Difference between consciousness and the mind

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

Lets put it in Schroedinger's box and decide then. :toilet:
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

@ http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 86#p254282" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Gwenn Dana wrote:Only once the idea of "thoughts" is created
is this a joke ?
Gwenn Dana wrote:
Malcolm wrote:No, awareness is a characteristic of a moment of consciousness.
Amen :)
Please could you explain how consciousness isn't a characteristic of a moment of awareness.

It would seem to me that you've contradicted yourself. An "idea of thoughts" could almost explicitly imply such a "moment of awareness" where resultant thoughts "exist" as pure conciousness... this is, after all, an existence of which you believe in, don't you?



@ http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 86#p254286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Gwenn Dana wrote:So awareness is that which is born out of ignorance (in the karmic sense), but also complements it.
Or we can say something which slips off the lips easier, like; Knowledge is ignorance.
Would you agree ? If yes then please explain then why you'd agree.
Last edited by garudha on Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

I thought about what you must believe in...

I suppose it's the depersonalisation of self where a "genuine" non-objective awareness acts as witness to subjective manifestations.

A seductive doctrine but unfortunately I'm here to piss on your fire and tell you this:

The "genuine" non-objective awareness is actually your ego, and the subjective manifestations are intrinsically fashioned from what you believe, and indeed is, totally false and empty of actual existence.

If this wasn't the case then everyone would already be enlightened.

Think about it; why should the ego always be culpable of automatically sensing "I am invincible, I am infinite, I am the greatest, anything other than me is false" ?
The ego is absolutely correct to automatically align itself in this way. It is actually true! The ego is not wrong.
The problem is that the ego see others as not-self and thinks it alone is the sole-self.
This can be a very big problem, right?!!!
So rather than say "all is self" Buddhism says "non is self" because, certainly, the false ego must die.

We must be certain: There is no self or we're simply running riot over the teachings of the Buddha and offering seductive intellectual explanations which lull people into a false sense of understanding. Capiche?
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote:@ http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 86#p254282" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
Gwenn Dana wrote:Only once the idea of "thoughts" is created
is this a joke ?
No. How would you know what a thought is when it is only images you see?
Gwenn Dana wrote:
Malcolm wrote:No, awareness is a characteristic of a moment of consciousness.
Amen :)
Please could you explain how consciousness isn't a characteristic of a moment of awareness.
You don't seem to have a very karmic approach here. You have chiefly two possibilities, if we stay within Buddhism.

Either you follow the "bootstrap"-approach, focussing on one lifetime, where "mind-and-body" and "consciousness" mutually give rise to each other. In that approach consciousness reflects back on itself, and a notion of mind-and-body arises. Then you start in the mother's womb, where egg, sperm, and the fact that they meet together in the womb, spawns consciousness, mutually together with mind-and-body. In sequence, they spawn contact (via the five senses), contact spawns feeling, and so forth. (Refer to Mahanidana Sutta)

Or you follow a more generalized karmic approach. In that sense in the beginning is ignorance. The absence of any structure, no two poles, whatsoever. Erratic behavior. Chaos. Out of that karmic traces arise. Those karmic traces condition consciousness. That consciousness conditions name-and-form, etc. This is not drawn to a "lifetime", but to every instance. Every instance of consciousness, that becomes aware, is spawned like that. birth and death occur within it as expressions of name-and-form, as it is a transient phenomenon. You may apply that to a lifetime, a day's wake, or even every instance (since no soul or ego transmigrates into different states, but every instance that ego is freshly born and instantly dies again.) The next instance might produce a memory of the prior.

So there is no "awareness" defined in both of those chains. But there is consciousness. Awareness often is a convention used to denote the fact that you know you are conscious (conscious reflecting back on itself, the ego maker). In that it is a characteristic of a moment of consciousness.

In a dream there is dream-consciousness, but you may not be aware of the fact that you are dreaming.

You can of course choose not to stick to any convention and define the terms as you wish. But you will find communication difficult then. You could spawn a world from "awareness". But then you will have to ask the question: Who or what is aware? And you'll be backfired into your soul-discussion.

It would seem to me that you've contradicted yourself. An "idea of thoughts" could almost explicitly imply such a "moment of awareness" where resultant thoughts "exist" as pure conciousness... this is, after all, an existence of which you you believe in, don't you?
An "idea of thoughts" is necessarly an instance of consciousness, as it can only arise when there is consciousness. But when awareness enters the scene then there is the quesiton: "aware of what?" If consciousness expresses in what we call a "thought", awareness catches the content of the thought. If consciousness expresses in an idea of a thought, then awareness catches the concept of thoughts itself, which then is the content of the idea. Once you have done that you can put a label like "thought" on that concept. You can be driven from thought to thought without ever noticing that what drives you are thoughts.
@ http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 86#p254286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
Or we can say something which slips off the lips easier, like; Knowledge is ignorance.
Would you agree ? If yes then please explain then why you'd agree.
You can have three different explanations why this obviously must be true.

1. In the karmic sense above, everything emerges from ignorance. Thus everything is also ignorance, just in peculiar fashion conditioned.

2. In the sense of the Heart Sutra: Knowledge is ku. Ignorance is also ku. Thus there is no relevant difference between knowledge and ignorance. Both are ku, just as everything.

3. Leaving the Buddhist terrain and peeking in with daoists: knowledge is vidya. ignorance is avidya. Of course is vidya the same as avidya, since if there is no vidya, there is no avidya, and if there is no avidya, there is no vidya. And if there is vidya, there is avidya, and if there is avidya, there is vidya. Thus the both are the same in essence, even if you can develop different perspectives on it.

Pick one of the above, or make up something fancy.

Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote:I suppose it's the depersonalisation of self where a "genuine" non-objective awareness acts as witness to subjective manifestations.
There is no idea of self involved in any of the above described concepts, other than consciousness reflecting back on itself.
unfortunately I'm here to piss on your fire
To own a fire I would first have to find the I.
The "genuine" non-objective awareness is actually your ego, and the subjective manifestations are intrinsically fashioned from what you believe, and indeed is, totally false and empty of actual existence.
Please explain your concept of existence, so that I may follow the point you try to bring up. Please also explain false, in terms of that existence.
If this wasn't the case then everyone would already be enlightened.
Getting closer. Why don't you see it? What blurs the view?
Think about it; why should the ego
Why should ego?
So rather than say "all is self" Buddhism says "non is self" because, certainly, the false ego must die.
You're only creating an antichrist to self here, not really abandoning. The Taoist above laughs and says But Non-self is self! That's why your ego-idea kicks back, which you have labeled non-soul. Buddhism may say along the lines: "Self? What should that be? Show me! Come back once you found it!" Or simply not deal with unanswerable questions.

Take your own sentence, and add a little punctuation:
We must be certain: There is "no-self"
There is?

Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

Gwennesis 1 New Dana Version

The Beginning

1 In the beginning Ignorance created consciousness and awareness.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, Ignorance was over the surface of the waters.

3 And Ignorance said, “Let there be consciousness,” and there was consciousness.

4 Ignorance saw that the consciousness was good, and Ignorance separated the consciousness from the awareness.

5 Ignorance called the consciousness “earth” and the awareness he called “thoughts”

And there was evening, and there was morning, on the first day of Gwennesis.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by LastLegend »

:shrug:
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

Gwenn Dana wrote:That's why your ego-idea kicks back, which you have labeled non-soul.
I wondered if you'd bring that up. I have not labelled the ego as non-self. The ego is as existent as any other existent entity.

edit: non-soul? what the heck.... I think you used that word twice now :toilet:
Please explain your concept of existence, so that I may follow the point you try to bring up. Please also explain false, in terms of that existence.
Existence is subject to birth and death. Existence is false because causation (birth) is simultaneously -or structured from- cessation (death). This is similar to how knowledge is structured from -or simultaneously arises as- ignorance.

Did you eat the apple from the tree ?
Last edited by garudha on Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote: The Beginning

1 In the beginning Ignorance created consciousness and awareness.
Ah, now I see your confusion. Where did you come up with a concept of "beginning"? There is no "time" involved in the chain of dependent origination. It is instantaneous. The relationship is "cause" only.
existence is subject to birth and death.
Birth and death, in dependent origination, arise from becoming, which arises from clinging, which arises from craving, which arises from feeling, which arises from contact (rest see above). So your "existence" is caused by birth and death?

If so, how can clinging "exist", if it causes birth and death, which in turn causes existence?
This existence hints at a materialistic, not a karmic view.

Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

The computers we're using to communicate exist. We exist. All thing in our reality are subject to birth and death.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote:The computers we're using to communicate exist.
How can you be sure?
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Hieros Gamos »

You two really need to get a room.
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

Gwenn, in Mahayana Buddhism, Consciousness is lacking inherent existence. Consciousness is conditioned phenomena which has originated due to ignorance.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote:Gwenn, in Mahayana Buddhism, Consciousness is lacking inherent existence. Consciousness is conditioned phenomena which has originated due to ignorance.
You brough up the concept of "existence", not I ...
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
dara0418
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:41 pm

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by dara0418 »

Apologise to my non-native English.
As far as I know, consciousness is not the mind. The buddhism considers, as human beings, we have 8 types of consciousnesses:
1. eye/vision: what we can see.
2. ear: what we can hear.
3. nose: what we can smell.
4. tongue: what we can taste.
5. touch: what we can feel.
6. mind: what we can think.
7. manas: this consciousness makes us have "self" cognitive, which people can identify "self" and "other people". This is also called "subconscious" in general knowledge.
8. alaya: this consciousness contains EVERYTHING we have done. Whenever you do something, you "plant" a "seed" of karma into your alaya consciousness. The "seed" will never get lost until it "grow up" and affect you in the proper future, no matter good things or bad things, no matter how many times you rebirth, no matter where and what you are. So alaya consciousness is the root cause of karma. You may lost the previous 7 consciousnesses but the 8th consciousness will never get lost, because the 8th consciousness is "you". The purposes of Buddhist practises are to clear and clean your alaya consciousness, keep it quiet, don't "plant" any more bad "seed" into it. Eventually, when your alaya consciousness become Dzogchen (satisfactory, quiet, no more faults, etc.), you will become buddha yourself (nirvana).

These are my personal knowledge learned from Chinese great monks, correct me if there's anything wrong. Also try to google "eight consciousnesses in buddhism" yourself to get more exactly knowledge.
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

We have no proof that consciousness exists. Even in your thoughts; can you honestly say that you can apprehend it? Indeed Mahayana sutras state that it lacks existence.
Consciousness could simply be information implied via the rhythm, cascade, of quantum-mechanical angular momentum.
Gwenn Dana wrote:
garudha wrote:The computers we're using to communicate exist.
How can you be sure?
Because I'm certainly ignorant!

The difference between me and you is, I know that I don't know, but you believe you know. I knew nothing before I read any book on philosophy or religion and after I read something in a book I still don't believe I know.
Last edited by garudha on Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote:The difference between me and you is, I know that I don't know, but you believe you know. Listen carefully;
I was simply quoting (and elaborating on) Buddhist and connected references. If you're not interested in that, then maybe you're posting in (and reading) the wrong forum.
Since you will apparently not stop making assumptions and imputations on what I believe, our conversation ends here, now, for my part, since I no longer intend to feed them.

Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by garudha »

Gwenn Dana wrote:you will apparently not stop making assumptions and imputations on what I believe...
What do you believe ?

It's logical, to me, that all beliefs must be false. :coffee:
User avatar
Adder
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Adder »

I have the mind as the set of processes which create the consciousness experience. I put quite a bit of subconscious processing into the category of mind but not of the conscious mind. I find this is the simplest practical distinction. In this regard a lot of what I've gotten from Buddhism is to expand conscious awareness in effective ways.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind

Post by Kaccāni »

garudha wrote: What do you believe ?
Thank you for asking. I don't hold any particular beliefs. (At least I believe I don't :rolling:) What we're discussing here are only models. Within the context of buddhism, since that's the theme of the forum. They can either lead towards an understanding that leads to pure seeing (the knowledge-way), or not. I don't see a relevance for "true" or "false", but rather "consistent" or "inconsistent", or "seving a purpose" or "defeating a purpose". Models just appear as thoughts.

Of course, that which appeases the mind in my experience can also be recognized at any time, without needing any model or discussion whatsoever. Maybe it is even easier that way. At times in sports it happens spontaneously that you drop into the now.

Since this is a forum, talking about those models is one thing we can do. Another would probably be sharing pointers to resources. Another to further each other's harmony. Which is difficult by mere words only, if not impossible. Since you can never know how a word is interpreted and contextualized on the receiver side. You may get the opposite of what you intend. May be the same with Sutras and other texts. Does it bring peace to your mind when you read them, or do they only open up more questions and push buttons that get you worked up.

A belief may even serve the same purpose. It may bring peace to your mind. I see nothing wrong with that. Then still it is only a tool that serves a purpose, and I would not know how to call it "true" or "false". When the quest about "true" or "false" begins, problems appear to begin along with it.


Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”