悟道是哪个心 (陈兵教授)

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_461cafdf01009ttr.html

Professor Chen thinks that enlightenment can only be obtained through the 6th consciousness ..

看见外面那棵树的时候，看见一片绿色、一片红色，还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 ...

第六意识缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有，名也没有，概念也没有，那就是中观所说的“名言道断，心行处灭。”名言道断，心行处灭的时候仅仅是第六意识的缘法尘的功能停止了，它能够缘无为法的真现量的功能并没有停止。你只有开发第六意识的真现量才能见性、开悟 ..

现在大部分的修行人对这个问题分不清楚，究意是拿哪一个心修，究竟哪一个心去明心见性，见到真如？实际上就是我后面讲的用意识的真现量去证得真如，转意识为妙观察智 ...

.

Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.

By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness. (Thusness defines the great round mirror wisdom as such: it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya.)

In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).

The professor said: "还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 ..."

From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识.  As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所变。

Hence, 识 is referring to subject/object duality, and referring to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.

The 看见一片绿色、一片红色，还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候 -- that awareness is Buddha-Nature itself. It should be noted that the 'seeing' is inseparable from colours, the hearing is inseparable from sound. So it's not really 'seeing colours' -- the seeing and colour cannot be separated, there is no seer apart from seen.

The 还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 -- I find this a confusing statement. Before discrimination and duality, there is no 识 -- 识 only arise when there is the perception of a false Subject and Object dichotomy, when there is 分别. Also, the 还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看见 -- does not require a 五识加上意识的现量 --  Any sense of a 'knower' is an illusion -- no watcher exists or is needed, transient sensory awareness itself knows and rolls. All is One Mind. Mind is not a separate knower, as Thusness said perfectly: 一切的呈现即'心',有了彼与此的分别即'识'.

The next thing is, the author seems to be suggesting that seeing true nature means '6th consciousness reflecting the unconditioned', as if we need to turn our attention away from the conditioned phenomena to some sort of void. But this is a false illusion -- any turning away from any manifestation towards some other state deemed as 'pure' is an illusion, because All is IT! All there is is Appearance and all Appearance is the Source, there is no one 'purest' state, all are equally pure, only conditions differ. Dust is the mirror, transient manifestation is the miraculous manifestation of our true nature. (see below)

And then the author says, 意识知道它这是一片绿色，这是现量，这是世俗意义上的现量，它不是圆满的，不是真如，它是法相唯识学讲的性境。那缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有... and he said that 相是直觉的，现量的。 which I believe he is suggesting that, awareness of forms, colours, and so on are 'not ultimate', not 'thusness', and in the realisation of thusness there is no form. While it is true that subject/object dichotomy and hence dualistic projection ceases upon realisation, this is only talking about dualistic conceptual projection, it is not talking about sensory awareness. There is no denying of our sensory awareness, which is in essence Buddha-Nature! Thusness/Awareness/Buddha-Nature does not exist in a split-off, undifferentiated state: it is in fact all these transience and appearances. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.

Also, our True Nature/True Mind is not a particular object arising in awareness. So I do not see how 6th consciousness (in his definition, Mind?) can 'reflect' our 'true nature' as if our 'true nature' is an object external/separate from Mind and can be 'observed'. Please keep in mind that realising our true nature is NOT knowing 'something' -- that is duality!! Your true nature is Mind, which is the light that though does not possess a particular form or attribute, illuminates all things... you are not a (particular) object. As the Masters said, Mind is Buddha! Seeking something external to Mind is being an outer-path/externalist. Our true nature is not an object, our true nature is the Mind (and I don't mean conceptual thoughts, but awareness). In fact there is no objects external to Mind, any notion of 'external things' are merely illusions/projections, due to the belief in the false subject/object dichotomy. All appearances that we experience is Mind (our true nature), including sights, sounds, touch, smell, taste, thoughts/projections.

So what is Mind/心 or our true nature? Mind/True Nature is not an object, our true nature is the mirror-like Awareness in which everything, including 6th consciousness and all consciousness arise/is reflected clearly. But the mirror is also not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. It is important to take note here that the Mind is not a Knower/Witness/Watcher, but rather, it is the knowing inseparable from everything that is arising moment to moment. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, to be more accurate they are actually not 'in' the mirror, rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. The dust is the mirror, there is no separation. We should not in any way deny transient experience -- they are all self-luminous expression of our nature. As Thusness said, Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature. (my further 'commentary': the mirror is not a separate background apart from reflections as what might be mistaken after an initial glimpse of buddha-nature, but rather, all dust is the mirror, and as what Zen Master Dogen and Hui-Neng says -- Impermanence is Buddha-Nature) Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.

A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is itself the awareness/luminosity/natural intelligence of our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.

So what is awakening? It is simply: waking up from the dream of duality into reality beyond conceptual fabrication. It is waking up to the the ongoing flow of awareness manifesting as the self-luminous world, that has always been so, but misperceived due to our belief in the false dream of duality -- thus taking the mirage/appearance for reality/solid objects or for a real self. In awakening it is seen that the mirage is just the empty display of awareness, just vibrating energy patterns, empty of inherent existence... and are not self-existing 'objects' separate from 'you' (duality).

Nothing has changed, only waking up to What (Always) Is. And there is no such thing as a Somebody/Something/6th-Consciousness that is 'Seeing' 'What Is'/'Buddha-Nature'/realising True Nature, etc -- the self/perceiver/agent/doer/thinker is seen to be false, non-existent and thus the illusion has fallen away. The false statement assumes three things: 'Something/Someone' (a subject) 'Seeing' 'What-Is/True-Nature'. All are false concepts, delusory thoughts (妄念)... much of our ideas of what enlightenment is is just 妄念. Rather, there is no subject/self/perceiver, and there is no 'Seeing' 'Buddha-Nature/What Is' -- Buddha-Nature/What Is = the Seeing, and the seeing is just the colours, the hearing is just the sound. It's that simple! It's the ongoing awareness/presence that has never left (and is) us, ever, and is our luminous nature that is never lost in the countless rebirths in samsara... apparently covered/obscured by our delusions up like clouds cover the sun, but in actuality it never was obscured -- our delusion was never real, the sun has never 'dimmed', awareness never stops functioning and allows our life to go on. Our Buddha Nature is never lost a single bit in ignorance, nor does it increase by the minutest bit in enlightenment. As Avatamsaka Sutra says, Buddha, Mind and Sentient Being are not three different things. There is fundamentally no difference in essence of 'enlightened beings' and 'sentient beings', even though confusion (belief in a self) arises for the sentient being and never arises for the 'awakened'.

'Seeing nature' is not seeing anything, it is only the ongoing authentication with Suchness. It is waking from the dream into Thusness. There is no separate perceiver of 'buddha-nature' or of anything. It is waking up and realising that the subject/object dichotomy is a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker.

Many Zen Masters woke up after hearing a loud sound or seeing something. Our moderator Thusness awakened after hearing the bell sound 'Tonggg'... in that moment there is a waking up to reality: there is no hearer, only Presence... who/what awakens? Nothing! Just waking up from the dream of self/duality into everpresent Reality, what Always Is. Sound hears, scenery sees, just effortless self-luminous spontaneous manifestation according to conditions. It is not an attainment (what is there to attain and who attains? our true nature Always Is), but the permanent loss of the ignorance of being a separate self.

This is exactly the same as what a Zen Master said upon his enlightenment:

“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”

But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.

As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies.  That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.

Read through the URL a bit...

I find this doesn't sound right at all to me, unless I misunderstood what he said: 古人经常提出一个问题，就是你拿哪一个心去见这个第九识，或者见这个性呢。

That is duality -- it assumes that there is a Subject, the 6th consciousness, to 'See' the 'true nature', as an object, the 9th consciousness.

Our true nature is free from such duality, realising our true nature is not 'someone' seeing 'something' -- it's BEING THAT, and being that I mean, everything being It -- sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never a separate subject/agent/perceiver/thinker/doer. Note: I said 'Being', not 'Becoming' -- it is not reaching a stage of experience, but rather, it is realising a fact that was all along so. All along, there is just It manifesting: our true nature... and never was there a self.

Our true nature is not an object separate and tangible, and there is no one can ever 'see it' -- in essence there is no one, only self-luminous phenomena arising and dissolving telling its stories. Our true nature is shining right now, everywhere. The idea that there is something or someone that can 'see it' is the fundamental illusion of a Self.

Maybe JitKiat can share his comments and understanding?

Welcome Thusness, Longchen, and others' comments also!

Another point, the author wrote: 因此，见性、开悟不在第八阿赖耶识，也不在第九阿摩罗识。第九识你悟不悟，它都是清静的，它就是真如，并不是说你开悟了以后才有一个第九识，而原来没有第九识。

-------------

Once he posited an ontological statement such as this, that there is a 9th consciousness beyond all consciousness that is fundamental and always present, then that understanding has to be thoroughly tested.

More often than not, this 9th consciousness will be misunderstood as an eternalistic ground of being or the pure I AMness, similar to the Hindu experience of Atman-Brahman. Also if he sees 9th consciousness as separate from all other consciousness, then he is seeing a fundamental duality.

That is not true insight into Anatta and Emptiness...

From the topic Very good articles on mental activities last

Only Clear Light Mental Activity Can Cognize Voidness beyond Concepts

Only clear light mental activity can have nonconceptual cognition of voidness beyond concepts, and when it does, it has nonconceptual cognition of the two truths (bden-gnyis) simultaneously.

In this context, the two truths are:

• voidness beyond concepts,
• pure appearances (dag-pa’i snang-ba) – appearances that are beyond impure appearances (ma-dag-pa’i snang-ba).
  

Impure appearances include:

1. appearances of truly existent “this”s and “that”s,
2. appearances of sensibilia, such as momentary collections of patchs of colored shapes, that are not truly existent as “this”s and “that”s.

[See: Divisions, Causes, and Elimination of Unpurified Appearance-Making According to Non-Gelug.]

Cognition of impure appearances resembles “periscope vision,” with which we view reality through a limited perspective, as if through a periscope. We see only what is in front of our noses, seemingly separated and isolated from the state beyond the seemingly solid categories of words and concepts.

Clear light cognition, on the other hand, produces and cognizes appearances of what are beyond truly and non-truly existent “this”s and “that”s. That does not mean, however, that with clear light cognition, everything becomes an undifferentiated oneness. Objects retain their conventional identities. Moreover, clear light mental activity produces and cognizes appearances both of all phenomena and of itself, for instance as a Buddha-figure. Simultaneously, it also cognizes the voidness of them that is beyond words and concepts.

悟道是无心

有心如何悟道??

IMO, he actually wrote this from a Yogacara (唯识）perspective and added his own opinion which I am not qualified to comment. You can follow the URL below to more articles from him ..

http://www.xin-yuan.com/cityzen/jiangtan/chenbing/chen0.htm

The interview with 黄念祖老居士 (article 2) is really quite interesting. Another article worth reading for amitabha pureland advocates is article 11.

yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara

if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor

yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara

if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor

When the person becomes enlightened to the Ultimate Reality, he will realise that all the various consciousness are just One Mind, only in ignorance do we project discriminations and duality over them. There is in reality only One Mind, there is not two -- there is no perceiver perceiving anything -- all perceiving is only One Mind.

To think that there is a consciousness to perceive our true nature itself implies Two -- the perceiver and the perceiver. In reality there is only One Mind, so what perceives what?

True Mind is self-evident, self-felt. Just like it takes no effort to hear the aeroplane, the sound is just here, hearing is just taking place spontaneously without a hearer. Only through ignorance of this ever-present reality do we experience separation and duality. With insight, it is seen that there is always only just One Mind.

见色明心，闻声悟道

Just That!

Zen Master Huang Po:

25. The term unity refers to a homogeneous spiritual brilliance which separates into six harmoniously blended 'elements'. The homogeneous spiritual brilliance is the One Mind, while the six harmoniously blended 'elements' are the six sense organs. These six sense organs beome severally united with objects that defile them -- the eyes with form, the ear with sound, the nose with smell, the tongue with taste, the body with touch, and the thinking mind with entities. Between these organs and their objects arise the six sensory perceptions, making eighteen sense-realms in all. If you understand that these eighteen realms have no objective existence, you will bind the six harmoniously blended 'elements' into a single spiritual brilliance -- a single spiritual brilliance which is the One Mind. All students of the way know this, but they cannot avoid forming concepts of 'a single spiritual brilliance' and 'the six harmoniously blended elements'. Accordingly they are chained to entities and fail to achieve a tacit understanding of original Mind.

From The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana

http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Sruti-Smriti/Shastras/awakening-of-faith.html

A. Mind in Terms of the Absolute

The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality. That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness.

All explanations by words are provisional and without validity, for they are merely used in accordance with illusions and are incapable of denoting Suchness. The term Suchness likewise has no attributes which can be verbally specified. The term Suchness is, so to speak, the limit of verbalization wherein a word is used to put an end to words. But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness.

Question: If such is the meaning of the principle of Mahayana, how is it possible for men to conform themselves to and enter into it?

Answer: If they understand that, concerning all things, though they are spoken of, there is neither that which speaks, nor that which can be spoken of, and though they are thought of, there is neither that which thinks, nor that which can be thought of, then they are said to have conformed to it. And when they are freed from their thoughts, they are said to have entered into it. Next, Suchness has two aspects if predicated in words. One is that it is truly empty (sunya), for this aspect can, in the final sense, reveal what is real. The other is that it is truly nonempty (a-sunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.

1. Truly Empty

Suchness is empty because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence, it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by a deluded mind. It should be understood that the essential nature of Suchness is neither with marks nor without marks; neither not with marks nor not without marks; nor is it both with and without marks simultaneously; it is neither with a single mark nor with different marks; neither not with a single mark nor not with different marks; nor is it both with a single and with different marks simultaneously. In short, since all unenlightened men discriminate with their deluded minds from moment to moment, they are alienated from Suchness; hence, the definition "empty"; but once they are free from their deluded minds, they will find that there is nothing to be negated.

2. Truly Nonempty

Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty". And also there is no trace of particular marks to be noted in it, as it is the sphere that transcends thoughts and is in harmony with enlightenment alone.

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.

By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness.

In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).

'Intuitive'is just a word use to convey to the conventional mind that the One Reality is beyond any conceptualization, verbalization. There is no two mind.

The professor said: "还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 ..."

From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识.  As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所变。

In my opinion, 一切的呈现即'心',有了彼与此的分别即'识'

Hence, 识 is refering to subject/object duality, and refering to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.

What is Mind/心? It is like a mirror -- everything is just reflected clearly. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, neither are they 'in' the mirror (the mirror is not a separate background), rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.

Separation is 'learnt'. The phenomena world appears to be filled with isolated objects because of our subject-object dualistic and inherent framework of viewing things. It will not be obvious and the views bond us like a magical spell. The two truth here 'serves' as the antedote for the dualistic mind to 'correctly' understand its nature. This is to prevent the dualistic mind from wrongly identifying and get attached to a particular state as the 'ultimate' state. Do take note that a practitioner can be non-dual and yet still attached to 'inherent existence'. There are two different 'bond' having different impacts shaping the way we experience reality.

A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is all awareness, luminosity itself, our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.

So what awakens? It is simply awareness, aware of itself, as everything. It is seeing the subject/object dichotomy as a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker. But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.

As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies.  That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.

From the experience of no-subject-object to emptiness to the right experience of emptiness of all phenomena existence, a practitioner will be gradually free from labels, symbols, verbalization and conceptualization and fully authenticated in non-dual luminous presence 'as' spontaneous arising.  To me, the idea of emptiness will not remain as a concept for long for a practitioner if non-dual insight (non-dual experience with right understanding) arises.

 Just a sharing.

Thanks for your comments, Thusness :)

Updated my first post a little.

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Updated my first post a little.

I re-read the updated version.  There is clarity in what you wrote about non-duality.  Well written. :)

There are some points and questions you may want to take note:

1.  Dissolving subject-object split is not the same as dissolving the 'inherent view'.  They are 2 different bonds and have different impacts and shape our experience of reality; therefore stage 5 an 6 (although it is not right to put them as stages).

2.  If phenomena world is not as what it seems to be -- inherent and dualistic, what is a better way to describe the way things are?

Isn't this 'better way' still a form of conceptualization?  Is it wrong to form concepts? 

3.  What does 'getting rid of concepts' in the inherent and dualistic way mean?

4.  What does 'getting rid of concepts' by way of  emptiness and non-duality mean?

5.  After point question 4, re-look how the inherent and dualistic views affect us.  What happen when these views sank deep down into our inmost consciousness.

6.  What happen if the right idea of non-dual and emptiness replaces the dualistic and inherent views?

7.  Why stess naked awareness in self-liberation?  Why bare attention in vipassana meditation?  Why go before symbols, labels and concepts?

8.  Why not jump straight into non-conceptuality and rest in naked awareness?  Is there a need to first purify our views with the dharma seals and emptiness?

U may want to use the answers of these questions to relate it back to the topic article on clear light and voidness.

Just a sharing. Happy exploring. :)

Originally posted by Thusness:

I re-read the updated version.  There is clarity in what you wrote about non-duality.  Well written. :)

 

There are some points and questions you may want to take note:

1.  Dissolving subject-object split is not the same as dissolving the 'inherent view'.  They are 2 different bonds and have different impacts and shape our experience of reality; therefore stage 5 an 6 (although it is not right to put them as stages).

 

2.  If phenomena world is not as what it seems to be -- inherent and dualistic, what is a better way to describe the way things are?

Isn't this 'better way' still a form of conceptualization?  Is it wrong to form concepts? 

 

3.  What does 'getting rid of concepts' in the inherent and dualistic way mean?

 

4.  What does 'getting rid of concepts' by way of  emptiness and non-duality mean?

 

5.  After point question 4, re-look how the inherent and dualistic views affect us.  What happen when these views sank deep down into our inmost consciousness.

 

6.  What happen if the right idea of non-dual and emptiness replaces the dualistic and inherent views?

 

7.  Why stess naked awareness in self-liberation?  Why bare attention in vipassana meditation?  Why go before symbols, labels and concepts?

 

8.  Why not jump straight into non-conceptuality and rest in naked awareness?  Is there a need to first purify our views with the dharma seals and emptiness?

 

U may want to use the answers of these questions to relate it back to the topic article on clear light and voidness.

 

 

Just a sharing. Happy exploring. :)

Here's an attempt to try to answer and also to ask questions.. please correct wherever necessary..

1) Can you give an example of dualistic and inherent view and what different impacts they have on our experience? Also it is said/described in the realisation of non-duality that the dream-like nature of phenomenality is seen. Is this a form of insight into non-inherency also? Or there are various depths to this insight?

2) "The All" as described by Buddha consists of 18 dhatus or the 5 skhandas, that is all there is to phenomenality... and is the 'non-dualistic' way of describing phenomena: there is no who, there is no experiencer, feeler, thinker, doer, but rather... thoughts, feelings, experience arise and pass momentarily according to conditions. Similarly, there is no self/'who' reincarnating, rather, upon condition birth arises.

This 'better way' of describing is still conceptualization but necessary to instill Right Views (the first of the 8 fold path) necessary as a requisite to enlightenment. This is because latent tendencies are linked with tightly held views deep in our psyche/subconscious and is always surfacing in our daily experience as our dualistic/inherent way of perception.

It is not wrong to form concepts in this case, because the teachings of No-Self and Emptiness are really good and necessary skillful means to bring about realisations.

To take a quote off from the Hindu Advaita Vedanta tradition, and even though he was not refering to the view of Emptiness, I guess the metaphor could still be similarly used for the view of Emptiness: "This problem was once propounded to Sri Ramana Maharshi. He was asked how it could be valid to use the mind to deal in any way with the problems of the mind. He replied that a stick is used to stir up a fire in which weeds are being burned and, in the end, the stick itself is also consumed."

Emptiness is also empty -- the last stage is to leave the raft behind the shore, into the viewless view of emptiness happening. Still, you have to take the raft first before you can reach the shore.

3) Means mistaking that we can forcefully do away with our dualistic/inherent views by suppressing thoughts from arising. Even though thoughts may temporarily subside, the karmic propensity/seed/conditioning is still latent in our subconscious/8th-consciousness. That is why enlightenment is only possible through development of insight, not shamatha/concentration, though the latter can be an aid.

4) Means the insight burning away the bonds latent in our subconscious. The insight sinks into our consciousness and burns away the dualistic/inherent seed of perception. Or as Dharma Dan calls it, the fundamental knot of perception.

5) Dualistic and inherent views keeps us in samsara, in the chain of Greed, Hatred, Ignorance. It is the source of all confusions and sufferings. For example, desire is the inner deficiency due to seeing a split, and in the attempt to bridge the gap there is further longing and separation. These views are the cause of endless sufferings, the cycle of rebirth and karma.

These dualistic and inherent views have the power of blind us, to bind us to a spell-like state. We take our dualistic projections to be reality, and thus do not experience liberation, and dull our luminosity.

6) Right Views plant the seed that transforms our way of perceiving, so that when the seed meets the other right conditions (like practicing mindfulness, etc) insight can arise.

For example: 'who feels' or 'who experience' is a wrong concept, but rather, the question should be put forth this way: with what condition does Feeling arise? Feeling is a self-luminous arising, there is no watcher apart from all arising and subsiding.

Another example: we always think that there is a self or an experiencer, such that when we inquire into rebirth (or anything), we will be confused with "who is reborn?" Buddha taught us the right way of perceiving is not to ask "who" (irrelevant, since there is no inherently existing self -- rebirth is a continuation of a process, not the passing on of any sort of self-entity), but rather, upon what condition does birth arise (in this case, affliction and action).

Yet another example: If we were to ask, "If you lost your shoe, are you still you?" or "If you lost your hands, do you still exist?". It almost seems certain to say "Yes, of course I am still I." because we always assumed there is a truly existing "Self" experiencing changes, though in reality there is no fixed Self or an experiencer: there is only Self1, Self2, Self3, moment to moment our mental and karmic factors arise spontaneously but in a disjoint way. We are not a permanent self, we are momentary selves and nothing stays, everything is ever flowing.

The right views reconstruct our inherent/dualistic way of viewing into seeing All as the flow of dharmas unfolding according to condition. However 'right views' can still remain at a pretty conceptual (still, necessary) level until there is insight/realisation.

7) To go beyond our conditionings/constructs to experience first hand what Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication, instead of what we thought it should be. To directly experience what impermanence, arising and passing is. To directly experience non-duality/no-self... and to experience the workings of our karmic propensities/bonds and how they cause suffering. Basically, being aware of the three basic facts of existence/the three dharma seals.

In a moment of naked awareness, it may be also seen that all our dualistic and inherent projections are really just thoughts without reality. Thus the conditioning/belief in the thoughts loosen.

What Is is beyond all conceptual grasp, is vividly present prior any arising thought.

8) Without right views, though naked awareness maybe experienced when thoughts subsides, but the latent propensity of seeing dualistically/inherently may still be deeply conditioned. Thus even when a glimpse of pure awareness happens, it may be distorted into the 'I AM'.

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.

By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness. (Thusness defines the great round mirror wisdom as such: it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya.)

In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).

The professor said: "还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 ..."

From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识.  As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所变。

Hence, 识 is referring to subject/object duality, and referring to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.

The 看见一片绿色、一片红色，还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候 -- that awareness is Buddha-Nature itself. It should be noted that the 'seeing' is inseparable from colours, the hearing is inseparable from sound. So it's not really 'seeing colours' -- the seeing and colour cannot be separated, there is no seer apart from seen.

The 还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看见，这是属于前五识加上意识的现量 -- I find this a confusing statement. Before discrimination and duality, there is no 识 -- 识 only arise when there is the perception of a false Subject and Object dichotomy, when there is 分别. Also, the 还没有起意识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看见 -- does not require a 五识加上意识的现量 --  Any sense of a 'knower' is an illusion -- no watcher exists or is needed, transient sensory awareness itself knows and rolls. All is One Mind. Mind is not a separate knower, as Thusness said perfectly: 一切的呈现即'心',有了彼与此的分别即'识'.

The next thing is, the author seems to be suggesting that seeing true nature means '6th consciousness reflecting the unconditioned', as if we need to turn our attention away from the conditioned phenomena to some sort of void. But this is a false illusion -- any turning away from any manifestation towards some other state deemed as 'pure' is an illusion, because All is IT! All there is is Appearance and all Appearance is the Source, there is no one 'purest' state, all are equally pure, only conditions differ. Dust is the mirror, transient manifestation is the miraculous manifestation of our true nature. (see below)

And then the author says, 意识知道它这是一片绿色，这是现量，这是世俗意义上的现量，它不是圆满的，不是真如，它是法相唯识学讲的性境。那缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有... and he said that 相是直觉的，现量的。 which I believe he is suggesting that, awareness of forms, colours, and so on are 'not ultimate', not 'thusness', and in the realisation of thusness there is no form. While it is true that subject/object dichotomy and hence dualistic projection ceases upon realisation, this is only talking about dualistic conceptual projection, it is not talking about sensory awareness. There is no denying of our sensory awareness, which is in essence Buddha-Nature! Thusness/Awareness/Buddha-Nature does not exist in a split-off, undifferentiated state: it is in fact all these transience and appearances. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.

Also, our True Nature/True Mind is not a particular object arising in awareness. So I do not see how 6th consciousness (in his definition, Mind?) can 'reflect' our 'true nature' as if our 'true nature' is an object external/separate from Mind and can be 'observed'. Please keep in mind that realising our true nature is NOT knowing 'something' -- that is duality!! Your true nature is Mind, which is the light that though does not possess a particular form or attribute, illuminates all things... you are not a (particular) object. As the Masters said, Mind is Buddha! Seeking something external to Mind is being an outer-path/externalist. Our true nature is not an object, our true nature is the Mind (and I don't mean conceptual thoughts, but awareness). In fact there is no objects external to Mind, any notion of 'external things' are merely illusions/projections, due to the belief in the false subject/object dichotomy. All appearances that we experience is Mind (our true nature), including sights, sounds, touch, smell, taste, thoughts/projections.

So what is Mind/心 or our true nature? Mind/True Nature is not an object, our true nature is the mirror-like Awareness in which everything, including 6th consciousness and all consciousness arise/is reflected clearly. But the mirror is also not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. It is important to take note here that the Mind is not a Knower/Witness/Watcher, but rather, it is the knowing inseparable from everything that is arising moment to moment. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, to be more accurate they are actually not 'in' the mirror, rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. The dust is the mirror, there is no separation. We should not in any way deny transient experience -- they are all self-luminous expression of our nature. As Thusness said, Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature. (my further 'commentary': the mirror is not a separate background apart from reflections as what might be mistaken after an initial glimpse of buddha-nature, but rather, all dust is the mirror, and as what Zen Master Dogen and Hui-Neng says -- Impermanence is Buddha-Nature) Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.

A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is itself the awareness/luminosity/natural intelligence of our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.

So what is awakening? It is simply: waking up from the dream of duality into reality beyond conceptual fabrication. It is waking up to the the ongoing flow of awareness manifesting as the self-luminous world, that has always been so, but misperceived due to our belief in the false dream of duality -- thus taking the mirage/appearance for reality/solid objects or for a real self. In awakening it is seen that the mirage is just the empty display of awareness, just vibrating energy patterns, empty of inherent existence... and are not self-existing 'objects' separate from 'you' (duality).

Nothing has changed, only waking up to What (Always) Is. And there is no such thing as a Somebody/Something/6th-Consciousness that is 'Seeing' 'What Is'/'Buddha-Nature'/realising True Nature, etc -- the self/perceiver/agent/doer/thinker is seen to be false, non-existent and thus the illusion has fallen away. The false statement assumes three things: 'Something/Someone' (a subject) 'Seeing' 'What-Is/True-Nature'. All are false concepts, delusory thoughts (妄念)... much of our ideas of what enlightenment is is just 妄念. Rather, there is no subject/self/perceiver, and there is no 'Seeing' 'Buddha-Nature/What Is' -- Buddha-Nature/What Is = the Seeing, and the seeing is just the colours, the hearing is just the sound. It's that simple! It's the ongoing awareness/presence that has never left (and is) us, ever, and is our luminous nature that is never lost in the countless rebirths in samsara... apparently covered/obscured by our delusions up like clouds cover the sun, but in actuality it never was obscured -- our delusion was never real, the sun has never 'dimmed', awareness never stops functioning and allows our life to go on. Our Buddha Nature is never lost a single bit in ignorance, nor does it increase by the minutest bit in enlightenment. As Avatamsaka Sutra says, Buddha, Mind and Sentient Being are not three different things. There is fundamentally no difference in essence of 'enlightened beings' and 'sentient beings', even though confusion (belief in a self) arises for the sentient being and never arises for the 'awakened'.

'Seeing nature' is not seeing anything, it is only the ongoing authentication with Suchness. It is waking from the dream into Thusness. There is no separate perceiver of 'buddha-nature' or of anything. It is waking up and realising that the subject/object dichotomy is a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker.

Many Zen Masters woke up after hearing a loud sound or seeing something. Our moderator Thusness awakened after hearing the bell sound 'Tonggg'... in that moment there is a waking up to reality: there is no hearer, only Presence... who/what awakens? Nothing! Just waking up from the dream of self/duality into everpresent Reality, what Always Is. Sound hears, scenery sees, just effortless self-luminous spontaneous manifestation according to conditions. It is not an attainment (what is there to attain and who attains? our true nature Always Is), but the permanent loss of the ignorance of being a separate self.

This is exactly the same as what a Zen Master said upon his enlightenment:

“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”

But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.

As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies.  That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'.  'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.

One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.

i guess the subject object duality, in buddhism, we should avoid that, then comes to Non duality, i guess,in chinese, the corresponded word should be 分别心，yes this is a crucial factor in buddhism.But besides that, i cannot remember any other thing relate to the subject object duality.

I think the 心 we should 明心见性，usually means our true nature, i don't why this question is there, maybe most of people don't know his true nature, buddhism teach no self, yes, and everything is delusion, even dharma itself, so we talk about 心，is tricky, is it real, or just a name ，假名，like in diamond sutra, 是庄严，是非庄严，是名庄严，so that's just assume it's a name only.

We should discloes to our true nature, it's tricky again, who is “our”, or i, for ordinary people, they should get no difficulty with that, but in buddhism, let's just admit that it's a 假名 as well.

To avoid getting conceptually, i think we should all know which 心 we are refering, to be no self, firstly we should get to know the self.

So the self is just refering to any one, who is talking who is smelling, who is walking,

I think this question comes from the basis that many people lost their self, as i said that's just take it as a 假名，so they do not really know their selves, in fact they don't like working, but they force them to think that they like it, they don't like to socialise with someone they don't like, but for promoting purpose, they force themselves to think that they like it.The social pressure is everywhere, to realise your nature, we should get over of the pressure,

Originally posted by bohiruci:

yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara

if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor

 

you cannot say yogacara is wrong, before you fully know what's is yogacara, and if you want to know yogacara systematically, i think i take many years.Yogacara is difficult, so only popular among scholars, many folks only love Zen, which is easier,

Originally posted by bohiruci:

悟道是无心

有心如何悟道??

 

 

悟道是无心，it's very popular saying, but i don't believe most people could achieve that, 有心如何不悟道，那是谁心悟道呢

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Read through the URL a bit...

I find this doesn't sound right at all to me, unless I misunderstood what he said: 古人经常提出一个问题，就是你拿哪一个心去见这个第九识，或者见这个性呢。

 

That is duality -- it assumes that there is a Subject, the 6th consciousness, to 'See' the 'true nature', as an object, the 9th consciousness.

Our true nature is free from such duality, realising our true nature is not 'someone' seeing 'something' -- it's BEING THAT, and being that I mean, everything being It -- sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never a separate subject/agent/perceiver/thinker/doer. Note: I said 'Being', not 'Becoming' -- it is not reaching a stage of experience, but rather, it is realising a fact that was all along so. All along, there is just It manifesting: our true nature... and never was there a self.

Our true nature is not an object separate and tangible, and there is no one can ever 'see it' -- in essence there is no one, only self-luminous phenomena arising and dissolving telling its stories. Our true nature is shining right now, everywhere. The idea that there is something or someone that can 'see it' is the fundamental illusion of a Self.

i don't know where does this 9th conciousness come from, i only know up to eighth conciousness, the seventh is 末那识，maybe when you doing the meditation, you realise the non duality, but i think it's just the 分别心，avoid 分别心, we can be compassionate, see everyone else as ourself, treat others as ourselves, besides that, i don't know what's helpful ,maybe it's part of no self. Annatman, is it?

Originally posted by rokkie:

悟道是无心，it's very popular saying, but i don't believe most people could achieve that, 有心如何不悟道，那是谁心悟道呢

Reaching a state of no-mind is possible, but only through correct way of practice. It is not through forcefully shutting out or suppressing thoughts. This will not work.

When we become naked in awareness free of all conceptualizations, a quantum shift in perception may occur. We can wake up to non-dual Presence, Buddha-Nature, or whatever you want to call it.

As my Master said:

Originally posted by rokkie:

you cannot say yogacara is wrong, before you fully know what's is yogacara, and if you want to know yogacara systematically, i think i take many years.Yogacara is difficult, so only popular among scholars, many folks only love Zen, which is easier,

Bohiruci was not saying that Yogacara is wrong.

Bohiruci was saying that the author's idea of Yogacara is wrong.