Awareness and mind

[Lingpupa]

Fun speculations, though, for those with that mind set. As long as we don't get bogged down in the intellectual clinging of thinking that such words have universally fixed meanings, definitions and equivalences. I KNOW!!! But it happens, even to us Buddhists!!!

[Johnny Dangerous]

Fun speculations, though, for those with that mind set. As long as we don't get bogged down in the intellectual clinging of thinking that such words have universally fixed meanings, definitions and equivalences. I KNOW!!! But it happens, even to us Buddhists!!!

As someone who definitely connects less with the intellectual part of the lineages I've been exposed to, I try to take information in such formats as a kind of reference manual for when I have a specific question, this kind of presentation rarely directly answers my question at the time of first reading.

I am much more a simplistic pith instructions type of person, but there are times where having detailed scholarly explanations is very valuable, even for me.

[Hazel]

Fun speculations, though, for those with that mind set. As long as we don't get bogged down in the intellectual clinging of thinking that such words have universally fixed meanings, definitions and equivalences. I KNOW!!! But it happens, even to us Buddhists!!!

As someone who definitely connects less with the intellectual part of the lineages I've been exposed to, I try to take information in such formats as a kind of reference manual for when I have a specific question, this kind of presentation rarely directly answers my question at the time of first reading.

I am much more a simplistic pith instructions type of person, but there are times where having detailed scholarly explanations is very valuable, even for me.

I definitely got completely overwhelmed by the technical jargon floating around. I think I should put a pin in it and come back later down the path.

I think my teacher probably wants me studying basic practices for now. When I asked about tantra, he said to keep studying the Lamrim. I wonder if he'd say the same if I asked about better understanding my mind and awareness.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Aware ness.
Ness implies an aspect of something.
Thus, the aspect of being aware.
So, something is aware.
Aware means to have some kind of innate experience of something.
That something can be internal or external.
There can be an awareness of the fact of being aware. In other words, you can know that you are aware.
But that only takes the fact that awareness is occurring as its object. Awareness isn’t aware of awareness itself. Awareness is always in the subject-side.

Mind is what we label the thing that is aware. That thing is simply an experience. It’s not a physical, stationary object.

Saying the mind is aware is sort of like saying the wind is blowing. If it’s blowing, it must be wind.
There is no ‘wind’ which is not blowing or which is separate from the blowing, from the movement of the air.

Similarly, there is no ‘mind’ occurring which is not aware.
At the same time, we can say that there is wind blowing or there is no wind blowing.
Likewise, we can say the mind is aware (of something) or it is not.

[Hazel]

Aware ness.
Ness implies an aspect of something.
Thus, the aspect of being aware.
So, something is aware.
Aware means to have some kind of innate experience of something.
That something can be internal or external.
There can be an awareness of the fact of being aware. In other words, you can know that you are aware.
But that only takes the fact that awareness is occurring as its object. Awareness isn’t aware of awareness itself. Awareness is always in the subject-side.

Mind is what we label the thing that is aware. That thing is simply an experience. It’s not a physical, stationary object.

Saying the mind is aware is sort of like saying the wind is blowing. If it’s blowing, it must be wind.
There is no ‘wind’ which is not blowing or which is separate from the blowing, from the movement of the air.

Similarly, there is no ‘mind’ occurring which is not aware.
At the same time, we can say that there is wind blowing or there is no wind blowing.
Likewise, we can say the mind is aware (of something) or it is not.

Thank you .

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

[narhwal90]

Mumonkon Case 29 The Sixth Patriarch's "Your Mind Moves"

The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks started an argument.
One said the flag flapped, the other said the wind flapped;
they argued back and forth but could not reach a conclusion.
The Sixth Patriarch said, "It is not the wind that flaps, it is not the flag that flaps; it is your mind that flaps."
The two monks were awe-struck

I like this one because it shows the action of the mind; the two monks grasping different views.

[SilenceMonkey]

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

Well... if everything is mind, everything we experience is mind.

(cittamatra)

[yagmort]

i have been always puzzled by how do people communicate about such things..

words like perception, awareness, mind, intelligence, consciousness, cognition..

what meanings do people attribute to such interrelated things? to my perspective it is inevitable that all attempts to convey or explain any subtle yet such a crucial meaning in regard to how things are explained within context of tibetan buddhism by using such words will be drowning in a sea of semantic discrepancies and perversions unless people reach agreement about the meanings of all those words first.

[Volan]

Aware ness.
Ness implies an aspect of something.
Thus, the aspect of being aware.
So, something is aware.
Aware means to have some kind of innate experience of something.
That something can be internal or external.
There can be an awareness of the fact of being aware. In other words, you can know that you are aware.
But that only takes the fact that awareness is occurring as its object. Awareness isn’t aware of awareness itself. Awareness is always in the subject-side.

Mind is what we label the thing that is aware. That thing is simply an experience. It’s not a physical, stationary object.

Saying the mind is aware is sort of like saying the wind is blowing. If it’s blowing, it must be wind.
There is no ‘wind’ which is not blowing or which is separate from the blowing, from the movement of the air.

Similarly, there is no ‘mind’ occurring which is not aware.
At the same time, we can say that there is wind blowing or there is no wind blowing.
Likewise, we can say the mind is aware (of something) or it is not.

Thank you .

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

It`s an experience of knowable (jneya). There are 5 types of knowable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaibh%C4% ... of_dharmas

The five main classifications of dharmas are:[25][13]

Rūpa (11 dharma types), refers to matter or physical phenomena/events.
Citta (1 type), refers to thought, intentional consciousness or the bare phenomenon of consciousness. Its main characteristic is cognizing an object.
Caitasikas (46 types) refers to "thought-concomitants", mental events or "associated mentality".
Cittaviprayuktasaṃskāras (14 types) refers to "conditionings disjoined from thought" or "factors disassociated from thought". This category is unique to Vaibhāṣika and not shared with other Abhidharma schools. It groups together various experiential events that are not associated with thought but are also not physical.
Asaṃskṛta dharmas (3 types) refers to the three unconditioned dharmas: space and two states of cessation (nirodha).

All Tibetan schools study this during the course, which is devoted to the four tenet systems.

[Volan]

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

Well... if everything is mind, everything we experience is mind.

(cittamatra)

That is taking reflections in the mirror for the mirror itself.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Aware ness.
Ness implies an aspect of something.
Thus, the aspect of being aware.
So, something is aware.
Aware means to have some kind of innate experience of something.
That something can be internal or external.
There can be an awareness of the fact of being aware. In other words, you can know that you are aware.
But that only takes the fact that awareness is occurring as its object. Awareness isn’t aware of awareness itself. Awareness is always in the subject-side.

Mind is what we label the thing that is aware. That thing is simply an experience. It’s not a physical, stationary object.

Saying the mind is aware is sort of like saying the wind is blowing. If it’s blowing, it must be wind.
There is no ‘wind’ which is not blowing or which is separate from the blowing, from the movement of the air.

Similarly, there is no ‘mind’ occurring which is not aware.
At the same time, we can say that there is wind blowing or there is no wind blowing.
Likewise, we can say the mind is aware (of something) or it is not.

Thank you .

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

What I said was:

Mind is what we label the thing that is aware. That thing is simply an experience. It’s not a physical, stationary object.

In other words, we call the experience of being aware “mind” .

[SilenceMonkey]

You said mind is an experience... An experience of what? Thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc?

Well... if everything is mind, everything we experience is mind.

(cittamatra)

That is taking reflections in the mirror for the mirror itself.

Both are mind.

[Malcolm]

Well... if everything is mind, everything we experience is mind.

(cittamatra)

That is taking reflections in the mirror for the mirror itself.

Both are mind.

A mirror cannot reflect itself, just as a sword cannot cut itself.

[SilenceMonkey]

That is taking reflections in the mirror for the mirror itself.

Both are mind.

A mirror cannot reflect itself, just as a sword cannot cut itself.

According to Cittamatra, all that we perceive and experience is a reflection of what is stored in the Alaya consciousness.

[Malcolm]

Both are mind.

A mirror cannot reflect itself, just as a sword cannot cut itself.

According to Cittamatra, all that we perceive and experience is a reflection of what is stored in the Alaya consciousness.

Yes, and there are myriad problems with that understanding, which is why cittamatra is below madhyamaka.

[SilenceMonkey]

A mirror cannot reflect itself, just as a sword cannot cut itself.

According to Cittamatra, all that we perceive and experience is a reflection of what is stored in the Alaya consciousness.

Yes, and there are myriad problems with that understanding, which is why cittamatra is below madhyamaka.

Haha, fair. It's debatable but fair enough. I don't understand enough to get into that debate at the moment.

[Malcolm]

According to Cittamatra, all that we perceive and experience is a reflection of what is stored in the Alaya consciousness.

Yes, and there are myriad problems with that understanding, which is why cittamatra is below madhyamaka.

Haha, fair. It's debatable but fair enough. I don't understand enough to get into that debate at the moment.

Well, you could try reading Asanga's Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Then you can read Candrakīrti's rebuttal in the Madhyamaka-avatāra. Or, you could read any number of texts on tenet systems, such as those by Changkya, Thuken, etc.

[SilenceMonkey]

Yes, and there are myriad problems with that understanding, which is why cittamatra is below madhyamaka.

Haha, fair. It's debatable but fair enough. I don't understand enough to get into that debate at the moment.

Well, you could try reading Asanga's Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Then you can read Candrakīrti's rebuttal in the Madhyamaka-avatāra. Or, you could read any number of texts on tenet systems, such as those by Changkya, Thuken, etc.

Thanks. I'm working my way through the tenet systems at the moment, with a long teaching on Mipham's Khenjuk. Then I hope to work my way up to Madhyamakavatara.

How does Thuken's "Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems" compare with Longchenpa's "Treasury of Philosophical Systems" ?

*

Also... my intention of mention the Cittamatra approach to awareness is to offer another possible view of what awareness can be. In ch'an, they teach that there is no difference between madhyamaka, cittamatra (yogacara) and tathagathagarbha traditions. And that Chan is the experience and unity of all three.

I find the cittamatra approach much more accessible than madhyamaka. That's what I've been taught, anyway. That it is easier to understand Cittamatra experientially than it is to understand Madhyamaka, which is more subtle.

[Malcolm]

I find the cittamatra approach much more accessible than madhyamaka. That's what I've been taught, anyway. That it is easier to understand Cittamatra experientially than it is to understand Madhyamaka, which is more subtle.

You've been mislead. Yogacāra is much more complicated than Madhyamaka. Longchenpa also places Yogacāra below Madhymaka, like later tenet systems presentations in Thuken, Changkya, etc.

[SilenceMonkey]

I find the cittamatra approach much more accessible than madhyamaka. That's what I've been taught, anyway. That it is easier to understand Cittamatra experientially than it is to understand Madhyamaka, which is more subtle.

You've been mislead. Yogacāra is much more complicated than Madhyamaka.

Maybe philosophically, but not experientially.

I believe one of the sources for what I said was a book by Khenchen Tsultrim Gyamtso in the Karma Kagyu lineage. Also Mipham Rinpoche says in his commentary to Madhyamakalamkara that Cittamatra is perfectly acceptable as a way of processing the relative.