Is there an observer?

[Breathe]

I agree. The view of Endless and Eternal seem to be the minority view.

A large problem, as well, is that some individuals can get far too hung up on a few letters and clinging on to presuppositions about what these terms mean.

It is to be expected, though; people are only human.

 

[atanu]

Contrary to what Seyorni says, IMO, the Hindu texts of Upanishads are simpler than most Buddhist texts, especially regarding Consciousness.

Some Buddhists agree.

Spoiler: Three states

http://www.nembutsu.info/hsrconsciousness.htm
Because of the confusions that have arisen from such jargon, which means different things to different psychologists and philosophers, it seems better to use the Indian terms, which possess the advantage of clarity, simplicity, and closeness to natural human experience. So let us rather speak of the waking state (jagrat), in which we are aware of the 'outer' world; the dream state (svapna), in which we are aware of the 'inner' world; and the state of deep dreamless sleep (sushupti), in which we are no longer conscious of the distinction between the outer and the inner worlds but only of their undifferentiated unity. This corresponds to the unqualified Shunyata of Mahayana Buddhism. Finally turiya, which means simply the fourth state, designates that Infinite Consciousness which interpenetrates and subsumes the other three and resists all formulations of word or thought. This corresponds to the Buddhist Bodhi, or Enlightenment, attained by ascending through the hierarchical stages of contemplation. It might be paradoxically described as being fully awake and aware of the images of everything in the Universe while attached to nothing and enjoying the bliss of being fast asleep.

Buddhism developed the concept of 8 Consciousnesses: 5 of senses, ideation, manas, and store-house. All these 8 are vijnAnas, the last one being AlAyavijñAna.

Upanishads, including the oldest Brihadaraynaka and Chandogya, analyse consciousness in terms of three states of existence: waking (jAgrat), dreaming (taijjassa) ), and deep sleep (shUshUpti). The first two states correspond to vijnAnas -- sensual-experiential. The shushupti, however, is not similar. The consciousness in this state is called prajna ghana (dense consciousness). Being dense and being devoid of any contrast, nothing is perceived in this state. But this state carries the seeds that sprout in dreams and in waking state. This state is also called the sarvesvara - all Lord.

Easiest to understand this theme is to study Mandukya Upanishad.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

I feel that appreciation of differences between waking/dreaming consciousness and the shushupti consciousness is required for deeper appreciation of any scripture. In other words an appreciation of what prajna ghana is goes a long way.

Vedanta has always discriminated the conditioned dual awareness that rises due to functioning of senses-mind from the prajna the homogeneous consiousness. The prajna -- the dense consciousness that we (minds) enter into in deep sleep is the revealed face of Turiya, the Self-Brahman, which is simply indescribable and undefinable.

Although I do see the exact correspondence, it seemds that some schools of Buddhism do distinguish between rising Consciousness (vijnAna) and Wisdom (prajnAna). As below:

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/conwisdom.pdf


THE CONCLUDING PRAYER

[FONT=FBPKHB+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman][FONT=FBPKHB+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman]36. May this meaning be realized by everyone! [/FONT]​

[/FONT]=====Therefore [FONT=FBPKHB+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman][FONT=FBPKHB+TimesNewRoman,Italic,Times New Roman]Distinguishing Consciousness from Wisdom [/FONT][/FONT]is essential for understanding the Mahayana view as well as understanding Vajrayana practice.
​

​

 

[atanu]

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

The Buddha Nature
------
If one states that (wisdom) has attachment for its own appearances,
Then a mirror that has appearances within it
Would (also) have thoughts of attachment
-------

Phenomena does nothing to stain the pure mind/pure consciousness.

This knowledge is alien to EndlessArising etc.

 

[AnEternalNow]

Allegedly so, anyway. Buddha is alleged to have said his dharma would last 500 years, which would coincide with the creation of the beginning of the sūtras.

From a post by Loppon Namdrol:

Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.

And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.

Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions.

Tantras later than that.

But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.

 

[Breathe]

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.

Sounds like a lovely individual.

 

[no-body]

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.[/I]

huh? There are reports of people attaining nirvana/enlightenment/whateveryouwanttocallit in many or no beliefs. Sometimes such individuals do not realize what has happened to them. There where also Buddhas before Guatma, or do you think no one was truly awake before that Buddha came along ?

Are you yourself enlightened and know something the rest of us do not

 

[AnEternalNow]

I agree. The view of Endless and Eternal seem to be the minority view.
http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche


The Buddha Nature

The three phases of impurity, both purity and impurity,
And of complete purity are respectively:
(The phases) of beings, Bodhisattvas, and the Tathagatas.
Though this is what is said, Buddhahood is not newly created.
As it was before, it is the same after.
It is the changeless Buddha nature.
The “change” is becoming free of the stains.

If someone has the negative view
That the Buddha qualities have no cause,
Or conceive them not to be within oneself,
But created by external causes and conditions,
What difference is there between that and the eternalist and nihilist views of non-Buddhists?
------
If one states that (wisdom) has attachment for its own appearances,
Then a mirror that has appearances within it
Would (also) have thoughts of attachment
-------
Wisdom is the three permanences:
Permanence of nature is the dharmakaya;
Permanence of continuity is the sambhogakaya;
Uninterruptedness is the nirmanakaya.

There are three impermanences:
Mentally fabricated emptiness is impermanent;
The mind of moving thoughts is impermanent;
The composite six consciousnesses are impermanent.

However, the three permanences are present.
The three impermanences are stains.
The three permanences are wisdom.
-------

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, from 'On Buddha Essence: A Commentary on Rangjung Dorje's Treatise':


"The ordinary mind is just the natural or uncontrived state or the essence of mind. For that reason, the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and siddhas, those who are realized, are not in any way improving ordinary mind, buddha nature. The true nature of mind remains exactly as it is. Those who are in samsara or the lower realms are not in any way creating any deterioration of the true nature of mind. Buddha nature remains the same, but there are those who are able to relaize this true nature of mind and those who have not been able to realize it. Ordinary mind, or buddha nature, is permanent and it does not change. It is said to be permanent because it is the same whether it is realized or not. Some scholars have attacked this position, saying that, in that case, this buddha nature is the same as the atman, or the eternal soul of the non-Buddhists. But it is not the same as the atman of non-Buddhists. If it were a permanent entity, those scholars would be correct. But Rangjung Dorje says that buddha nature is not a thing, that its nature is emptiness, that it lacks reality. Something that is empty, something that lacks reality, is permanent and will never change. There is no impermanence in the state of emptiness. Therefore the ordinary mind, the buddha nature, is a state of permanence which, at the same time, does not fall into the extreme of eternalism."

Elsewhere, he said, "The reason that we can't find mind when we look for it is that mind doesn't have an essential nature of its own. This nonexistence is what the Buddha calls emptiness, or shunyata. This emptiness does not need to be verified through complicated philosophical reasoning; it is simply the nature, or essence, of the mind."

"The word emptiness, of course, connotes nothingness and makes us think of something like empty space, a mere absence, such as the absence of any qualities or content. But the emptiness of the mind is what is called “emptiness endowed with the best of all aspects.” This means that while the mind is empty, it is not a voidness; rather, it is cognitive lucidity. This means, for example, that when you look at your mind, you do not find the mind, nor do you see thoughts in terms of their having a location or possessing substantial characteristics. The mind and the thoughts within the mind are empty but they are not nothing, because there is an unceasing display of mind’s cognition. This shows that the absence of substantial existence does not mean that the mind is dead like a stone. For this reason, the realization of this absence of true existence does not cause the cessation of experience. "


Again as I said, the Buddha-Nature spoken in Vajrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen are utterly empty and unestablished, without core, Self, or substance. Buddha-nature is understood as the union or *inseparability of luminosity and emptiness*.

In fact Thrangu Rinpoche explains here in this audio - that ignorance is not because "luminosity is dulled" or one is "shrouded in darkness", but rather ignorance means the Luminosity/Cognizance/Awareness is so bright, so vivid, that it is taken to be substantial, to be real, and we fail to see its emptiness aspect. This is how samsara 'begins' (without a beginning, but it is one of the important conditions).

The audio: http://www.rinpoche.com/q&a.htm

"If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?"



p.s. Some of Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche books are great and recommended, i.e. Thusness and I recommends "Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind" but others are also well-written

 

[AnEternalNow]

huh? There are reports of people attaining nirvana/enlightenment/whateveryouwanttocallit in many or no beliefs. Sometimes such individuals do not realize what has happened to them. There where also Buddhas before Guatma, or do you think no one was truly awake before that Buddha came along ?

Are you yourself enlightened and know something the rest of us do not

When someone reports enlightenment, it doesn't necessarily mean the same type of enlightenment. There are many enlightenment, i.e. Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

As to Buddhas before Gautama, the answer is yes but the teachings of the previous Buddha, Kassapa Buddha, has been long forgotten. And this is why the Buddha said right after he got awakened:

Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'

 

[DreadFish]

I noticed this question didnt have a reply yet, maybe it was overlooked. It is very important I get an answer lest I may die before I know

Alright, I want to clarify a question that came up while I was sweeping the floor...


Firstly, I do not assert an inherent, separate, fully autonomous doer and experiencer. Again, it takes an object for there to be a subject, and an "other" for there to be a "self," so naturally, there is no inherent self and if "other" or objects cease to be, so would the observing "self." Then what are you left with, eh? Something all together different and inexplicable.

SO! What is it that makes the choices to adhere to the Dharma? What is it that is to be unbound by following the Noble Eightfold Path? What is it that chooses? That is about the only thing that can be done nearly autonomously, choice. But still, it depends on other conditions. While im not saying this is a definable thing or inherent entity, there has to be something/someone who chooses, influences the way things happen, otherwise, what is the point of even wishing to attain nirvana?

 

[AnEternalNow]

I noticed this question didnt have a reply yet, maybe it was overlooked. It is very important I get an answer lest I may die before I know

The question "what" or "who" is wrong... as the Buddha explained in Phagguna Sutta (see Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna ) you not should ask "what" or "who" (since there isn't a self-entity behind action and experience) but "with what condition?" There is influence, choice, intentions, which also are influenced by latent tendencies, imprints, conditions, etc.

When dealing with the topic of free-will, someone may think "since there is no autonomous controller or agent, this means all is pre-determined". Actually both free-will and determinism are sort of extremes, and don't really apply to reality. But this is not a denial of choice, action, intention. Those are still important.

I wrote this in another place:

No-self does not imply determinism.
As I wrote to someone:
............
Yes but not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.

A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.

It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.

So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.

Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.

It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.

That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.

Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths.

 

[DreadFish]

The question "what" or "who" is wrong... as the Buddha explained in Phagguna Sutta (see Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna ) you should ask "what" or "who" (since there isn't a self-entity behind action and experience) but "with what condition?" There is influence, choice, intentions, which also are influenced by latent tendencies, imprints, conditions, etc.

When dealing with the topic of free-will, someone may think "since there is no autonomous controller or agent, this means all is pre-determined". Actually both free-will and determinism are sort of extremes, and don't really apply to reality. But this is not a denial of choice, action, intention. Those are still important.

I wrote this in another place:

No-self does not imply determinism.
As I wrote to someone:
............
Yes but not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.

A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.

It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.

So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.

Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.

It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.

That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.

Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths.

So, is there a who or what? Again, im not asserting some sort of entity, but for lack of a better word, again, something in caught in samsaric conditioning, something seeks to leave it. Im not saying there is an inherent autonomous entity, but what is the point then if not some awareness experiences dukka and thus seeks unbinding. My saying that there must be some awareness that experiences does not mean that this awareness is separate and opposing the object of experience, I've said all this multiple times before in this thread, so im sure I need not say it again. Again, to be an expereincer there has to be an object of experience, for there to be self, other, etc etc etc. Not asserting an inherent being.

Perhaps this way: in what awareness does all this arise and take place via multiple conditions interacting with each other. This awareness, after having got caught up in the mental formations taking place therein via multiple conditions interacting with each other, mistakes them to be outside of itself and other than itself, it then seeks release. It finds out there was nothing outside of it self, thus it did not have an inherent self, and thing resolve into inexplicable not-self, not-other-ness.


Im just trying to use words to work around this misunderstanding, so dont take what I mean totally concretely; because I dont think it's so much that everyone here has misunderstanding, but that we are taking the words used to convey the idea as the thing itself.


EDIT: here's a decent word for it "neutral awareness." I read this describing the beginning of the cycle of existence, once.

 

[no-body]

When someone reports enlightenment, it doesn't necessarily mean the same type of enlightenment. There are many enlightenment, i.e. Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

As to Buddhas before Gautama, the answer is yes but the teachings of the previous Buddha, Kassapa Buddha, has been long forgotten. And this is why the Buddha said right after he got awakened:
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

A Budda cult of personality. Now I've seen everything. Kind of refreshing in a way to know Buddhist aren't immune to it either, I guess.

'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'[/I]

Considering what Buddha said about ego I see nothing wrong with what he is saying there as long as you realize he isn't talking really about "himself"

 

[AnEternalNow]

So, is there a who or what? Again, im not asserting some sort of entity, but for lack of a better word, again, something in caught in samsaric conditioning, something seeks to leave it. Im not saying there is an inherent autonomous entity, but what is the point then if not some awareness experiences dukka and thus seeks unbinding. My saying that there must be some awareness that experiences does not mean that this awareness is separate and opposing the object of experience, I've said all this multiple times before in this thread, so im sure I need not say it again. Again, to be an expereincer there has to be an object of experience, for there to be self, other, etc etc etc. Not asserting an inherent being.

Perhaps this way: in what awareness does all this arise and take place via multiple conditions interacting with each other. This awareness, after having got caught up in the mental formations taking place therein via multiple conditions interacting with each other, mistakes them to be outside of itself and other than itself, it then seeks release. It finds out there was nothing outside of it self, thus it did not have an inherent self, and thing resolve into inexplicable not-self, not-other-ness.


Im just trying to use words to work around this misunderstanding, so dont take what I mean totally concretely; because I dont think it's so much that everyone here has misunderstanding, but that we are taking the words used to convey the idea as the thing itself.

In Anatta, there is no "who" or "what" at all, there is just discernment, grasping, releasing, suffering, cessation of suffering, etc. But before getting into all that...

First of all, your notion of awareness as having 'will', 'intention', 'choice' is itself not the refined or transparent 'version' of Witness. In the terms of Dr Greg Goode in 'The Direct Path', based on the teachings of Sri Atmananda, our undestanding of awareness having will and choice and intention is known as the "lower witness" or "thick witness" or "opaque witness" in contrast to the "thin", "higher", "transparent witness" in which we strip our ideas, notions and constructs (having to do with personality, will, etc etc) away from the witnessing awareness.

Without even going to the step of collapsing the witness into non-dual awareness or One Mind (which is dealt with in the next chapter in Greg Goode's book), without even investigating or challenging the stance of a witness, he asks us to first investigate the notions we have about the witness that prevents us from experiencing the refined or 'transparent witness'.

Greg Goode says "here are some sound-bites from nondual teachings that tend to personify awareness (i.e. the lower witness, opaque witness, by making awareness sound as if it as personality, desire, will, etc). They may all sound familiar. 'Consicousness knew itself but wanted to experience itself. So it emanated phenomenality.' 'Consciousness was bored, so it made the world.' 'Consciousness wants to wake up and realize our true nature.' 'Consciousness has a plan for your life.'" etc etc

Some exercises are given to investigate these notions. For instance,

"Now check - is there anything about this desire that makes it part of the nature of yourself as witnessing awareness? If it is really part of witnessing awareness, then can you still be witnessing awareness when this desire is not present? Or is this desire an appearing object arising in awareness? In this case, you are still witnessing awareness whether this desire arises or not. Its presence or absence does not change what you really are.", "You can repeat this exercise by looking for other mental features that awareness might have, such as boredom, free will, choice or the intention to make humans wake up and discover their nature. If these features are really built into the witness, they should be discoverable when you look into the depths of experience. But are they? Or are they in fact many times that no desire, boredom or other state is present?

And even if these features are present, they are nothing more than arising objects like "green" or "itch" or "2+2=4". As arising, they can't be structurally built into witnessing awareness. They can't be part of its functionality.

You can also repeat the experiments we did while inquiring into the mind. This time, apply them to awareness. Does awareness have any intrinsic properties other than seeingness?"

 

[AnEternalNow]

A Budda cult of personality. Now I've seen everything. Kind of refreshing in a way to know Buddhist aren't immune to it either, I guess.



Considering what Buddha said about ego I see nothing wrong with what he is saying there as long as you realize he isn't talking really about "himself"

He is talking about himself in terms of worldly parlance. He does not conceive of a self however - he understands he is merely using worldly parlance. This too, he has explained before.

 

[DreadFish]

In Anatta, there is no "who" or "what" at all, there is just discernment, grasping, releasing, suffering, cessation of suffering, etc. But before getting into all that...

First of all, your notion of awareness as having 'will', 'intention', 'choice' is itself not the refined or transparent 'version' of Witness. In the terms of Dr Greg Goode in 'The Direct Path', based on the teachings of Sri Atmananda, our undestanding of awareness having will and choice and intention is known as the "lower witness" or "thick witness" or "opaque witness" in contrast to the "thin", "higher", "transparent witness" in which we strip our ideas, notions and constructs (having to do with personality, will, etc etc) away from the witnessing awareness.

Without even going to the step of collapsing the witness into non-dual awareness or One Mind (which is dealt with in the next chapter in Greg Goode's book), without even investigating or challenging the stance of a witness, he asks us to investigate the notions we have about the witness that prevents us from experiencing the 'refined' or 'transparent witness'.

For instance,

"Now check - is there anything about this desire that makes it part of the nature of yourself as witnessing awarneess? If it is really part of witnessing awareness, then can you still be witnessing awareness when this desire is not present? Or is this desire an appearing object arising in awareness? In this case, you are still witnessing awareness whether this desire arises or not. Its presence or absence does nto change what you really are.", "You can repeat this exercise by looking for other mental features that awareness might have, such as boredom, free will, choice or the intention to make humans wake up and discover their nature. If these features are really built into the witness, they should be discoverable when you look into the depths of experience. But are they? Or are they in fact many times that no desire, boredom or other state is present?

And even if these features are present, they are nothing more than arising objects like "green" or "itch" or "2+2=4". As arising, they can't be structurally built into witnessing awareness. They can't be part of its functionality.

You can also repeat the experiments we did while inquiring into the mind. This time, apply them to awareness. Does awareness have any intrinsic properties other than seeingness?"

Either there is a mis-communication or you are purposely answering my questions in a roundabout way . Im not asserting anything inherent, and Im only using words to try to convey an idea I really cant convey clearly. I already said in a previous post that even choice depends on conditions as well, but it arises and awareness makes choices. Otherwise, there is no way for a sentient being to create further causes and conditions.

Maybe wikipedia can explain what im trying to better than I can:

According to Dzogchen teachings, energy of an individual is essentially totally formless and free from any duality. However, karmic traces, contained in the storehouse consciousness of the individual's mindstream (Sanskrit: citta santana; Tibetan: sems rgyud) give rise to two kinds of forms:
forms that the individual experiences as his or her body, voice and mind and
forms that the individual experiences as an external environment.
It is maintained that there is nothing external or separate from the individual. What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the energy of the individual him/her self. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum (Sanskrit: santana; Tibetan: rgyud). This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice.

Source:

Nevermind that it says "according to Dzogchen teachings", right now im only concerned with what's going on, not who says it.

 

[AnEternalNow]

Either there is a mis-communication or you are purposely answering my questions in a roundabout way . Im not asserting anything inherent, and Im only using words to try to convey an idea I really cant convey clearly. I already said in a previous post that even choice depends on conditions as well, but it arises and awareness makes choices. Otherwise, there is no way for a sentient being to create further causes and conditions.

Maybe wikipedia can explain what im trying to better than I can:



Source:

Nevermind that it says "according to Dzogchen teachings", right now im only concerned with what's going on, not who says it.

When something arises due to conditions, then it cannot be said that 'awareness makes choice'.

Awareness is just awareness, it is just the quality of cognizance manifesting as everything. Making choice is an activity that arises due to conditions. Ever heard of the term "choiceless awareness?" Does awareness really choose or simply is choicelessly and unconditionally "aware"? Does awareness say "this is no good, that is better, I should get this"? Does a mirror do that sort of things to its reflections (not that there ever was this separation to speak of)?

Anyway, its kind of late and I don't want to miss ChNNR's retreat tomorrow, so I'll leave it at this for now.

 

[Nakosis]

Easiest to understand this theme is to study Mandukya Upanishad.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

I feel that appreciation of differences between waking/dreaming consciousness and the shushupti consciousness is required for deeper appreciation of any scripture. In other words an appreciation of what prajna ghana is goes a long way.

Do you know of these concepts because of reading, studying. Analytical evaluations of the texts. Or as a result of things you've experienced for yourself.

 

[DreadFish]

When something arises due to conditions, then it cannot be said that 'awareness makes choice'.

Awareness is just awareness, it is just the quality of cognizance manifesting as everything. Making choice is an activity that arises due to conditions. Ever heard of the term "choiceless awareness?" Does awareness really choose or simply is choicelessly and unconditionally "aware"? Does awareness say "this is no good, that is better, I should get this"? Does a mirror do that sort of things to its reflections (not that there ever was this separation to speak of)?

Anyway, its kind of late and I don't want to miss ChNNR's retreat tomorrow, so I'll leave it at this for now.

This is getting closer. But, does awareness not have influence? I think that maybe that's a better word for it. I agree that one does not have autonomy in choice and action, but there is some sense of choice, thats why we even have perception of duality in the first place, though the choice may be illusory (as all the perceptions are illusory). There must be some sort of influence.

But yeah, we'll get back to it. Have a good retreat.

 

[atanu]

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, from 'On Buddha Essence: A Commentary on Rangjung Dorje's Treatise': ----Some scholars have attacked this position, saying that, in that case, this buddha nature is the same as the atman, or the eternal soul of the non-Buddhists. But it is not the same as the atman of non-Buddhists. If it were a permanent entity, those scholars would be correct. But Rangjung Dorje says that buddha nature is not a thing, that its nature is emptiness, that it lacks reality. Something that is empty, something that lacks reality, is permanent and will never change. -----

Three points:

1. Atman is not a thing.
2. I did not talk about atman. I am countering your point that there is nothing apart from phenomena and that there was no essence. I am refuting you since Dharma Dhatu or Buddha nature is the essence -- empty or whatever. That you vehemently point out again and again that this essence was different from Atman is the pull of EGO to create a niche.
3. When the true nature is emptiness there is equality everywhere, except in your delusion of course. It is funny that those who teach of Shunyata yet talk of differences as if real.

That happens when in reality shunyata has not been experienced.
​

 

[atanu]

Do you know of these concepts because of reading, studying. Analytical evaluations of the texts. Or as a result of things you've experienced for yourself.

I think all three in some proportions. Three kinds of human conscious states, namely, waking, dreaming, and sleeping are known to everyone. But Mandukya Upanishad teaches that the three states are witnessed by Turiya (fourth) which is one indivisible whole. Mandukya Up. also teaches us that the goal is to know the Turiya.