Malcolm]

Pramana is referred to in various texts as prime awareness/cognition etc.

Pramana means, basically, "authoritative".

N

Agreed. It is a term used in "Hinduism" as well (remembering the topic of this thread.)

I looked up several Sanskrit dictionaries and they all seemed to say that "mana" is mind. Pra can refer to primary or prime.
So rather than going into that tenet debate on whether it means first or prime in the sense of incontrovertible I think your term authoritative works quite well.

That is māna; the māṇa in pramāṇa is a completley different word.



pramANa n. (ifc. f. %{A}) measure , scale , standard ; measure of any kind (as size , extent , circumference , length , distance , weight , multitude , quantity , duration) Ka1tyS3r. Kat2hUp. Mn. &c. (instr. `" on an average "' Jyot.) ; prosodical length (of a vowel) Pa1n2. 1-1 , 50 Sch. ; measure in music MBh. (Ni1lak.) ; accordance of the movements in dancing with music and song Sam2gi1t. ; measure of physical strength S3ak. (cf. comp. below) ; the first term in a rule of three sum Col. ; the measure of a square i.e. a side of it S3ulbas. ; principal , capital (opp. to interest) Col. ; right measure , standard , authority Gr2S3rS. Mn. MBh. &c. (%{pramANam@bhavatI} , `" your ladyship is the authority or must judge "' Nal. ; in this sense also m. and f. sg. and pl. e.g. %{vedAH@pramANAH} , `" the Vedas are authorities "' MBh. ; %{strI@pramANI@yeSAm} , `" they whose authority is a woman Pa1n2. Sch.) ; a means of acquiring Prama1 or certain knowledge (6 in the Veda7nta , viz. %{pratyakSa} , perception by the senses ; %{anumAna} , inference ; %{upamAna} , analogy or comparison ; %{zabda} or %{Apta-vacana} , verbal authority , revelation ; %{an-upalabdhi} or %{abhAva-pratyakSa} , non-perception or negative proof ; %{arthA7patti} , inference from circumstances ; the Nya1ya admits only 4 , excluding the last two ; the Sa1m2khya only 3 , viz. %{pratyakSa} , %{anumAna} and %{zabda} ; other schools increase the number to 9 by adding %{sambhava} , equivalence ; %{aitihya} , tradition or fallible testimony ; and %{ceSTA} , gesture IW. 60 &c. &c.) ; any proof or testimony or evidence Ya1jn5. MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; a correct notion , right perception (= %{pramA}) Tarkas. ; oneness , unity L. ; = %{nitya} L. ; m. (cf. n.) N. of a large fig-tree on the bank of the Ganges MBh. ; (%{I}) f. (cf. n.) N. of a metre Col.


N

[Malcolm]

So what you are saying is that an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Yes.

Do we have an abhidharmic reference for this term or state of mind "pramana"?

Pramāṇa is the study of epistemology in Buddhism and Hinduism. The earliest Buddhist text on pramāṇa was written by Vasubandhu, the Vyākhyāyukti. This was followed by the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. It is traditionally grouped by most Tibetan scholars under Sautrantika tenets, so called "Sautrantikas following reason".

Why do I not always experience perception at this level?

"Experience", by which we mean experiences of which we are aware, is always conceptual. Direct perceptions are, by definition, non-conceptual. Thus, direct perceptions are never conceptually meditated even though we constantly have them.

N

[PadmaVonSamba]

I think that most of what we perceive directly is not even conceptually perceived. In other words, we see and hear and smell and feel much, much more that we are aware of. We usually only notice it when something changes or is taken away, for example, when your foot 'falls asleep' you notice a lack of feeling in the foot. But up until then, you probably were not consciously aware of your foot, or what it was doing, or how it felt.

I think this non-conceptual awareness is what Bankai referred to as the original unborn mind.

[mudra]

Pramana means, basically, "authoritative".

N

Agreed. It is a term used in "Hinduism" as well (remembering the topic of this thread.)

I looked up several Sanskrit dictionaries and they all seemed to say that "mana" is mind. Pra can refer to primary or prime.
So rather than going into that tenet debate on whether it means first or prime in the sense of incontrovertible I think your term authoritative works quite well.

That is māna; the māṇa in pramāṇa is a completley different word.



pramANa n. (ifc. f. %{A}) measure , scale , standard ; measure of any kind (as size , extent , circumference , length , distance , weight , multitude , quantity , duration) Ka1tyS3r. Kat2hUp. Mn. &c. (instr. `" on an average "' Jyot.) ; prosodical length (of a vowel) Pa1n2. 1-1 , 50 Sch. ; measure in music MBh. (Ni1lak.) ; accordance of the movements in dancing with music and song Sam2gi1t. ; measure of physical strength S3ak. (cf. comp. below) ; the first term in a rule of three sum Col. ; the measure of a square i.e. a side of it S3ulbas. ; principal , capital (opp. to interest) Col. ; right measure , standard , authority Gr2S3rS. Mn. MBh. &c. (%{pramANam@bhavatI} , `" your ladyship is the authority or must judge "' Nal. ; in this sense also m. and f. sg. and pl. e.g. %{vedAH@pramANAH} , `" the Vedas are authorities "' MBh. ; %{strI@pramANI@yeSAm} , `" they whose authority is a woman Pa1n2. Sch.) ; a means of acquiring Prama1 or certain knowledge (6 in the Veda7nta , viz. %{pratyakSa} , perception by the senses ; %{anumAna} , inference ; %{upamAna} , analogy or comparison ; %{zabda} or %{Apta-vacana} , verbal authority , revelation ; %{an-upalabdhi} or %{abhAva-pratyakSa} , non-perception or negative proof ; %{arthA7patti} , inference from circumstances ; the Nya1ya admits only 4 , excluding the last two ; the Sa1m2khya only 3 , viz. %{pratyakSa} , %{anumAna} and %{zabda} ; other schools increase the number to 9 by adding %{sambhava} , equivalence ; %{aitihya} , tradition or fallible testimony ; and %{ceSTA} , gesture IW. 60 &c. &c.) ; any proof or testimony or evidence Ya1jn5. MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; a correct notion , right perception (= %{pramA}) Tarkas. ; oneness , unity L. ; = %{nitya} L. ; m. (cf. n.) N. of a large fig-tree on the bank of the Ganges MBh. ; (%{I}) f. (cf. n.) N. of a metre Col.


N

I stand corrected.

[gregkavarnos]

In the Yogacara eightfold classification of mind which "level" is pramanas comparable too?

[Malcolm]

In the Yogacara eightfold classification of mind which "level" is pramanas comparable too?

The question should be "Which of yogacara eight consciousness are direct perceptions comparable to?" The answer is that the six sense consciousnesses are all non-conceptual direct perceptions.

In terms of the five aggregates, teh aggregates of consciousness is a direct perception operating through a sense gate.

Our experience of these direct perceptions are mediated by mental factor of ideation/discernment after they have been sensed.

N

[Jnana]

In the Yogacara eightfold classification of mind which "level" is pramanas comparable too?

Here's a link to Hattori's English translation of the first chapter of Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya: Exposition of the Theory of Perception, which serves as the basis for all later Indian (Buddhist) and Tibetan commentaries on Pramāṇa.

For Dignāga, the two kinds of valid cognition (pramāṇa) are direct perception (pratyakṣa) and inference (anumāna). Direct perception is a cognition which is free from conception (kalpanāpoḍha). The four possible types of direct perception are sense perception (indriyapratyakṣa), which occurs via the five sense consciousnesses; mental perception (mānasapratyakṣa), which occurs via mental consciousness (manovijñāna); self-awareness (svasaṃvedana); and yogic perception (yogipratyakṣa). All of these types of perception are mentioned in the above chapter from the Pramāṇasamuccaya.

All the best,

Geoff

[gregkavarnos]

Thank you!

[Enochian]

So basically pramana = Gorampa's Ultimate Truth = rigpa for you Dzogchenpas out there

This is a question not a statement

[Malcolm]

So basically pramana = Gorampa's Ultimate Truth = rigpa for you Dzogchenpas out there

This is a question not a statement

Not exactly. A pramāṇa requires a prameya, an object of authority. Since the objet of realization of Madhyamaka and Dzogchen cannot be established as an object of authority, no authority for a Madhyamaka or Dzogchen pramāṇa can be established.

N

[White Lotus]

Buddha nature is possibly the same experience as the Brahman atman, which comes when the ego, or lower self is seen to no longer exist. this buddha nature however is conditioned. it can cease with dissapearance of the subject.

unless one sees with the eye of buddha nature it will not i speculate, be possible for him to see the emptiness of all things. to actually see rather than speculate.

i have my problem with the Awakening of Faith... it asserts the non-empty aspect of this. saying that since suchness is imbued with myriad excellent qualities it is non empty. to me these qualites are also arisings of emptiness, in emptiness.

there is not a thing that arises, only the appearance of arising, a dream, an illusion.

best wishes, Tom.

[White Lotus]

Buddha nature is possibly the same experience as the Brahman atman, which comes when the ego, or lower self is seen to no longer exist. this buddha nature however is conditioned. it can cease with dissapearance of the subject.

unless one sees with the eye of buddha nature it will not i speculate, be possible for him to see the emptiness of all things. to actually see rather than speculate.

i have my problem with the Awakening of Faith... it asserts the non-empty aspect of this. saying that since suchness is imbued with myriad excellent qualities it is non empty. to me these qualites are also arisings of emptiness, in emptiness.

there is not a thing that arises, only the appearance of arising, a dream, an illusion.

best wishes, Tom.

[conebeckham]

So what you are saying is that an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Yes.

"Experience", by which we mean experiences of which we are aware, is always conceptual. Direct perceptions are, by definition, non-conceptual. Thus, direct perceptions are never conceptually meditated even though we constantly have them.

N

So "non-mediated perceptions" can, and do, occur to all, but the moment one "experiences" the perception this is no longer non-mediated?

[Malcolm]

So what you are saying is that an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Yes.

"Experience", by which we mean experiences of which we are aware, is always conceptual. Direct perceptions are, by definition, non-conceptual. Thus, direct perceptions are never conceptually meditated even though we constantly have them.

N

So "non-mediated perceptions" can, and do, occur to all, but the moment one "experiences" the perception this is no longer non-mediated?

When one becomes aware that one is seeing a blue vase for example, and desginates it a blue vase, at that moment one is no longer having a direct perception but a perception mediated by ideation and a number of other mental factors.

An important part of shamatha practice is allowing our mental factors to become reduced to the minumum that are present in any desire realm mind -- then we can enter the the first dhyana, i.e. perfect shamatha which involve five factors associated with the first dhyana; one pointedness, bliss, ease, intitial attention and sustained attention.

Perfect shamatha is basically a one pointed mind that is "non-conceptual" or rather minimally conceptual. One of the key features of Vajrayāna practice of course is that bliss can be so overwhelming that it makes our minds completely non-conceptual, likewise, the experience of khumbhaka, etc. This is one of the resasons why the Sakya gongma maintain that Mahāmudra upadeshas all by themselves are a slow path, but when combined with the completion stage, they become a rapid path.

N

[Acchantika]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to ask for some thoughts regarding the idea of Buddha-nature in some Buddhist schools, and whether there is any meaningful difference Buddha-nature and Hinduism's atman.

Hi coldmountain.

The following is an excerpt from "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness" written by Padmasambhava, who brought Buddhism to Tibet. I thought it might help in answering your question.

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 it's 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 "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha 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."

I should add that, in my copy of this book (2000, Snow Lion), the source text is followed by an extensive commentary by John Myrdhin Reynolds based solely on clarifying this view with reference to that of the Vedantic Hindus, so I highly recommend it if you are interested in this issue.

[xabir]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to ask for some thoughts regarding the idea of Buddha-nature in some Buddhist schools, and whether there is any meaningful difference Buddha-nature and Hinduism's atman.

Hi coldmountain.

The following is an excerpt from "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness" written by Padmasambhava, who brought Buddhism to Tibet. I thought it might help in answering your question.

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 it's 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 "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha 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."

I should add that, in my copy of this book (2000, Snow Lion), the source text is followed by an extensive commentary by John Myrdhin Reynolds based solely on clarifying this view with reference to that of the Vedantic Hindus, so I highly recommend it if you are interested in this issue.

As I recall, John Myrdhin Reynolds did a rebuttal of Vedanta view as being different from Buddhism.

The Advaitins realized the luminous aspect of awareness but falsely reified it into an eternal substance or true self and thereby failing to realize its emptiness, which is why in the same text, Padmasambhava said that the Hindus falls into error:

The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of Eternalism as against nihilism.
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view.
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be elucidated in various different ways.
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise), becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.

[adinatha]

When the sense faculty contacts elements, immediately the three poisons arise. This is consciousness.

When one can recognize the three poisons to be like the rope mistaken for a snake, it is mahamudra.

With the practice of mindfulness one attends one by one to each sense consciousness.

The deity is primordially present as ultimate truth. So the path is to relax and breath naturally.

For Kagyu, faith and devotion are the cause for fast realization.

[Acchantika]

As I recall, John Myrdhin Reynolds did a rebuttal of Vedanta view as being different from Buddhism.

Indeed. I mention that in the second part of my post.

[Themo]

The Pali Canon strictly tells us about non-self. Buddha teaches anatta (no-self) doctrine.

However, in some Mahayana sutras such as Tathagatagarbha sutras, Buddha started to teach eternal, imperishable, unchanging self. (Atman)

Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sutra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)

Direct quotes from Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that, truly, there is the Self (Atman) in all phenomena."

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guṇa), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva).”

“The True Self is the Tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-Principle, Buddha Element, Buddha-Factor]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [mental and moral afflictions) ….”

I`m confused, does "eternal, imperishable, immortal" Atman exits in Buddhism or not?