Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:37 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:52 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Is a mindstream in the sense of Karmic storage individual, plural, both, neither?

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Posts: 287
Location: NYC
Are you asking about the kun-gzhi / alayavijnana? There is one per sentient being, as I understand it.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ab ... sciousness

Quote:
An unspecified, nonobstructive, individual consciousness that underlies all cognition, cognizes the same objects as the cognitions it underlies, but is a nondetermining cognition of what appears to it and lacks clarity of its objects. It carries the karmic legacies of karma and the mental impressions of memories, in the sense that they are imputed on it. It is also translated as "foundation consciousness" and, by some translators, as "storehouse consciousness." According to Gelug, asserted only by the Chittamatra system; according to non-Gelug, assserted by both the Chittamatra and Madhyamaka systems.

_________________
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 12:54 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Yes, Alaya Vijnana.

In some places Alaya Vijana is equated with Tathagatagarbha, a diamond wrapped in dirty cloth and all that (defilements). etc...if i'm understanding, and it seems like some say it's individual, while some seem to indicate it's universal - Lankavatara Sutra for instance. Or is the question really just for ease of talking about something that is neither individual nor universal?

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
As I understand it, an individual's mindstream has multiple interwoven and branching threads, even though we may be conscious of only one thread at any particular time. In this way it can be argued that the mind of a person is not the unified, singular entity as is conventionally thought.

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Posts: 287
Location: NYC
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Yes, Alaya Vijnana.

In some places Alaya Vijana is equated with Tathagatagarbha, a diamond wrapped in dirty cloth and all that (defilements). etc...if i'm understanding, and it seems like some say it's individual, while some seem to indicate it's universal - Lankavatara Sutra for instance. Or is the question really just for ease of talking about something that is neither individual nor universal?


I know nothing myself, but I recently heard a Dzogchen lecture from Alan Wallace where he emphasizes that the alayavijnana is explicitly individual (he likens it to a fingerprint), unlike the dharmakaya (which is neither one nor many). IIRC, he also mentions that it's not specifically human (or whatever the animal under consideration is) in characteristic.

_________________
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
monktastic, I always enjoy your postings but you mentioned Allan Wallace, an academic researcher, translator but seriously how would he really know? You have all these people globe trotting around the world as experts in spirituality or Buddhism. They've read alot but what do they really know?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 1577
greentara wrote:
monktastic, I always enjoy your postings but you mentioned Allan Wallace, an academic researcher, translator but seriously how would he really know? You have all these people globe trotting around the world as experts in spirituality or Buddhism. They've read alot but what do they really know?!


There are in Buddhim three levels of knowledge, this means that correct intellectual knowledge is necessary and valid as such, it forms the basis for the knowledge of reflection, which is the basis for the knowledge of meditation.
Here under the title Three prajñas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_in_Buddhism

How can you know the inner experience of a person anyway? Be it Allan Wallace or anybody else!
And by the way, Vasubandhu also says that Alaya is personal, for example in Trimshika Karika or Thirty Stanzas.
In an other text Vasubandhu says that Alaya is not different from the fifth skandha, consciousness. The five skandhas or five aggregates analyze the person.

_________________
svaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Posts: 287
Location: NYC
greentara wrote:
monktastic, I always enjoy your postings but you mentioned Allan Wallace, an academic researcher, translator but seriously how would he really know? You have all these people globe trotting around the world as experts in spirituality or Buddhism. They've read alot but what do they really know?!


How would he know? I don't know, how would I know? :) But more seriously: he always backs up his assertions with scripture. He's also very careful and respectful about only sharing stuff that his teachers (including HHDL, and I think his main Dzogchen teacher is Gyatrul Rinpoche) allow. He did spend decades practicing in Tibet and India, after all. I trust him, but mentioned his name so that others can decide for themselves.

_________________
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Hmm thanks, the fifth aggregate thing actually makes it clearer in some ways.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
B Allan Wallace is a translator for the Dalai Lama, participant in the Mind-Life conferences, and is not simply an armchair commentator. I often don't agree with his POV, but he is very well qualified.

@JD - it is a difficult question, but I tend towards 'neither'. Something I have been thinking about recently is that humans, for instance, are fantastically complex on one level, and completely simple on another. The human brain is the most complex natural phenomenon known to science. Yet at the same time, the human is simple - that is, not composed of parts.

The view I favour is that 'unity' is not a numerical quality, i.e. 'one' as opposed to 'plural', but 'unity' in the sense of 'being part of a larger whole' and therefore 'all from the same source'. So that larger whole is only always One, whilst at the same time having apparent internal complexity.

There is an interesting concept called 'holons' which relates to this notion. Later on I'll find a reference to it. But this is one of the perennial questions - the relationship between the 'one' and the 'many'.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
The Lotus Sutra states : "This world is not as living beings in the threefold world perceive it to be, nor is it otherwise....this world is neither consistent nor diverse."
In another passage, it says "All things neither exist nor do not exist."
I hesitate to put forth an opinion, not satisfied with my own understanding, but for the sake of speculation I propose that the All in All could be thought of as neither unitary nor manifold. Neither a single thing nor many things, but in terms of phenomena, perceived from the ultimately reality as in a way being both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 253
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
a diamond wrapped in dirty cloth and all that (defilements).


That seems fairly similar to my metaphor of a massive pile of dark storm clouds {of defilements forming ego} obscuring the clear blue sky {of mind} through which radiates the shining {awareness-light of the} sun.. I wonder if I mean the same thing as yours does

_________________
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group