Making sense of types of thought

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.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:52 am …you stated that buddha nature was a quality that beings can realise. If it is not an already existent quality…
There is the problem, in that snippet of a quote.

You are regarding an inherent quality and something to be realized as two mutually exclusive things. They aren’t.

There are a few Buddhist parables which illustrate this. One is of a poor person who doesn’t realize there is a valuable jewel sewn into the pocket of his coat. He goes for years barely having enough to get by on. Then, one day someone points out the lump in his coat. He rips the seam and discovers that the whole time he was quite wealthy.

The point is, all beings have the potential to realize the inherent quality (Buddha-mind)
that they already possess, but don’t yet realize. That’s why realization is something you attain, and not obtain.

We are all Buddhas, ultimately. But, because of our obscurations, we just don’t realize it.
As I mentioned previously, the big question is how can Buddha-mind be obscured by anything and still be called tathagatagharba? But again, it isn’t obscured from its side. Your enlightened mind is always functioning. You wouldn’t be on the Buddhist path if your Buddha-mind wasn’t functioning. But that’s a unique quality of beings on the human realm. It’s just the same as the Sun always shining whether we are in the shadows or not.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:02 pm
LastLegend wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:56 pmWhen someone refers to Buddha nature as a concept, there are two possible situations: 1) they don’t believe in Buddha nature and haven’t recognized it 2) If Buddha nature is a concept, what isn’t a concept? Everything else is a concept. Are aggregates concepts too? Because they still have a name. Now if you want to blow everything out of the pool why leave anything in it? If everything isn’t real so is grasping, then the question is if everything is blown out of the pool how is mind at this point? Is it not empty.
Can you specify what buddha nature is in beings (five aggregates)? If not, what else is it but a mere fabrication, a simple expression?
When you finely see that which sees or knows, and realize it’s not anything either. Yet it’s functions it knows, quite clearly it knows that means you are touching pure consciousness.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by LastLegend »

Supposedly we talk about a subject versus object, we can examine what is that subject? How does it know? The best time to do that is when you are calm with not much thoughts going on.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:10 pmYou are regarding an inherent quality and something to be realized as two mutually exclusive things.
Not at all. Impermanence is a quality of the aggregates that is not realised by common beings. But when I asked you to tell what quality buddha nature was in beings, you stated it's a potential and as such it couldn't be defined in relation to the five aggregates.
The point is, all beings have the potential to realize the inherent quality (Buddha-mind) that they already possess, but don’t yet realize. That’s why realization is something you attain, and not obtain.
What is that inherent quality in beings that they can potentially attain? For instance, is it emptiness?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:26 pmWhen you finely see that which sees or knows, and realize it’s not anything either. Yet it’s functions it knows, quite clearly it knows that means you are touching pure consciousness.
There is no knower/seer (i.e. self) to be found, but to say that what cannot be found (i.e. does not exist) can nevertheless function is like saying that the daughter of a barren woman is a good singer. Consciousness of any type is a conditioned phenomenon, as noted earlier.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:41 pm
LastLegend wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:26 pmWhen you finely see that which sees or knows, and realize it’s not anything either. Yet it’s functions it knows, quite clearly it knows that means you are touching pure consciousness.
There is no knower/seer (i.e. self) to be found, but to say that what cannot be found (i.e. does not exist) can nevertheless function is like saying that the daughter of a barren woman is a good singer.
Well, actually the I-making habit, the basic knowledge obscuration, has no real existence as a self, but it functions as an agent of karma and a recipient of karma, so there is that, even though the "I" it imputes does not exist at all.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:09 pmWell, actually the I-making habit, the basic knowledge obscuration, has no real existence as a self, but it functions as an agent of karma and a recipient of karma, so there is that, even though the "I" it imputes does not exist at all.
While in some contexts calling self-view the subject of karma may go well, but it is not an imagined self that causes or experiences anything, rather the mistaken view is what defines intention and action and experiences are generated by them.

As this nice stanza from the Visuddhimagga (XIX.20) says it:

'There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.'
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:35 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:10 pmYou are regarding an inherent quality and something to be realized as two mutually exclusive things.
Not at all. Impermanence is a quality of the aggregates that is not realised by common beings. But when I asked you to tell what quality buddha nature was in beings, you stated it's a potential and as such it couldn't be defined in relation to the five aggregates.
The point is, all beings have the potential to realize the inherent quality (Buddha-mind) that they already possess, but don’t yet realize. That’s why realization is something you attain, and not obtain.
What is that inherent quality in beings that they can potentially attain? For instance, is it emptiness?
Buddha nature, the mind’s original unborn state free of craving, is inherent in all beings.
All beings possess the potential to eventually realize it. Another word for potential is possibility.
Due to karma, most beings don’t have the conditions necessary to realize Buddha-nature in this lifetime, even though they have Buddha-nature as their original mind. Only humans experience such auspicious conditions where they can realize what it is they already have.

What is that inherent quality?
If you ask a Theravadin, it’s the possibility of attaining nibbana. If you ask a Mahayana Buddhist, it’s the possibility of becoming a Bodhisattva and/or attaining the omniscient state of buddhahood. A Pure-Land Buddhist will tell you it’s the possibility to be reborn in Sukhavati. It all basically boils down to one way or another becoming free from the cycle of samsara.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:41 pm
LastLegend wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:26 pmWhen you finely see that which sees or knows, and realize it’s not anything either. Yet it’s functions it knows, quite clearly it knows that means you are touching pure consciousness.
There is no knower/seer (i.e. self) to be found, but to say that what cannot be found (i.e. does not exist) can nevertheless function is like saying that the daughter of a barren woman is a good singer. Consciousness of any type is a conditioned phenomenon, as noted earlier.
To say you don’t function is to say you are not sentient basically like a rock.

Being clear means there is no confusion about what arises as thoughts, consciousness, and what appearance arises from consciousness. There is also “to will” part of mind.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:09 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:09 pmWell, actually the I-making habit, the basic knowledge obscuration, has no real existence as a self, but it functions as an agent of karma and a recipient of karma, so there is that, even though the "I" it imputes does not exist at all.
...it is rather the mistaken view is what defines intention and action and experiences are generated by them.
No, it is an imagined, nonexistent self that causes and experiences everything, for example, when a car is in accident, it is the imagined car for which one pays the damages, not the wrong view of the imagined car. But perhaps this is a special point of Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka, unlikely to be found the Visuddhimagga.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:47 pm
Astus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:09 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:09 pmWell, actually the I-making habit, the basic knowledge obscuration, has no real existence as a self, but it functions as an agent of karma and a recipient of karma, so there is that, even though the "I" it imputes does not exist at all.
...it is rather the mistaken view is what defines intention and action and experiences are generated by them.
No, it is an imagined, nonexistent self that causes and experiences everything, for example, when a car is in accident, it is the imagined car for which one pays the damages, not the wrong view of the imagined car. But perhaps this is a special point of Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka, unlikely to be found the Visuddhimagga.
Or, simply, it’s like a dream-self experiencing events in a dream.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:21 pmBuddha nature, the mind’s original unborn state free of craving, is inherent in all beings.
All beings possess the potential to eventually realize it. Another word for potential is possibility.
So, if I understand you correctly, it is 'the mind’s original unborn state free of craving' that you call buddha nature, in other words that the mind is empty and pure.
What is that inherent quality?
If you ask a Theravadin, it’s the possibility of attaining nibbana. If you ask a Mahayana Buddhist, it’s the possibility of becoming a Bodhisattva and/or attaining the omniscient state of buddhahood. A Pure-Land Buddhist will tell you it’s the possibility to be reborn in Sukhavati. It all basically boils down to one way or another becoming free from the cycle of samsara.
But here you say that the inherent quality that can be potentially realised is the possibility of realisation. That seems to disagree with the statement above on original purity, and at the same time makes the strange claim that one can realise that one can realise something, like saying that the qualities of a Dharma teacher is the possibility to know the possibility that one can become a Dharma teacher. That is not saying what a Dharma teacher is like.

Is buddha nature then original purity of the mind that can be realised, or is it a possibility that can be realised? Or do you mean perhaps that the mind is not originally pure, only potentially it can become pure?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:37 pmTo say you don’t function is to say you are not sentient basically like a rock.
However, it matters whether you attribute function to some sort of unconditioned self/mind, or conditional phenomena, because what is unconditioned cannot function.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:47 pmNo, it is an imagined, nonexistent self that causes and experiences everything, for example, when a car is in accident, it is the imagined car for which one pays the damages, not the wrong view of the imagined car. But perhaps this is a special point of Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka, unlikely to be found the Visuddhimagga.
In one manner of speaking it can be said so that it's the self/car that acts or is damaged, but at the same time, any type of self-view is imputed in dependence on the aggregates (according to Candrakirti too: MA 6.150 and 6.162-164), just as a car is imputed in dependence on its parts. And just as if the windshield is broken then saying 'the car is damaged' is talking in general terms, similarly, whatever actions and results occur are the causal events of the aggregates, even if commonly it can be said to be that of a self or being.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Astus wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:57 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:21 pmBuddha nature, the mind’s original unborn state free of craving, is inherent in all beings.
All beings possess the potential to eventually realize it. Another word for potential is possibility.
So, if I understand you correctly, it is 'the mind’s original unborn state free of craving' that you call buddha nature, in other words that the mind is empty and pure.
What is that inherent quality?
If you ask a Theravadin, it’s the possibility of attaining nibbana. If you ask a Mahayana Buddhist, it’s the possibility of becoming a Bodhisattva and/or attaining the omniscient state of buddhahood. A Pure-Land Buddhist will tell you it’s the possibility to be reborn in Sukhavati. It all basically boils down to one way or another becoming free from the cycle of samsara.
But here you say that the inherent quality that can be potentially realised is the possibility of realisation. That seems to disagree with the statement above on original purity, and at the same time makes the strange claim that one can realise that one can realise something, like saying that the qualities of a Dharma teacher is the possibility to know the possibility that one can become a Dharma teacher. That is not saying what a Dharma teacher is like.

Is buddha nature then original purity of the mind that can be realised, or is it a possibility that can be realised? Or do you mean perhaps that the mind is not originally pure, only potentially it can become pure?
The first part, yes, you understood what I said correctly.
The second part, you understood what I said incorrectly.

Buddha-nature is what all beings possess.
They also possess the potential to realize that Buddha nature.
For most beings, although they possess the potential to realize their Buddha-mind, their karmic circumstances make it difficult or impossible in this lifetime.

I don’t know how to explain it any simpler than that.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:00 pm
LastLegend wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:37 pmTo say you don’t function is to say you are not sentient basically like a rock.
However, it matters whether you attribute function to some sort of unconditioned self/mind, or conditional phenomena, because what is unconditioned cannot function.
Unconditioned is referring to because of conditioned. You know one thing because of other by comparison. So then what arising is known because non-arising is known.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:57 am
So, if I understand you correctly, it is 'the mind’s original unborn state free of craving' that you call buddha nature, in other words that the mind is empty and pure.
It’s spoken as unborn state for clarity purpose. Yes, it’s the state of enlightened beings but they have gone beyond arising to the real unborn. When referring to it as unborn, it hard to avoid it becoming an mental object of grasping. There isn’t a short cut you can play with Nagarjuna to decrease grasping doesn’t mean it go away. One would need to practice Samadhi.
Last edited by LastLegend on Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by Astus »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:20 pmBuddha-nature is what all beings possess.
They also possess the potential to realize that Buddha nature.
Labelling the emptiness of the aggregates buddha nature can be inspirational (as it's supposed to be according to RGV 1.166), but other than that it literally does not stand for anything, so how could it be more than a concept?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Astus wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:04 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:20 pmBuddha-nature is what all beings possess.
They also possess the potential to realize that Buddha nature.
Labelling the emptiness of the aggregates buddha nature can be inspirational (as it's supposed to be according to RGV 1.166), but other than that it literally does not stand for anything, so how could it be more than a concept?
I don’t know who labels the emptiness of the aggregates Buddha-nature. Maybe you are mixing a bunch of different stuff together.

Perhaps it will be useful to look up
Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Making sense of types of thought

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Astus wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:04 pm how could it be more than a concept?
There are lots of things we possess that until recently we had no concept of.
If a person has never seen a bicycle, they have no concept of a bicycle. Yet they may possess within them the inherent capability to ride a bicycle: they can pedal, they can balance, they can steer. When the conditions are such that they have access to a bicycle, yes, then they have the concept of riding a bike, and they can realize what they already possessed (the ability to ride a bike).

It’s the same thing with Buddha nature.

There are lots of things in the universe that exist which we have no concept of.
The way we know that is true is because we keep discovering new things that we didn’t know about before, that we had no concept of at all.

Sentient beings possess Buddha nature even if they have no concept of it (and most don’t).

You are confusing things with concepts of things.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”