The 5th Skandha

[Tirisilex]

The 5th Skandha is Consciousness. Which is the Word vijñāna. Ive seen this word translated as Knowing. I've read that it is a conglomeration of all the other Skandhas. It has been defined as awareness of things. I've settled on the idea that it is a knowing built from all the other skandhas. I've been reading lik eevery webpage I can find on Skandhas and I understand the first four it's consciousness that I'm having a hard time with. How does consciousness divide from awareness? I've read that awareness is the only thing that is permanent so awareness and consciousness cannot be the same thing because a skandha is impermanent. I'd like to hear others thought son the subject. (YES I am ignorant that's the whole reason for asking this question so I do not know if I am right or wrong)

[muni]

How does consciousness divide from awareness?

Hello Tirisilex,

You mean discern? One way is inquiry. There are many ways to do so. One is starting by asking who am I?
In any case, the intellectual mind itself cannot discern/recognize awareness.
Then maybe an example or one method by Lama Surya Das to discern what is the conceptual intellectual consciousness and what is Awareness:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uYB ... as&f=false
http://www.thespiritualskier.com/blog/s ... meditation

We identify with passing thoughts...

“People are scared to empty their minds fearing that they will be engulfed by a void. What they don’t realize is that their own mind is the void.” ~ Zen Master Huang Po

ps void is not cold blanco nihilism.

[Astus]

I've read that awareness is the only thing that is permanent so awareness

Permanent awareness is not consciousness. It is called permanent in the sense that it is without attachment, without anything to identify with. It is eternal in the sense that there has never been any self, and never will be. At the same time, every instance of consciousness is conditioned and impermanent. Might also say that impermanence is permanent. It is a figure of speech, a play with words. As for the awareness aspect, it means that all appearances are what one is aware of, so just as everything is impermanent, they are also aware. It is merely a conceptual category to say that things are objects of awareness.

[White Lotus]

youve never been ignorant. stop thinking for a moment open your eyes and see. impersonal awarness complicates. just see.

[White Lotus]

in the gradual path consciousness still has a personal feeling. awareness is impersonal and yet its what one has become. this.

[Tirisilex]

Can someone define Consciousness then Awareness for me? Because I still dont get the differences.

[tingdzin]

"Consciousness" and "awareness" are very slippery terms, and it will cause you all kinds of grief if you assume that there are set English definitions that everybody agrees on, even inside Buddhist English. Many translators of Buddhist works assume that if they translate vijnana (the fifth skandha) as "consciousness", everyone will understand the intention and parameters of the Sanskrit word, but obviously this is not the case. In online discussions, the problem gets even worse, with a dozen different voices attempting to respond to discussions with their own ideas about what "consciousness" means, which range from the extremely technical to the "common-sense" everyday English usage.

I think that the best thing to do, practically, if you are interested in studying Buddhist philosophy, is to familiarize yourself with a lot of differing definitions and interpretations (some of which vary from school to school, making it even more difficult), and hold a few of the more accessible definitions in your mind simultaneously as you read and study. If this is too challenging, you might thoroughly master one teacher's take on these terms, and then compare it to other peoples' later on.

[White Lotus]

consciousness and awareness are both "this" experience you have right now.

[Tirisilex]

*consciousness and awareness are both "this" experience you have right now.*

Umm they cannot be the same thing.. Awareness is forever but Consciousness is Impermanent. I'm beginning to think that Consciousness the 5th Skhanda is the aspect of mind that thinks in sentences for example "Today I did such and such" where the 4th Skhandha thinks in discrimination's like this is Bad or this is good. I think anyway..

[White Lotus]

alaya 8th consciousness is "personalised" awareness. manas the 7th consciousness is thought and discriminates. some disagree.

[White Lotus]

it is all "this".

[tingdzin]

Awareness is forever

What do you mean by this? what about when you go to sleep?

[White Lotus]

one cant abide in anything. this awareness comes and goes. perhaps it will always return, but first we need to see it.

[Sentient Light]

What do you mean by this? what about when you go to sleep?

According to Vasubandhu on his writings on the 8 consciousnesses, sleep, unconsciousness, and nirodha-samapatti means there is no activity in the Manas-vijnana. The alaya-vijnana is only emptied when one attains awakening, thus it is always active. Thus, when asleep or unconsciousness or abiding in the samadhi of nirodha, there is still a subtle state of awareness that remains active.

Pure, unmediated cognition is jnana. It is synonymous with the undefiled citta. All experiential phenomena are obscurations filtering the citta. When citta is cleared, it is also called Dharmakaya. When citta is obscured, it is also called Tathagatagarbha. But generally when we speak of "consciousness" we refer to the discrete objects of cognition that arise.

[maybay]

The 5th Skandha is Consciousness. Which is the Word vijñāna. Ive seen this word translated as Knowing. I've read that it is a conglomeration of all the other Skandhas. It has been defined as awareness of things. I've settled on the idea that it is a knowing built from all the other skandhas. I've been reading lik eevery webpage I can find on Skandhas and I understand the first four it's consciousness that I'm having a hard time with. How does consciousness divide from awareness?

Consciousness divides from consciousness. Consciousness is divisive. Other Sanskrit words with Vi- : viksepa (distracted), virupa (ugly), viyoga (separation).

[PuerAzaelis]

As long as you are using the skandha system for your view for your practice (e.g. emptiness insight) there's not much wrong with using "consciousness" and "awareness" interchangeably, IMHO.

Your view will be different depending on which other practice you are doing. For example in one system, awareness become self-reflexive, i.e. aware of awareness. At that point awareness could be described as "awake" awareness or some such. And in some views there are five types of that sort of awake awareness too. In those cases it makes some sense to distinguish that kind of "awake awareness" (self-reflexive) from "consciousness" or just "awareness" (ordinary awareness of the skandhas).

[White Lotus]

when this awareness drops away you have no awareness and no mind. seeing you do not see. in no mind is no seeing. no grasping?

[maybay]

Awareness never drops away. It just gets clouded over with obscurations. The consciousnesses that we cling to are a confusion.

[Astus]

Awareness never drops away. It just gets clouded over with obscurations. The consciousnesses that we cling to are a confusion.

Awareness is never clouded. Awareness is not separate from the skandhas, just as emptiness is not separate from them. Awareness means that skandhas are experienced, and it is a quality that is always true, just as they are always empty.

[maybay]

Awareness never drops away. It just gets clouded over with obscurations. The consciousnesses that we cling to are a confusion.

Awareness is never clouded. Awareness is not separate from the skandhas, just as emptiness is not separate from them. Awareness means that skandhas are experienced, and it is a quality that is always true, just as they are always empty.

At some point you're going to have to account for the deluded condition. If pristine awareness is the sky, then it is meaningful to say clouds of confused appearances obscure that awareness. I cant imagine a situation within this epistemic context in which it would be meaningful to say that the sky falls away. The sky is always there. It just becomes unrecognizable.

You seem to be suggesting that the skandhas are always A. Experienced and B. Empty. But it is wrong to say that they are always experienced as empty.