William Lim

What do the Buddhadharma make of 'awareness'? What is this sense of aliveness and existence from a Buddhist point of view?

Reply

13h

André A. Pais

William Lim the Buddhadharma doesn't deny awareness. It just qualifies it as empty. But if it's empty (in the sutra way), then it's merely a name, a label, a convention, and it's as good as any other. It's a mere linguistic device -- and in that sense I personally prefer the formula "appearance and emptiness," which seems to trigger less our innate subjectivistic tendencies.

If awareness is empty in the tantric way, I'm not sure if it's merely a label, or if it points to something deeper that's not exactly conventional (like enlightened qualities that are somehow intrinsic to reality), and its "emptiness" just means lack of substance, etc.

Aliveness and a sense of existence would be mere luminous appearances, if you'd ask me.

Reply

12h

William Lim

André A. Pais care to explain the difference in understanding emptiness from a sutric and tantric point of view?

Reply

5h

André A. Pais

William Lim it's just my impression from what I've read, but in sutra emptiness is either lack of nature (nisvabhava) or freedom from reference points (nisprapanca). In this sense, awareness would be just a label, unfindable as anything else. Emptiness alone is the ultimate, nothing can be said about reality.

In tantra (except for Gelug, I guess), emptiness is inseparable from cognizance as the nature of mind, so awareness isn't merely a label, but the actual nature of reality, which is emptiness and awareness inseparable, with all enlightened qualities intrinsic to them. In this sense, I'm not sure how different it actually is from Advaita, since both posit awareness as being ultimate (even if in Buddhism it is somehow empty).

I apologize for this uncoordinated rambling.

Reply

5h

Soh Wei Yu

William asked for my opinion so I shared with him earlier:

in Nyingma, Mipham taught that this self-illuminating nondual consciousness is also nominal

"

Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha.

Because of the mind, the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise; if there were no mind, there would be no saṃsāra and no nirvāṇa. How? It is by the power of the mind that defilements create karma, subsequently producing the process of defilement that is saṃsāra. And it is with the mind that one gives rise to the wisdom of the realization of no-self and to compassion, practices the Mahāyāna path, and thereby achieves buddhahood, whose nature is the five kinds of gnosis, the transformation of the eight consciousnesses, and the ground of all. It is with the mind, too, that the listeners and solitary realizers realize the no-self of the individual and attain nirvāṇa, beyond the suffering of grasping at existence. So the roots of defilement and purity depend on the mind. Anyone who is a Buddhist has to accept this.

So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this. If there were no reflexively aware gnosis, or mind of clear light, it would be impossible for there to be a mind that realizes the truth of the ultimate reality on the path of learning; and at the time of the path of no more learning, the nirvāṇa without residue, the Buddha would have no omniscient gnosis. And in that case there would be no difference between the Buddha’s nirvāṇa and the nirvāṇa of the lower vehicles, which is like the extinction of a lamp, so how could one talk about the Buddha’s bodies (kāyas), different kinds of gnosis, and inexhaustible activities?

" - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/madhyamaka-cittamatra-and-true-intent.html

those who assert they are not nominal but truly existent has fallen into extreme views

as for the shentong views of intrinsic qualities, it can lend itself to substantialist views easily

instead one should see this way:

9/3/2012 11:38 PM: John: Namdrol pointed out diff between shentong and dzogchen... The potentiality and full form...cut and paste that as that is important.

9/3/2012 11:39 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Ok

9/3/2012 11:40 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Saved it in my email. Malcolm Smith

The problem with shentong, which CHNN has addressed many times, is that in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis; but in Shenton it is fully formed at all times. For this reason, in several retreats ChNN has declared that shentong is incompatible with Dzogchen.

...

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: John: His current practice of seeing awareness as a background

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I guess he won't see it as background anymore then

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Doesn't seem compatible

9/4/2012 1:55 AM: John: So no awareness, whatever arises is

9/4/2012 1:55 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

9/4/2012 1:56 AM: John: U understand what namdrol mean?

9/4/2012 1:56 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Shentong? One is buddha nature is empty of any inherent attributes, manifesting according to conditions

9/4/2012 1:57 AM: Soh Wei Yu: The other is buddha nature is already replete with all the qualities of buddhahood and just needs to discove

9/4/2012 1:57 AM: John: No good...u r filling words not knowing the meaning

9/4/2012 1:58 AM: John: And what u said is completely out

9/4/2012 1:59 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I think its like what I wrote before

9/4/2012 1:59 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In the past I had the idea that there is an inherently existing Self waiting to be discovered

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Now I see that everything is being "created" or actualized by conditions, nothing inherent

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Including buddha-nature

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: John: How this relates to what namdrol said

9/4/2012 2:01 AM: John: Tell me line by line what he meant...u like to gross around

9/4/2012 2:09 AM: John: tell Christ, just joking...no offence.

9/4/2012 2:09 AM: John: Lol

9/4/2012 2:10 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Haha ok

9/4/2012 2:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm Smith

The problem with shentong, which CHNN has addressed many times, is that in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis; but in Shenton it is fully formed at all times. For this reason, in several retreats ChNN has declared that shentong is incompatible with Dzogchen.

59 minutes ago Like

9/4/2012 2:19 AM: Soh Wei Yu: in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis: means the result (buddha's qualities) arises as one of the possible appearance of luminous emptiness. But it is nothing inherently existing anywhere, merely manifest when conditions are there. It is in the form of actualizing buddha nature through conditions. "in Shenton it is fully formed at all times." The buddha qualities are inherently existing in ourselves, so there is no need for any conditions and it is only a matter of discovering something inherent. This teaching does not factor conditionality in terms of result and may have a danger of inherent view

9/4/2012 2:19 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Not sure if I'm right

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: John: Sort of

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Arising as potentiality also means without conditions nothing manifest, nothing inherent

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: John: Yes

Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism

Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism

Reply

Remove Preview

4m

Soh Wei Yu

There is no self-standing awareness.

Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html -

“Geovani Geo to me, to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing.

Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is not to let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted in the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize separation has always only been conventional.

Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.” – John Tan, 2020

"awareness [seen as] other than what appears is alaya." - John Tan (alaya as still a subtle state of ignorance)

2014:

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:02pm UTC+08

Why is he talking abt 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness]

Soh Wei YuWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:03pm UTC+08

its just the luminosity?

Soh Wei YuWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:03pm UTC+08

what do you mean

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:04pm UTC+08

there is no deny of clarity or luminosity, it is the singling out of luminosity that is the problem.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:04pm UTC+08

Y is luminosity luminous?

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:05pm UTC+08

Is an irrelevant question

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:09pm UTC+08

There is no such [inherently existing] clarity

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:11pm UTC+08

Because of inherent thought, we understand 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness] as standalone, singled out from DO (Dependent Origination) or otherwise we r understanding it as "interaction".

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:12pm UTC+08

Or if conceptuality is a problem then non-conceptuality must b the solution.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:13pm UTC+08

Or subsuming object into subject or subject into object...

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:13pm UTC+08

It is addressing this way of thinking, of understanding is a misperception.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:15pm UTC+08

It is not to imply that there is no clarity...but what is clarity when it is not understood using this flawed mode of perception.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 6:21pm UTC+08

In Buddhism, it is not how. It's always under what conditions such phenomena arises. So when this cause & condition persists, the phenomena will arise.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 7:35pm UTC+08

First is to bring out the point to ask why appearances "arises" in Awareness is the same as asking why is awareness aware in awareness teaching. Why so? For the convention we call awareness is only ever appearances.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 7:36pm UTC+08

Then address what is flaw mode of perception...

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 7:36pm UTC+08

As I hv given above.

John TanWednesday, September 3, 2014 at 7:37pm UTC+08

So why does appearances appear to arise in Awareness? Because of ignorance

John TanFriday, September 19, 2014 at 10:12pm UTC+08

If Buddha ask ananda, where is mind...if mind is not outside, not inside, not in the middle, not within the body...then is he ananda going to think that Buddha doesn't dare to affirm where is the mind?

John TanFriday, September 19, 2014 at 10:12pm UTC+08

Then ananda will nvr know the meaning of DO.

John TanFriday, September 19, 2014 at 10:14pm UTC+08

And the problem of how inherent thought blinds one from seeing and having direct experiential insight of what is meant by freedom from extreme.

John TanSaturday, September 20, 2014 at 10:10am UTC+08

When u present to 不思, u must not deny 觉 (awareness). But emphasized how 覺 (awareness) is effortlessly and marvelously manifests without the slightest sense of referencing and point of centricity and duality and subsuming ...be it here, now, in, out...this can only come from realization of anatta, DO and emptiness so that the spontaneity of 相 (appearance) is realized to one's radiance clarity.

2007:

No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

Reply

Remove Preview

3m

Soh Wei Yu

Also, here's an excerpt from https://www.byomakusuma.org/InterviewWithKhenchenRigdzinDorjeOnThe%20NyingmapaView.html

Ratnashree: Again, could you give a short explanation of Shentong from the Nyingma point of view?

Khenpo: According to Shentong, they say this view comes from the third turning of the wheel. They say that third turning of the wheel is the perfect teaching whereas the first and second turning of the wheel are not perfect or complete teaching. They say when the Buddha taught the first turning of the wheel, the disciples were new level beginners, so he taught accordingly. And when he taught the second turning of the wheel, the students were a little more advanced and finally when he taught the third turning of the wheel, the disciples were the best and of the highest level. This is what the Shentongpas believe.

They believe that the Sugata Garbha (Buddha nature) is free from all negative things like negative karma, klesha (emotional defilements) and thoughts. But there is the essence ( swabhava) and it exists (has satta in Sanskrit). Shen or Para means “others” which means all negative karma, thoughts and emotional defilements ( kleshas). According to Shentong, they believe that all sentient beings have this Buddha nature, which exists. But there are two major kinds of Shentongpa. One type of Shentongpa believe that all sentient beings have Buddha nature and it has all the qualities of the Buddha from the beginning, just as a sun is there behind the clouds with all its qualities, so too all the qualities of the Buddha like the three Kayas are already present in all sentient beings.

Another type of Shentong does not agree with that. They say that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature but it doesn’t exist by itself (swabhavasiddha). It is empty but there is Buddha nature. Sentient beings have Buddha qualities. So there are two kinds of Shentongpas. Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche and Dolpopa etc., believe that all sentient beings have Buddha nature from the beginning and it exists by itself that is it is not empty.

(NB: Even though it appears that the Khenpo is saying that the Dolpopa Shentong and the Karma Kagyu Shentong of Jamgon Kongtrul are the same, Jonang Taranath (1575–1634) has given 21 differences between the Dolpopa Shentong , which does not seem different from the Hindu Vedantic view, and the Karma Kagyu Shentong view which is similar to that of Shakya Chogden. For after all, the seventh Karmapa, Chödrak Gyatso (1454–1506) was a disciple of the Sakya Master Shakya Chogden (1428–1507). Some Nyingma like Minling Terchen (1646-1714), call themselves Shentongpas but when we go through this philosophy, they are not really Shentongpas like Kongtrul Rinpoches (1813-1899) and Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361) .

Dolpopa was born in the Dolpo region of Nepal and was affiliated to the Sakya School until he developed his Shentong view based on his Kalchakra experiences and proclaimed that no one before him got the correct view and joined and pushed the Jonang School started by the twelfth century master Yumo Mikyo Dorje. Dolpopa was among the first propagator of the Shentong view along with Yumo Mikyo Dorje who was a disciple of Somanath of Kashmir and the third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339), all of them were Kalachakra practitioners. However, the Kalachakra had always been interpreted with the Rangtong or Sung Zug view till then. It is educating to know that even hard core Karma Kagyu Shentongpas admit that Marpa and Milarepa were not Shentongpas).

Ratnashree: So they are the second types of Shentongpas?

Khenpo: Yeah, second type of Shentongpas.

Ratnashree: How is the view of Minling Terchen different from the view of Shakya Chogden (1428–1507), who is also like the Shentongpa? Some Sakyapas call Shakya Chogden, a Shentongpa, while some say he is not really a Shentongpa?

Khenpo: Shakya Chogden’s view is very close to the Kagyupa view and Gorampa has refuted him. According to Shakya Chogden also all beings have Buddha nature and it has all the qualities of the Buddha from the beginning. But Minling Terchen says that there are qualities but they do not really exist, they are also empty.

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

BYOMAKUSUMA.ORG

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

Reply

Remove Preview

1m