Awareness and mind

[Hazel]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

[reiun]

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 00#p578300

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is really a can of worms, especially if you practice in Tibetan traditions, the naming conventions get very subtle.

A Dzogchen thread from a few years back:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=32257

Berzin's stuff, pretty detailed:

https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... al-factors

[Hazel]

This is really a can of worms, especially if you practice in Tibetan traditions, the naming conventions get very subtle.

Okay, you're probably right. Should I ask the thread be locked? Maybe it's a big enough can of worms people will just roll their eyes and ignore it.

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is really a can of worms, especially if you practice in Tibetan traditions, the naming conventions get very subtle.

Okay, you're probably right. Should I ask the thread be locked? Maybe it's a big enough can of worms people will just roll their eyes and ignore it.

No no, It's a great topic, just a big one with a bunch of different explanations.

[PadmaVonSamba]

‘Awareness’ and ‘mind’ are two words with a hundred definitions.

Generally, awareness is the action of the mind, one way or another. Awareness can refer to perception, instinct, the sensation of a foreign object, taxis (in biology, not the cab type) or any way of detecting an object (hence, an object of awareness).

‘Mind’ can refer to awakened mind, confused mind, etc.

It would be easy to suggest that in a way, mind is the noun and awareness is the verb. In other words, awareness is the action of the mind.

But I once had a dog for whom the word “ball” meant both the object and the activity of me throwing the object for him to retrieve. I suspect there is a fuzzy area within some context where likewise, mind and awareness mean basically the same thing.



You might like this article:
https://www.lionsroar.com/abhidhamma-dissects-the-mind/

[Riju]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

Mind and awareness cannot co-exist.
Mind seems to disappear when awareness comes.
In fact mind cultivates or it gets stored in potential form
or in a different language mind force gets converted into stored POWER.

[Natan]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

In one sense they are synonyms, equally products of interdependent projections. In Vajrayana parlance, mind comes to be shorthand for nature of mind. Or awareness comes to be shorthand for primordial awareness. Both of these represent nonaffliction. Or in some cases a distinction is made between mind as the afflicted projection and awareness as the nonafflicted transcendence pointed out by a lama.

Só you have to get specific about the lineage from which you got these terms.

[Hazel]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

In one sense they are synonyms, equally products of interdependent projections. In Vajrayana parlance, mind comes to be shorthand for nature of mind. Or awareness comes to be shorthand for primordial awareness. Both of these represent nonaffliction. Or in some cases a distinction is made between mind as the afflicted projection and awareness as the nonafflicted transcendence pointed out by a lama.

Só you have to get specific about the lineage from which you got these terms.

Gelug.

All of these posts lead me to believe that I am perhaps asking the wrong question in my naivety. I don't think there's a shared vocabulary in what I mean by awareness and I certainly don't know what mind is.

I will try to describe what I was trying to make sense of without using the word awareness. There's actually something different I'm trying to figure out.

I notice I recognize things. That things arise. They appear like in a mirror. That's what I was calling awareness. And there's also something I notice that feels like a "me" experiencing something - I have no idea what to call that. And finally, I have shaky understanding of what "mind" means in Buddhism and so I'm trying to figure out how the other two things fits into the larger picture.

I began noticing the experience of "me experiencing" things (if that's even what it is) and now I can tune into it. Is that the grasping at an inherent self?

I'm feeling real dumb right now as I'm sure I'm totally butchering describing these things. Which is why I'm trying to learn the anatomy of mind. I may be expecting to learn things in 5 minutes that takes a lifetime, though.

[Matt J]

I'm feeling real dumb right now as I'm sure I'm totally butchering describing these things. Which is why I'm trying to learn the anatomy of mind. I may be expecting to learn things in 5 minutes that takes a lifetime, though.

Don’t feel dumb, these are great questions. You will eventually find your answer through the practice and working with your teachers. It sounds like you’re on the right track. Our definitions often start out clumsy and quite reified, and over time require quite a bit of refining. So I would suggest holding concepts loosely and be open to modifying them.

HHDL has an excellent description of kind in his Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra. I’ll see if I can find the excerpt.

[Johnny Dangerous]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

In one sense they are synonyms, equally products of interdependent projections. In Vajrayana parlance, mind comes to be shorthand for nature of mind. Or awareness comes to be shorthand for primordial awareness. Both of these represent nonaffliction. Or in some cases a distinction is made between mind as the afflicted projection and awareness as the nonafflicted transcendence pointed out by a lama.

Só you have to get specific about the lineage from which you got these terms.

Gelug.

All of these posts lead me to believe that I am perhaps asking the wrong question in my naivety. I don't think there's a shared vocabulary in what I mean by awareness and I certainly don't know what mind is.

I will try to describe what I was trying to make sense of without using the word awareness. There's actually something different I'm trying to figure out.

I notice I recognize things. That things arise. They appear like in a mirror. That's what I was calling awareness. And there's also something I notice that feels like a "me" experiencing something - I have no idea what to call that. And finally, I have shaky understanding of what "mind" means in Buddhism and so I'm trying to figure out how the other two things fits into the larger picture.

I began noticing the experience of "me experiencing" things (if that's even what it is) and now I can tune into it. Is that the grasping at an inherent self?

I'm feeling real dumb right now as I'm sure I'm totally butchering describing these things. Which is why I'm trying to learn the anatomy of mind. I may be expecting to learn things in 5 minutes that takes a lifetime, though.

The best explanation I've gotten of what I think you are talking about is distinguishing between Rigpa and the Alaya consciousness, there are a bunch of different ways to approach it, you could for instance look at this, which approaches it from a meditation standpoint ala Dzogchen: https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-ma ... ipham-lamp

The basic gist is that the resting in the Alaya is still dualistic, it still recognizes a subject and object. So it's less "clinging to self" and more just where you're at, and where a lot of us are at. Most people can't just break through to non dual awareness and hang out there 24/7. The experience of noticing a apparent self that...experiences things "outside" of itself is pretty normal. On a personal level, I might suggest asking your teacher for some meditations on this self-image, or simply looking at who is experiencing yourself. That's a pretty universal practice in Tibetan Buddhism, in my experience.

Not trying to throw too much at you, but I know you are practicing in Tibetan traditions, so you will eventually run into this in one form or another. I had this exact same question and the previous document really helped me. I have seen this instruction outside of Dzogchen too, for instance I have read HHDL recommending it simply as a way to alleviate suffering - examine who is suffering in meditation. It seems simple, but it's actually a very pivotal technique. The "on paper" explanations I read about this question really were hard to follow for me, but the meditation instructions gave me some small understanding of the difference, YMMV.

[Natan]

What is the relationship between awareness and mind?

Realizing I don't have a good understanding of mind and am trying to figure out how awareness fits into the picture.

In one sense they are synonyms, equally products of interdependent projections. In Vajrayana parlance, mind comes to be shorthand for nature of mind. Or awareness comes to be shorthand for primordial awareness. Both of these represent nonaffliction. Or in some cases a distinction is made between mind as the afflicted projection and awareness as the nonafflicted transcendence pointed out by a lama.

Só you have to get specific about the lineage from which you got these terms.

Gelug.

All of these posts lead me to believe that I am perhaps asking the wrong question in my naivety. I don't think there's a shared vocabulary in what I mean by awareness and I certainly don't know what mind is.

I will try to describe what I was trying to make sense of without using the word awareness. There's actually something different I'm trying to figure out.

I notice I recognize things. That things arise. They appear like in a mirror. That's what I was calling awareness. And there's also something I notice that feels like a "me" experiencing something - I have no idea what to call that. And finally, I have shaky understanding of what "mind" means in Buddhism and so I'm trying to figure out how the other two things fits into the larger picture.

I began noticing the experience of "me experiencing" things (if that's even what it is) and now I can tune into it. Is that the grasping at an inherent self?

I'm feeling real dumb right now as I'm sure I'm totally butchering describing these things. Which is why I'm trying to learn the anatomy of mind. I may be expecting to learn things in 5 minutes that takes a lifetime, though.

If you can just relect like mirror without thinking it's good. The "me" is a deeper projection. Refect without reference.

[Volan]

From the point of view of the path we have samahita (meditative equipoise; mnyam bzhag) - specific meditative state, in which all prapanca (spros ba) are gone. Prasangikas divide the prapanca into two types: 1) shang yul and snang gzhi 2) gnyis snang

The true awarness is only possible when these two types of prapanca are cut off during the samahita. In that state the mind, which is aware of the ultimate, is called samahitajnana (mnyam gzhag ye shes).

On the path of linkage (prayogamarga; sbyor lam) there is an anulomasamahita (rjes mthun gyi mnyam gzhag), which comes from the union of shamatha and vipashyana. In that state there is only some limited experience of the absence of prapanca - this is an "approximate" samahita.

Having arisen from the meditative equipoise, comes postmeditation phase (prstalabdhajnana; rjes thob ye shes) and this type of mind is experiencing all the relative (samvritti) objects - five types of knowable (jneya). During the samahita the mind doesn`t experiences any of this relative objects: forms, mind, mental states...

From this Prasangika presentation you can understand the two basic types of mind (mundane and transcendent) and what they are aware of (jneya and dharmadhatu).

[SilenceMonkey]

You might like Master Sheng Yen's books "The Method of No Method" and "Illuminating Silence." What you described about things reflecting like a mirror and the sense of "me" sounds like how I learned what awareness and self-grasping are in the Chinese Ch'an tradition. Sounds to me like Silent Illumination method.

[Lingpupa]

From the point of view of the path we have samahita (meditative equipoise; mnyam bzhag) - specific meditative state, in which all prapanca (spros ba) are gone. Prasangikas divide the prapanca into two types: 1) shang yul and snang gzhi 2) gnyis snang

The true awarness is only possible when these two types of prapanca are cut off during the samahita. In that state the mind, which is aware of the ultimate, is called samahitajnana (mnyam gzhag ye shes).

On the path of linkage (prayogamarga; sbyor lam) there is an anulomasamahita (rjes mthun gyi mnyam gzhag), which comes from the union of shamatha and vipashyana. In that state there is only some limited experience of the absence of prapanca - this is an "approximate" samahita.

Having arisen from the meditative equipoise, comes postmeditation phase (prstalabdhajnana; rjes thob ye shes) and this type of mind is experiencing all the relative (samvritti) objects - five types of knowable (jneya). During the samahita the mind doesn`t experiences any of this relative objects: forms, mind, mental states...

From this Prasangika presentation you can understand the two basic types of mind (mundane and transcendent) and what they are aware of (jneya and dharmadhatu).

With all due respect, you are inviting TLDR from those who are not heavily into the technical side of things.

[Sādhaka]

Well if what Volan wrote above is factually-correct according to the said tenet-system set forth; then—even if it is not indispensable—I’d say that the few paragraphs written are not “tldr”, and are actually useful.

[Lingpupa]

Well if what Volan wrote above is factually-correct according to the said tenet-system set forth; then—even if it is not indispensable—I’d say that the few paragraphs written are not “tldr”, and are actually useful.

Well an alternative reading to TL;DR would be that it was too short. There are perhaps 20 technical terms that would be unfamiliar to most people (Hazel, after all, says that she is pretty much a beginner) in the post. Each could, I submit, happily benefit from a paragraph, page, or chapter of explanation.

Then the proponents of other systems of nomenclature could come in and disagree - what fun!

[Volan]

I have mixed the general presentation of Prasangika (two truths, two minds, equipoise and the postmeditation phase) with the general explanation of meditative states according to the Gelugpa school. The latter is from a modern scholar’s book, who relies upon Gendün Tenpa Dargye, 1493-1568, the author of the majority of textbooks that are studied in the Sera monastery. This explanation of meditative states is interesting because it sheds some light on samahita according to the Prasangika system. Trying to be as concise and unelaborate as possible.

Only wanted to correct shang yul - snang yul.

[Volan]

Well if what Volan wrote above is factually-correct according to the said tenet-system set forth; then—even if it is not indispensable—I’d say that the few paragraphs written are not “tldr”, and are actually useful.

Well an alternative reading to TL;DR would be that it was too short. There are perhaps 20 technical terms that would be unfamiliar to most people (Hazel, after all, says that she is pretty much a beginner) in the post. Each could, I submit, happily benefit from a paragraph, page, or chapter of explanation.

Then the proponents of other systems of nomenclature could come in and disagree - what fun!

They won't - all Tibetan schools study the siddhanta -four philosophical schools. This Prasangika presentation doesn't go anywhere from the mainstream presentation:
Madhyamaka of the basis - two truths - two minds
Madhyamaka of the path - meditative equipoise and postmeditation.

While the detailed presentation of samahita at the present moment is unavailable in English, as far as i know.

And actually this is a beginners level - beginners start from the four tenet systems, from which they get all this stuff.

[SilenceMonkey]

Geluks make everything way too complicated. And translation into English brings more layers of unnecessary complication. And then trying to discuss what they're talking about with people outside the system is just a headache for everyone.