Nature of Mind

[ZopaChotso]

What is the difference between the luminous cognizance that is the nature of mind, and the Ālayavijñāna of the 8 consciousnesses?

Miphan Rinpoche said "The state of consciousness that is mere clarity and knowing, which does not veer off into an active sense cognition, and which is the support of habitual tendencies, is called the alayavijñana, the consciousness that is the universal ground"

That sounds very similar to descriptions of clear light that I have heard.

If it helps, these questions come after reading through this:

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-ma ... structions

[Kai lord]

What is the difference between the luminous cognizance that is the nature of mind, and the Ālayavijñāna of the 8 consciousnesses?

Alayavijnana is the direct cause for samsara not nirvana.

As noted by Third karmapa:

this [mind] displays freely:
it is empty in essence yet clear in nature,
and its manifestations appear unimpededly as anything at all.
This [mind] is itself ignorant of itself
and is stirred by the motions of formative mentation,
just as water is by waves......

Formative processes label the appearances of objects as other,
and through fixating [upon them], the skandha of forms is
established.
“The causes are the five dhâtus and consciousness as the sixth”
is stated as a convention by conceptual [mind].
The âlaya, in which such latent tendencies
are stored, is called the causal condition....

[Shaiksha]

First, you should really distinguish between the terms as used in Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Yogacara. Although they often use the same terms, they have subtle differences in usage and meaning. For example, you quoted Mipham - this means you are in the realm of Dzogchen teachings. Based on my limited understanding, Dzgochen usage of the term alaya has a slight difference to the term as understood under the Yogacara system (e.g. the 8 consciousnesses). Someone may correct me here as I am not as familiar with the Yogacara literatures, except for the very basic tenets.

In Dzogchen, alaya is the product of deluded mind while the nature of mind, which is the term commonly used in Mahamudra (noting here the Mipham quote did not mention anything about the "nature of mind"), is something you recognized/realized with pristine consciousness. Further, it is said that you can only be 100% confident in distinguishing alaya and pristine consciousness once you reach Buddhahood. Sentient beings can only some idea (intellectual understanding and limited direct experience).

[Tao]

ON the other hand, on Mahamudra, Gampopa itself said (in "Gampopa teaches essence Mahamudra") that "Alaya is the essence not realized and is the root of Samsara, when realized is the the root of wisdom". Volume I.

So as far as I understand the only difference is that you can presume that when ignorance is removed Alaya dissappears and appears clarity.

Or asume tha Alaya transform into clarity when ignorance is removed.

Not a big difference, but not exactly the same.

[Kai lord]

First, you should really distinguish between the terms as used in Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Yogacara. Although they often use the same terms, they have subtle differences in usage and meaning. For example, you quoted Mipham - this means you are in the realm of Dzogchen teachings. Based on my limited understanding, Dzgochen usage of the term alaya has a slight difference to the term as understood under the Yogacara system (e.g. the 8 consciousnesses). Someone may correct me here as I am not as familiar with the Yogacara literatures, except for the very basic tenets.

In Dzogchen, alaya is usually translated as universal ground while alaya vijnana is usually translated as consciousness of universal ground. The latter usually arises after the heart chakra and surrounding channels are fully formed.

Both can also be differentiated by the different types of wisdom that is correlated with each of them.

[Malcolm]

In Dzogchen teaching, the alaya is the knowledge obscuration, and it’s nature is ignorance. It’s only completely eliminated at full buddhahood.

[ZopaChotso]

So what I'm hearing is, that my question cannot be fully answered and understood until I achieve full buddahood, is that correct?