is the mind individual?

[tomschwarz]

what is the role of the relative truth in enlightenment? specifically, my dear, dear kind and loving sister died when she was 4 and i was 9. if she was reborn and is still in cyclic existence will i ever see her again? please understand that this question depends on the related question: is there individuation of "self" in the buddha realm? e.g. are there individual "buddha's" in the buddha realm?

i am afraid that the answer is that my sister is gone forever, and i will be too. and the going forwards options are to either 1) start this all over again with the 12 links of dependent origination, in the form of a new living being, with the subsequent lives like "dice stacked upon one another" or 2) embrace the reality of emptiness, allow the illusion of independent self to evaporate, and return to/realize a life form that fundamentally includes my sister's life's energy as well as all other mind streams, that actually exist without differentiation and permeate all things. but is that correct? any geshe's out there that can speak to this?

[Ayu]

This was a big topic for me some time ago, just comming from the other side. If the mind was nothing individual, I found it more easy to understand about many things and it felt like a consolation for me.
I asked our Geshe about it: Is the mind a universal thing or are there many individual minds? He tended to say there are many individual minds. And he spoke about karma and the moments that build a continuum by proding one after the other. There is no solid valid self that remains, but that is the reason why movement is possible...
So if there was no death, there wasn't any birth either.

[tomschwarz]

))) dear ayu, how do we go from "no solid valid self" to "many individual minds"? can you relate these two ideas to the seven realms of sentient beings?

[Ayu]

No, I'm sorry, I can't. This is a serious question for a Rinpoche.
It is easy to figure out some phantasies about this, but that wouldn't be right.

My teacher is able to give individually helpful answers to the different people in his audiance. When we were discussing this topic, many people freaked out and "smoke came out of their ears" (figuratively). The brains could not cope with this topic, so they needed time.
Often, when somebody asked a question like you now, he just smiled like someone who asked a very good riddle which noone could solve.

[Jeff]

There is one shared or universal mind, with indidivual mind subset spaces and views. A reasonable analogy is one of a nesting doll structure of layers of perception. A god like being is higher in the nesting structure and can effect more of universal. A buddha sees through the nesting structure itself.

Best wishes

[Astus]

Karma is completely individual. It means the separate mind-streams are self-generating and self-contained. It is a series of causes and conditions. At the same time, there is no "self" in the sense that the mind-stream is not a fixed permanent entity but a flow of mental states. That does not mean the mind-stream can somehow mix with others or totally dissolve. So, yes, the mind is individual. Just as our body is individual, although we consume food every day and cells constantly reproduce.

[Sherlock]

There is one shared or universal mind, with indidivual mind subset spaces and views. A reasonable analogy is one of a nesting doll structure of layers of perception. A god like being is higher in the nesting structure and can effect more of universal. A buddha sees through the nesting structure itself.

Best wishes

This is completely inaccurate from the point of view of Buddhadharma.

[Jeff]

There is one shared or universal mind, with indidivual mind subset spaces and views. A reasonable analogy is one of a nesting doll structure of layers of perception. A god like being is higher in the nesting structure and can effect more of universal. A buddha sees through the nesting structure itself.

Best wishes

This is completely inaccurate from the point of view of Buddhadharma.

Can you give any such support for your view? The "mind system' is well described in the Lankavatara sutra. A Buddha is all knowing because all "other beings" are a "subset" in the mind space. This can also be directly experienced.

Best wishes,
Jeff

[Sherlock]

Your interpretation of that sutra is erroneous.

An idea of a "one mind" is characteristic of Samkhya, which was one of the schools refuted by Buddhist authors.

[srivijaya]

what is the role of the relative truth in enlightenment? specifically, my dear, dear kind and loving sister died when she was 4 and i was 9. if she was reborn and is still in cyclic existence will i ever see her again? please understand that this question depends on the related question: is there individuation of "self" in the buddha realm? e.g. are there individual "buddha's" in the buddha realm?

i am afraid that the answer is that my sister is gone forever, and i will be too. and the going forwards options are to either 1) start this all over again with the 12 links of dependent origination, in the form of a new living being, with the subsequent lives like "dice stacked upon one another" or 2) embrace the reality of emptiness, allow the illusion of independent self to evaporate, and return to/realize a life form that fundamentally includes my sister's life's energy as well as all other mind streams, that actually exist without differentiation and permeate all things. but is that correct? any geshe's out there that can speak to this?

I don't know if there is one "right" answer to any of those points, perhaps there are many. With contracted mind comes individual self, the realm of duality where we can know both love and loss, feel joy, the sun on our face or experience solitude and despair. What is the Buddha "realm" if not the release of this contracted state into one which is beyond all definition. In that space there would be neither self nor other.

I think the teaching that all migrating beings have at one time or another been close to us and we have suffered their loss (and they ours), is almost too tragic to conceive.

But I think a part of your question points to a kind of heavenly concept of a Buddha realm where we could perhaps maintain our individuality but in a blissfully pure state of companionship (I guess akin to a pure land, but I don't know enough about those schools). I think that would be a wonderful outcome. Who can say for sure, I wouldn't want to write that possibility off.

Just a few ideas here. No answers but good luck with your search.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I'd like to make an observation that is entirely an English semantics issue only, that the etymology for "individual" comes from "cannot be divided". So that brings into play the entire analysis and deconstruction, i.e. dividing one's being into constituent parts, that ends in the idea of no-self.

I don't know how that plays out, just that it seems to be a pertinent question.

[Jeff]

Your interpretation of that sutra is erroneous.

An idea of a "one mind" is characteristic of Samkhya, which was one of the schools refuted by Buddhist authors.

Amusing. I take it you have not read the Lankavatara sutra. On knowing and "subsets", some additional inspiration for understanding of the topic...

From the Avatamsaka Sutra

Great bodhisattvas have no attachment to Buddha and do not develop attachments;
they have no attachment to the teachings and do not develop attachments; they have
no attachment to lands and do not develop attachments; they have no attachments
to sentient beings and do not develop attachments. They do not see that there are
sentient beings, yet they carry on educational activity, civilizing and teaching ways
of liberation; they do not give up the practices of bodhisattvas with great compassion
and great commitment. Seeing buddhas and hearing their teachings, they act accordingly;
trusting the buddhas they plant roots of goodness, ceaselessly honoring and serving them.

They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are
broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how
many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know
the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected
images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth.

They carry out practices of bodhisattvas for the sole purpose of saving sentient beings and yet
do not practice anything. Conforming to the essential nature of all buddhas, they develop a mind
like an immense mountain. They know all falsehood and delusion, and enter the door of omniscience.
Their knowledge and wisdom are broad and vast and unshakable, due to the attainment of true enlightenment.
This is the insight of practical knowledge of equally saving all sentient beings in the ocean of birth and death.

Best wishes.

[undefineable]

I wonder if those who reject any idea of 'one mind' are -like me- taking the concept literally: If there were a single instance of consciousness that was shared by all sentient beings, how would that work exactly? Given that consciousness is itself the most obvious form of awareness, wouldn't everyone be aware by definition of something so intimate?

The concept of an external source of all consciousness (God?) seems to make far more sense at a 'common-sense' level, but in the absence of any supporting evidence, the picture that Buddhism might seem to paint -of an infinite number of instances of an awareness-based phenomenon unified by sunyata- seems more convincing. By sunyata, I mean -in this context- an infinite capacity of expression, bogged down in time and place by habitual tendencies motivated by ignorance - Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

At the level of enlightenment beyond other normal restrictions, can anyone be sure that mental individuation somehow continues?

[Jeff]

I wonder if those who reject any idea of 'one mind' are -like me- taking the concept literally: If there were a single instance of consciousness that was shared by all sentient beings, how would that work exactly? Given that consciousness is itself the most obvious form of awareness, wouldn't everyone be aware by definition of something so intimate?

The concept of an external source of all consciousness (God?) seems to make far more sense at a 'common-sense' level, but in the absence of any supporting evidence, the picture that Buddhism might seem to paint -of an infinite number of instances of an awareness-based phenomenon unified by sunyata- seems more convincing. By sunyata, I mean -in this context- an infinite capacity of expression, bogged down in time and place by habitual tendencies motivated by ignorance - Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

At the level of enlightenment beyond other normal restrictions, can anyone be sure that mental individuation somehow continues?

Some degree of mental individualization exists at all depths/levels of perception. The action of perception itself has some degree of obscuration as one believes that there is something to percieve.

[maybay]

There is one shared or universal mind, with indidivual mind subset spaces and views. A reasonable analogy is one of a nesting doll structure of layers of perception. A god like being is higher in the nesting structure and can effect more of universal. A buddha sees through the nesting structure itself.

Best wishes

This is completely inaccurate from the point of view of Buddhadharma.

Can you give any such support for your view? The "mind system' is well described in the Lankavatara sutra. A Buddha is all knowing because all "other beings" are a "subset" in the mind space. This can also be directly experienced.

Best wishes,
Jeff

The Lankavatara is a difficult sutra to quote.

[Jesse]

They key imo to understanding the minds nature as it relates to you as an individual is interdependence. It's not something we can pin down in a simple definition it's both individual and collective, non self and yet we seem to be an autonomous individual anyway with a distinct personality and personality traits. My understanding is pretty bad too but that's what I've got so far.

In much simpler terms the parts of ourselves that seem real and substantial are illusory. The way we apparently exist is relative to everything and everyone else. That's the dual nature of samsara.

[Punya]

In my view Astus nailed the answer to the OP a number of posts ago. Thank you Astus.

[Jeff]

This is completely inaccurate from the point of view of Buddhadharma.

Can you give any such support for your view? The "mind system' is well described in the Lankavatara sutra. A Buddha is all knowing because all "other beings" are a "subset" in the mind space. This can also be directly experienced.

Best wishes,
Jeff

The Lankavatara is a difficult sutra to quote.

Why is that?

Thanks,
Jeff

[Jesse]

If mind is entirely self contained how do you explain other people's presences? They also exist in your mind. Your mind to begin with only exists by contrast of other.

The propagation of memes, personality traits we adopt and other forms of knowledge we share. The mind is not self contained. It is interdependent.

[Punya]

Your mind to begin with only exists by contrast of other. 

Only on the relative level. Dividing everything into subject and object, self and other is where delusion begins.

The mind is not self contained. It is interdependent.

The karma you create is individual to you although you can share in group karma. You cannot experience the karma of another. This karma is stored as seeds in the alaya vijnana (the storehouse consciousness) and continues on from life to life until exhausted. The fruit of this karma arises due to causes and conditions (which is where dependency comes in) unless purified.

Also, one moment of mind (consciousness) is dependent on the previous moment of mind.