General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
The aggregates don’t know anything.
It is the mind that knows stuff.
Most of the aggregates are mind, dude. The "mind" proper is the 5th aggregate.
It's the consciousness (5th aggregate) that knows.
Actually, the cognizing and labeling happens in the perception (3rd aggregate).
LastLegend wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:37 pm
Honestly I get confused yo. I am resorting to this: what part of aggregates that knows a table from a chair?
This would be the 3rd aggregate that can tell the difference between a table and a chair.
So do the aggregates tell the difference between things or is it part of a deluded consciousness that they maintain in your mind, that swings as it clings? As the aggregates pertain to clinging. I don’t think the aggregates tell the difference between things in wisdom, or in a form of Upaya, instead they cling, it isn’t part of the Buddha mind. And if one reaches Enlightenment it is the full Buddha-Nature that does have wisdom that can tell the difference between a table and a chair, and we all have Buddha-Nature we can use without clinging. Namaste. The question would be what is the difference between one’s Buddha-Natured mind before and after Enlightenment, in how it acts, as Enlightenment is what we are seeking.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
Last edited by Budai on Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:23 am
I was just saying that we know very little from first hand experience, but you guys insisted and were certain.
If you aren't experiencing the aggregates, what are you experiencing?
LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:23 am
I was just saying that we know very little from first hand experience, but you guys insisted and were certain.
If you aren't experiencing the aggregates, what are you experiencing?
Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:25 am
So do the aggregates tell the difference between things or is it part of a deluded consciousness that they maintain in your mind, that swings as it clings? As the aggregates pertain to clinging. I don’t think the aggregates tell the difference between things in wisdom, or in a form of Upaya, instead they cling, it isn’t part of the Buddha mind. And if one reaches Enlightenment it is the full Buddha-Nature that does have wisdom that can tell the difference between a table and a chair, and we all have Buddha-Nature we can use without clinging. Namaste. The question would be what is the difference between one’s Buddha-Natured mind before and after Enlightenment, in how it acts, as Enlightenment is what we are seeking.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
I think the difference is once empty nature is totally experienced without a knower, then aggregates can no longer confuse us. The state of original consciousness is that it simply knows. Karma and grasping starts with intent.
Also in the state of original consciousness...is where we’ll be when empty nature is totally experienced (Great Samadhi). In the same state, there is empty nature that can be recognized. There is a very fine line to Great Samadhi at this state of original consciousness. We also practice at this state of original consciousness through meditation or whatever.
Last edited by LastLegend on Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:25 am
So do the aggregates tell the difference between things or is it part of a deluded consciousness that they maintain in your mind, that swings as it clings? As the aggregates pertain to clinging. I don’t think the aggregates tell the difference between things in wisdom, or in a form of Upaya, instead they cling, it isn’t part of the Buddha mind. And if one reaches Enlightenment it is the full Buddha-Nature that does have wisdom that can tell the difference between a table and a chair, and we all have Buddha-Nature we can use without clinging. Namaste. The question would be what is the difference between one’s Buddha-Natured mind before and after Enlightenment, in how it acts, as Enlightenment is what we are seeking.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
I think the difference is once empty nature is totally experienced without a knower, then aggregates can no longer confuse us. The state of original consciousness is that it simply knows. Karma and grasping starts with intent.
So in the knowing, in the thinking, and in the experiencing, without a knower, is there a Source of that Emptiness?
LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:23 am
I was just saying that we know very little from first hand experience, but you guys insisted and were certain.
If you aren't experiencing the aggregates, what are you experiencing?
Ever heard of “I don’t know?”
Well... we're experiencing the aggregates. That's all there is, really... Now you know.
Buddha nature probably wouldn't be considered part of our aggregates... Then again, buddhas' aggregates are pure and ours are defiled.
LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:56 am
I think the difference is once empty nature is totally experienced without a knower, then aggregates can no longer confuse us. The state of original consciousness is that it simply knows. Karma and grasping starts with intent.
Actually, karma and grasping all start with ignorance... ie. "not knowing."
There must be a difference between the enlightened not knowing of zen and the not knowing of ignorance... I guess you're talking about the enlightened not knowing?
Or perhaps it's just a zen technique. Not wanting to "know" things because thinking clouds the mind.
Can you explain more about the Buddha having aggregates? And where I can learn about this subject from a Sutra or explanation given by any Teacher you have encountered?
SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:18 am
Buddha nature probably wouldn't be considered part of our aggregates...
Don’t say that...it’s forbidden here.
Actually, karma and grasping all start with ignorance... ie. "not knowing."
Not aware that’s right. But when you try to grasp something mentally there is intent.
There must be a difference between the enlightened not knowing of zen and the not knowing of ignorance... I guess you're talking about the enlightened not knowing?
Never heard of that.
Or perhaps it's just a zen technique. Not wanting to "know" things because thinking clouds the mind.
It looks like some Zen masters talk that. I never really understand ‘I don’t know.’
SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:18 am
Buddha nature probably wouldn't be considered part of our aggregates...
Don’t say that...it’s forbidden here.
Actually, karma and grasping all start with ignorance... ie. "not knowing."
Not aware that’s right. But when you try to grasp something mentally there is intent.
There must be a difference between the enlightened not knowing of zen and the not knowing of ignorance... I guess you're talking about the enlightened not knowing?
Never heard of that.
Or perhaps it's just a zen technique. Not wanting to "know" things because thinking clouds the mind.
It looks like some Zen masters talk that. I never really understand ‘I don’t know.’
SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:01 am
And if we're aware of grasping?
That’s being aware.
Grasping often happens even when we're aware...
That’s because we want to do so or karma of others’ grasping Dharma draws us in.
Anyway... simple awareness isn't what cuts through our subtle grasping to reality.
Grasping is when we try to construct or ‘get’ something. Simply aware usually doesn’t arise intent because it’s in a calm state. Over time there is samadhi and then enter Great Samadhi. My teacher said so.
SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:01 am
And if we're aware of grasping?
That’s being aware.
Grasping often happens even when we're aware...
That’s because we want to do so or karma of others’ grasping Dharma draws us in.
Anyway... simple awareness isn't what cuts through our subtle grasping to reality.
Grasping is when we try to construct or ‘get’ something. Simply aware usually doesn’t arise intent because it’s in a calm state. Over time there is samadhi and then enter Great Samadhi. My teacher said so.
My point is that one can have ignorant awareness or wisdom awareness. Only wisdom cuts through ignorance and grasping.
SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:01 am
And if we're aware of grasping?
That’s being aware.
Grasping often happens even when we're aware...
That’s because we want to do so or karma of others’ grasping Dharma draws us in.
Anyway... simple awareness isn't what cuts through our subtle grasping to reality.
Grasping is when we try to construct or ‘get’ something. Simply aware usually doesn’t arise intent because it’s in a calm state. Over time there is samadhi and then enter Great Samadhi. My teacher said so.
My point is that one can have ignorant awareness or wisdom awareness. Only wisdom cuts through ignorance and grasping.
I have a question, in looking at the aggregates, how is that not a false sense of self? Are you not clinging to a certain type of grammar to pretend it’s not?
LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:33 am
It’s hard to pinpoint ignorance exactly if we are talking about aggregates...but whatever that’s constructing self lurking in the background.
Agreed
Ignorance is what mistakes the aggregates for self. It's notoriously elusive... but we have to find it!
Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:49 am
I have a question, in looking at the aggregates, how is that not a false sense of self? Are you not clinging to a certain type of grammar to pretend it’s not?
One can look while clinging to a sense of "me" or one can look without clinging to a sense of "me."
Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:25 am
So do the aggregates tell the difference between things or is it part of a deluded consciousness that they maintain in your mind, that swings as it clings? As the aggregates pertain to clinging. I don’t think the aggregates tell the difference between things in wisdom, or in a form of Upaya, instead they cling, it isn’t part of the Buddha mind. And if one reaches Enlightenment it is the full Buddha-Nature that does have wisdom that can tell the difference between a table and a chair, and we all have Buddha-Nature we can use without clinging. Namaste. The question would be what is the difference between one’s Buddha-Natured mind before and after Enlightenment, in how it acts, as Enlightenment is what we are seeking.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
I think the difference is once empty nature is totally experienced without a knower, then aggregates can no longer confuse us. The state of original consciousness is that it simply knows. Karma and grasping starts with intent.
So in the knowing, in the thinking, and in the experiencing, without a knower, is there a Source of that Emptiness?
Emptiness has no source... that's why it's called emptiness. Wanting to attribute a source is maybe a habit from a theistic view. But really, emptiness has no source. It is un-created... There's nothing that caused emptiness to come into being. Even thinking that it has come into being or that it exists is an incorrect view.
Last edited by SilenceMonkey on Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:16 am, edited 2 times in total.