Difference between consciousness and the mind

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby rob h » Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:44 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
rob h wrote: Not trying to go off-topic, but the brain is said to be about 60% fat by some sources.

Well, that would explain why our thoughts seem to carry so much weight!
:rolling:

.
.
.


Yep, but they get lighter once you realize that the fat has no self, and doesn't actually inherently exist. *ba-dum, tish!* *tumbleweeds roll by*

Am the same with seeing mind and consciousness as different. Consciousness is an aggregate/defiled manas, and mind could be classed as the mindfulness/awareness that investigates all of these things to see that they're impermement, etc. Ultimately I try not to have any real definition of what mind actually is or isn't, but yeah would agree that there's different types.
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72
User avatar
rob h
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby odysseus » Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:28 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:It seems that "what we are talking about" is not always the same as "what terms we are using", and this is especially true with regards to translating not only words, but concepts from the ancient Buddhist context to the modern western context.

...

Until such basic terms such as "mind" ,"exist" , "consciousness", "emptiness" and so forth become "Buddhist words with standardized western definitions", I think there will always be some misunderstanding and perhaps a lot of time wasted in on-line forum debating as well. It's a bit like trying to play chess without agreeing on which pieces move which ways.

Perhaps in the age of the internet, even emerging from this DharmaWheel forum, there will be an effort made to standardize the meanings of so many terms, so that everyone is one the same page.
.
.
.


Yes, we need real English terms and proper definitions. It seems that Western Buddhism is more fragmented than in Asia. No wonder some people are sceptic when they get contradictory teachings. It´s disheartening that Western Buddhists disagree so much and that even "Buddhist scholars" won´t associate with Buddhism due to this. Dad is a Buddhist from Asia but he never thought me anything (choose my own way if I like). I, as a European try to strip away most cultural nuances and try to make it palatable to modern people if I have to talk about it but I lose my way. It´s going to take a lot of patience and effort to fully agree amongst Western Buddhists.

:thinking:
Buddhism is easy, you just need knowledge and training.
-- odysseus
User avatar
odysseus
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby zerwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:06 pm

Astus wrote:Basically in Buddhism there are six consciousnesses: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. They stand for the momentary consciousnesses of the six sensory areas.

Consciousness exists when there is something to be conscious of. Besides the five bodily sensory consciousnesses, there is the sixth consciousness, and it is the consciousness of mental phenomena. Mental phenomena includes everything else besides the five bodily sensory consciousnesses.

Generally speaking, there is no separate consciousness from the above six. Together they could be called simply consciousness or mind. The important point is that mind is necessarily impermanent and dependently originated. Mind is a series of moments of mental awareness, and that's how it can also be called mind-continuum.

Rebirth is possible because mental phenomena like greed, hatred and ignorance don't cease with the death of the body, as they don't depend on the existence of the body. The mind continues to exist because mental phenomena are produced by previous mental phenomena, like one thought leads to another thought.


Astus, I like your explanation. Does your explanation encompass the notion of the final mode (nature) being "pure mind?"
Shaun :anjali:
zerwe
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:32 pm

I haven't read this yet, but maybe it's relevant:
“Citta, Mano, Vinnana—A Psychosemantic Investigation” by Rune E. A. Johansson
http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citta_mano_vinnana_a-psychosemantic-investigation_ucr_1965_johansson.pdf
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Astus » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:50 pm

zerwe wrote:Does your explanation encompass the notion of the final mode (nature) being "pure mind?"


Mind is constantly changing, so there is no final mode. It is always different. Pure mind is a mind without attachment, a mind that understands the nature of mind, i.e. that the mind changes all the time.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:00 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Many Thervadan monks hold the view that Mind is different from conciousness.


Have theravadins become europeans then? ( European in the sense of a religion or an ideology)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
the theravadin monks I am talking about are not European, they are Thai and are considered to be some of the most revered monks in all of theravadin Thailand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mun_Bhuridatta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua

there eternal citta teachings are well known in Theravadin circles.

Or in which sutta has that view been expressed??

is there a distinction between the meaning of "mind" or "consciousness" in the suttas........yes while the terms are inter-relatable the meanings are quite different in many suttas.

one type of consciousness in the pali canon is viewed as worldly and impermanent so in this context this consciousness is said to be worng

Whatever that is therein that consists of:
Form,
of feeling,
of perception,
of formations,
of consciousness,
he regards those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an illness, as alien [as being other], as breaking up, as empty, as not self.
The Buddha continues:
He turns his mind away from these states. Having turned his mind away from these states, he directs his mind to the deathfree element, thus:
“This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nirvana.” (M 64.9/1:435 f) = SD 21.10
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 4-piya.pdf

in the pali canon the terms "Mind" or "consciousness" have many different meanings in some cases a form of "consciousness" is viewed as incorrect worldly wrong.

in other cases however...... the Buddha makes clear that there is a "consciousness" that is beyond the All and has not be expereienced by any worldly being such as Braham only a Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"'Having directly known the all as the all,[8] and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.'

"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'


"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]

now remember what is said in the quote up above The "consciousness without feature" is beyond the realm of the "all" which is why Brahma cannot find it nor control it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html
36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]

and

SN 22.53 ,
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.

some Thai's speak only of Nibbana some also call Nibbana the eternal Citta amongst many other names such as "consciousness without feature"..ect.

peace and love
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Wayfarer » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:37 pm

'Luminous Mind'

There is a very significant short early sutta, namely the Pabhasarra Sutta, which says:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."


Thanissaro Bikkhu notes in his commentary that ‘This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries.’ (See the link for details.)

Peter Harvey says that it is indicative of a form of 'consciousness mysticism' that was present in the early teachings, which was later developed by the Vijñānavāda and in the Prajñāpāramitā (see
Consciousness Mysticism in the Early Discourses of the Buddha).
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Zhen Li » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:19 am

Keep in "mind" ... that there are two terms being used for "mind" in most translations (manas; citta), and Bhikkhu Bodhi in particular has been keen on pointing out their differences in actual employment in the Suttas - both of which are themselves employed in a distinct sense from consciousness (P. viññāṇa; S. vijñāna).
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Aemilius » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:22 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
Aemilius wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Many Thervadan monks hold the view that Mind is different from conciousness.


Have theravadins become europeans then? ( European in the sense of a religion or an ideology)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
the theravadin monks I am talking about are not European, they are Thai and are considered to be some of the most revered monks in all of theravadin Thailand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mun_Bhuridatta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua

there eternal citta teachings are well known in Theravadin circles.

Or in which sutta has that view been expressed??

is there a distinction between the meaning of "mind" or "consciousness" in the suttas........yes while the terms are inter-relatable the meanings are quite different in many suttas.

one type of consciousness in the pali canon is viewed as worldly and impermanent so in this context this consciousness is said to be worng

Whatever that is therein that consists of:
Form,
of feeling,
of perception,
of formations,
of consciousness,
he regards those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an illness, as alien [as being other], as breaking up, as empty, as not self.
The Buddha continues:
He turns his mind away from these states. Having turned his mind away from these states, he directs his mind to the deathfree element, thus:
“This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nirvana.” (M 64.9/1:435 f) = SD 21.10
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 4-piya.pdf

in the pali canon the terms "Mind" or "consciousness" have many different meanings in some cases a form of "consciousness" is viewed as incorrect worldly wrong.

in other cases however...... the Buddha makes clear that there is a "consciousness" that is beyond the All and has not be expereienced by any worldly being such as Braham only a Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"'Having directly known the all as the all,[8] and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.'

"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'


"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]

now remember what is said in the quote up above The "consciousness without feature" is beyond the realm of the "all" which is why Brahma cannot find it nor control it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html
36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]

and

SN 22.53 ,
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.

some Thai's speak only of Nibbana some also call Nibbana the eternal Citta amongst many other names such as "consciousness without feature"..ect.

peace and love


Thanks!

If we take for example the passage that You quoted about the five skandhas: I am quite sure that in the sutra itself there is no difference when it says that he turns away his mind from those states, it is quite certainly same thing as saying that he turns away his consciousness from those states. There is no mind behind the five skandhas!!! The whole phenomenal world is included in the Five Skandhas. Vasubandhu emphasizes that the alaya-consciousness is included in the Fifth Skandha, (in the Examination of the Five Skandhas).
Making that difference in translation creates only errors, I think.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:24 pm

Aemilius wrote: There is no mind behind the five skandhas!!! The whole phenomenal world is included in the Five Skandhas. Vasubandhu emphasizes that the alaya-consciousness is included in the Fifth Skandha, (in the Examination of the Five Skandhas).


Just wondering...
What do you suppose experiences those five skandhas,
or do they manifest as their own experience to themselves
(does form experience itself as form, does contact experience itself as contact, and so on)

--because there is no denying that the experience of the skandhas does occur.
So, what do you think?
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:13 pm

Aemilius
Thanks! If we take for example the passage that You quoted about the five skandh am quite sure that in the sutra itself there is no difference when it says th he turns away his mind from those states, it is quite certainly same thing saying that he turns away his consciousness from those states.

Okay lets remove the other 4 skandhas and only focus on the one skhandha "consciousness"
From that quote we see "consciousness" is a state of impermenance and suffering and should be turned away from.

Now it then states:"He turns his mind away from these states. Having turned his mind away from thes states, he directs his mind to the deathfree element, thus:"

Mind and consciousness cannot mean the same thing in this quote, he turned his mind AWAY from the state of consciousness.

If they were the same thing it would be saying the consciousness that I turned away from I used to turn away from the consciousness I was supposed to turn away from....

There is no mind behind the five skandhas!!! The whole phenomenal world is include the Five Skandhas. Vasubandhu emphasizes that the alaya-consciousness included in the Fifth Skandha, (in the Examination of the Five Skandhas). Making that difference in translation creates only errors, I think.


There is a mind behind the phenomenal world which is included in the five skandhas,I actually already quoted this up above.
the consciousness beyond feature is beyond the the phenomenal world of the "all"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html "'Having directly known the all as the all,[8] and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.' "'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.' "'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:56 pm

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
- Padmasambhava
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Aemilius » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:35 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote: There is no mind behind the five skandhas!!! The whole phenomenal world is included in the Five Skandhas. Vasubandhu emphasizes that the alaya-consciousness is included in the Fifth Skandha, (in the Examination of the Five Skandhas).


Just wondering...
What do you suppose experiences those five skandhas,
or do they manifest as their own experience to themselves
(does form experience itself as form, does contact experience itself as contact, and so on)

--because there is no denying that the experience of the skandhas does occur.
So, what do you think?
.
.
.


Five skandhas are a conceptual frame work in your mind. This conceptual structure helps you in understanding what is taking place when you perceive a thing through the senses. Five skandhas are a description of the process of perception and experiencing.
When you think about the five skandhas, they are a mental object of your mental consciousness.
You can also be mindful of your skandhas, which is an other thing.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Aemilius » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:52 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
Aemilius
Thanks! If we take for example the passage that You quoted about the five skandh am quite sure that in the sutra itself there is no difference when it says th he turns away his mind from those states, it is quite certainly same thing saying that he turns away his consciousness from those states.

Okay lets remove the other 4 skandhas and only focus on the one skhandha "consciousness"
From that quote we see "consciousness" is a state of impermenance and suffering and should be turned away from.

Now it then states:"He turns his mind away from these states. Having turned his mind away from thes states, he directs his mind to the deathfree element, thus:"


Turning away is a mental event of volition, i.e. the fourth skandha. What is aware of turning away is consciousness (or mind, a synonym for consciousness).
It is similar to grasping at the skandhas, grasping occurs in the fourth skandha. It is not outside of the skandhas. (This has been explained by Bhikkhu Bodhi ( & Buddha Gautama in Majjhima Nikaya)).
I don't think consciousness in itself is suffering. Feelings are painful, pleasurable or neutral, but consciousness is not.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby odysseus » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:01 pm

Aemilius wrote:I don't think consciousness in itself is suffering. Feelings are painful, pleasurable or neutral, but consciousness is not.


Consciousness tells the brain and nervous system that we suffer. Consciousness is conditioned so it´s part of the suffering too. What if you lose consciousness (faint), then you are having a painful experience.
Buddhism is easy, you just need knowledge and training.
-- odysseus
User avatar
odysseus
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby daverupa » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:50 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:I haven't read this yet, but maybe it's relevant:
“Citta, Mano, Vinnana—A Psychosemantic Investigation” by Rune E. A. Johansson
http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citta_mano_vinnana_a-psychosemantic-investigation_ucr_1965_johansson.pdf


Very relevant; it's the one I forgot about when linking the other two works, above. Canvassing early usage of these terms altogether clarifies the issue, I think.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Son of Buddha » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:06 am

Aemilius wrote:Turning away is a mental event of volition, i.e. the fourth skandha. What is aware of turning away is consciousness (or mind, a synonym for consciousness).

The Buddha continues:
"He turns his mind away from these states. Having turned his mind away from these states,"
the Buddha turned his mind away from the states of "conciousness" there is actually a clear seperation of the two in this Sutta
many other Suttas also say the Buddha has a mind.
It is similar to grasping at the skandhas, grasping occurs in the fourth skandha. It is not outside of the skandhas. (This has been explained by Bhikkhu Bodhi ( & Buddha Gautama in Majjhima Nikaya)).

actually the Buddha stated http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'


"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]

so it is outside of such phenomena

Citta: That underlying essence of mind which manifests as
feeling, memory, thought and consciousness. In its pure
state it is undefinable and beyond samsara. Also –
the heart. Citta has often been translated as the “mind”
or the “mental factors”, because it is said that the
four khandhas of vedanà, sannà, sankhàra and vinnàna
are the citta. Although this is true, it must be realised,
that these are by way of being “modifications of the
citta”. The citta in its true unmodified state is beyond
the khandhas and it has no “signs” by which it may
be known in the sensory universe.

Ajahn Chah:

***

"As he sat mindfully listening to the Buddha's discourse, Buddha-nature arose in him."

"When the mind is Dhamma, it stops. It has attained peace. There's no longer a need to do anything special, because the mind is Dhamma already. The outside is Dhamma, the inside is Dhamma. The 'one who knows' is Dhamma. The state is Dhamma and that which knows the state is Dhamma. It is one. It is free.

This nature is not born, it does not age nor sicken. This nature does not die."

1. Not-Self (anatta) does not apply to the true nature of the citta:

"BEING INTRINSICALLY BRIGHT AND CLEAR, the citta is always ready to make contact with everything of every nature. Although all conditioned phenomena without exception are governed by the three universal laws of anicca, dukkha, and anattã, the citta’s true nature is not subject to these laws... the true power of the citta’s own nature is that it knows and does not die. This deathlessness is a quality that lies beyond disintegration. Being beyond disintegration, it also lies beyond the range of anicca, dukkha, and anattã and the universal laws of nature."

http://www.forestdhammabooks.com/book/3 ... amagga.pdf at the top of p. 99.
I don't think consciousness in itself is suffering. Feelings are painful, pleasurable or neutral, but consciousness is not.

the suttas say consciousness is suffering.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Aemilius » Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:42 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
I don't think consciousness in itself is suffering. Feelings are painful, pleasurable or neutral, but consciousness is not.

the suttas say consciousness is suffering.


It leads to incoherence if we take the skandhas separately and say that they are suffering each. In the Diamond Sutra Tathagata says that He also calls the sands of the River Ganges "sand".
If the Tathagata perceives sand, which is an example of the first skandha material form (rupa), He should have suffering according to You.
Tathagata has in the case of perceiving sand the other skandhas too, the skandha of feeling through eyes and other senses, the name "sand", consciousness of it as sand, and the mental factor of equanimity as samskara skandha.
It is not common sense to say that matter in itself is suffering. Are carbon and oxygen suffering? How?
Matter or form is empty of inherent nature. It is not suffering in itself.
Similarly with the other skandhas, they are empty of inherent nature, they are not inherently suffering.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:08 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
I don't think consciousness in itself is suffering. Feelings are painful, pleasurable or neutral, but consciousness is not.

the suttas say consciousness is suffering.


It leads to incoherence if we take the skandhas separately and say that they are suffering each. In the Diamond Sutra Tathagata says that He also calls the sands of the River Ganges "sand".

so the Buddha taught incoherence when he said Consciousness is suffering?
http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta ... .196.1.htm
At Savatthi. While once seated, the Venerable Radha asked the Blessed One:

Venerable Sir, one says: Suffering!! What, Venerable Sir, is suffering?

Form, Radha, is suffering, feeling is suffering, perception is suffering, mental constructions are suffering, consciousness is suffering...!!!
Understanding this, Bhikkhus, a well instructed Noble Disciple experiences disgust towards form, disgust towards feeling, disgust towards perception, disgust towards mental construction, & disgust towards consciousness itself! Experiencing disgust, he becomes disillusioned! Through disillusion his mind is released. When it is released, one instantly knows: This mind is liberated, and one understands: Extinguished is birth, this Noble Life is all completed, done is what should be done, there is no state of being beyond this...

If the Tathagata perceives sand, which is an example of the first skandha material form (rupa), He should have suffering according to You.

its not according to me,the Buddha said the 5 skandhas is suffering(quote provided up above)
Tathagata has in the case of perceiving sand the other skandhas too, the skandha of feeling through eyes and other senses, the name "sand", consciousness of it as sand, and the mental factor of equanimity as samskara skandha.

so seeing through the phisical eyes is a skandha would you consider "seeing" images in the mind to be a skandha?
feeling and form is a skhandha would you consider "feeling and form inside your mind to be a phisical skhadha?
the Buddha need not to precieve anything for everything is already known
but all such things are well beyond my knowledge I can only quote what is taught in the texts themselves

check out chapter 5 of the Nirvana Sutra.
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/nirvanasutrab3.htm
He is not round and not square. He is no skandha, sphere or realm, and yet he is the skandha, sphere, and realm. He is non-increasing and is not a lessening. He is no victor, and yet is one not vanquished. The body of the Tathagata is perfect in such innumerable virtues. There is none that he knows, none not known. There is none that is seen and none that is not seen. It is not that there is any creating and not that there is no creating. It is non-world and is not non-world. He does not do and is not non-doing. He is none to depend upon and is not none to depend upon. He is not the four great elements, nor is he not the four great elements.

The Buddha-Dharma is incalculable and hard to fathom The same is also the case with the Tathagata. He is beyond knowing." Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! It is so, it is so. It is as you, the Holy One, say. Unbounded and incomprehensible is Buddha-Dharma. Thus, too, is the Tathagata. All stands beyond comprehension; so too the Tathagata. Thus, I know now that the Tathagata is eternal and indestructible and that there is no change with him. I shall now study well and expound it widely to people."
Then the Buddha praised Bodhisattva Kasyapa and said: "Well said, well said! The body of the Tathagata is adamantine and indestructible. You, Bodhisattva, now have the right view and right understanding. If you see clearly thus, you will see the adamantine and indestructible body of the Tathagata just as you see things reflected in a mirror."


the 5 skandhas are based upon Samsara/ignorance they are derived from ignorance through the 12 links of dependent origination and are the reason for the great mass of suffering
read this short sutta... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

It is not common sense to say that matter in itself is suffering. Are carbon and oxygen suffering? How?
Matter or form is empty of inherent nature. It is not suffering in itself.
Similarly with the other skandhas, they are empty of inherent nature, they are not inherently suffering.

its is a byproduct of the process from which all suffering is derived.
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.

personally I don't like using the term Mind in relation to Nibbana due to there needing to be a seperation between the terms mind and consciousness, I perfer using the term Pristen Wisdom or noumenon however the topic is "difference between consciousness and the mind" so my posts are simply to show how mind can be considered different to consciousness and what teachers teach this and how they come to such conclusions. also this is actually the most common held view in the Thervadan thai forest tradition, so if you or anyone what to know more about this view you can actually get a large amount of info on this topic by looking up TFT teachers and discussions.
peace and love to you
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Postby odysseus » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:10 pm

If consciousness is an aggregate it ceases at death. Then what will exist after death if not the mind? Therefore, consciousness and mind are not the same if the mind is uncreated and consciousness is conditioned.
Buddhism is easy, you just need knowledge and training.
-- odysseus
User avatar
odysseus
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lisehull and 16 guests

>