What is the nature of mind?

[tatpurusa]

Split from here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=30324

Not really. We aren't all part of a tathagatagarbha.

I think your are being overly literal in the interpretation of the passage.

The Tathagatagarbha is also referred to as the Dharmadhatu in some traditions, where the Dharmadhatu is the ground/space of all existence. If somebody views the passage allegorically instead of literally...

Dharmadhātu is the emptiness of phenomena, and moreover is not held to be something actually established or real.

Tathāgatagarbha is just a name for the latent and unrecognized nature of mind, while obscured by affliction, delusion, etc.

The nature of mind is ultimate reality and can never be obscured nor is it latent. It is simply as it is.
All possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness, not the nature of mind.
The whole of obscuration is an illusion, not the nature of mind.
Avidya is the incapacity of the conditioned ordinary mind to operate outside its own concepts and categories.

tp.

[Malcolm]

The nature of mind is ultimate reality and can never be obscured nor is it latent. It is simply as it is.

What do you mean by the nature of the mind? Its emptiness?

All possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness, not the nature of mind.

The nature of the mind is not empty?

Avidya is the incapacity of the conditioned ordinary mind to operate outside its concepts and categories.

Thus it obscures the nature of the mind, just as clouds cover the sun, from the perspective of someone standing on the ground in a rainstorm. It does not mean the sun as has ceased shining. But the sun is obscured for such a person.

[tatpurusa]

The nature of mind is ultimate reality and can never be obscured nor is it latent. It is simply as it is.

What do you mean by the nature of the mind? Its emptiness?

Emptyness, clarity and their inseparability is nature of mind.

All possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness, not the nature of mind.

The nature of the mind is not empty?

See above.
I have heared many times ChNN Rinpoche explaining emptyness and nature of mind as "infinite potentiality".

Avidya is the incapacity of the conditioned ordinary mind to operate outside its concepts and categories.

Thus it obscures the nature of the mind, just as clouds cover the sun, from the perspective of someone standing on the ground in a rainstorm. It does not mean the sun as has ceased shining. But the sun is obscured for such a person.

It does not obscure anything.
We are just looking with the wrong instrument.
The ordinary conditioned mind being just another sense organ; we could say it is like trying to smell with our eyes.

tp.

[Malcolm]

The nature of mind is ultimate reality and can never be obscured nor is it latent. It is simply as it is.

What do you mean by the nature of the mind? Its emptiness?

Emptyness, clarity and their inseparability is nature of mind.

So here you mean clarity is ultimate? How can the nature of mind be ultimate if it is held to have parts?


What you said above is, "All possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness, not the nature of mind."

So are you saying that all phenomena are not possible within the nature of mind? Or is there some typo here?

It [avidyā] does not obscure anything.
We are just looking with the wrong instrument.
The ordinary conditioned mind being just another sense organ; we could say it is like trying to smell with our eyes.

With what faculty does one see the nature of the mind, if not with the mind itself?

[tatpurusa]

What do you mean by the nature of the mind? Its emptiness?

Emptyness, clarity and their inseparability is nature of mind.

So here you mean clarity is ultimate? How can the nature of mind be ultimate if it is held to have parts?

Nature of mind has no parts. These are aspects of the nature, not parts. And they are not different from one another.
Even so, being concepts they are just attempts by the masters to express the inexpressible experience.
They are just meant as a help to recognize it.

What you said above is, "All possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness, not the nature of mind."

So are you saying that all phenomena are not possible within the nature of mind? Or is there some typo here?

No, this is not what I am saying, at least not what I intended to say (I am not a native English speaker)
What I intended to say was that all possible phenomena are latent within the infinite potentialy of emptyness.
The nature of mind is not latent (referring to krodha's saying "latent and unrecognized nature of mind") and not contained in anything.
Because the nature is not an object, not a phenomenon, not a concept but emptyness which is infinite potentiality.
All possible phenomena appear from the nature, withinin the nature and liberate back to the nature.
The have no separate, inherent existence.

It [avidyā] does not obscure anything.
We are just looking with the wrong instrument.
The ordinary conditioned mind being just another sense organ; we could say it is like trying to smell with our eyes.

With what faculty does one see the nature of the mind, if not with the mind itself?

The ordinary conditioned mind operates only with objects, categories, concepts. That is all.
The nature of mind is not an object, not a concept, not a phenomenon.
So the ordinary mind cannot percieve it, because it is looking for an object outside or inside of itself.
It can of course make a concept and an object out of the nature of mind through abstraction, but this is not real experience.
This is why it will never be able to percieve it.

The clarity of the nature of mind means it is self-aware.
The way of recognizing nature is direct perception, not through the conceptual mind.

tp.

[Malcolm]

Emptyness, clarity and their inseparability is nature of mind.

So here you mean clarity is ultimate? How can the nature of mind be ultimate if it is held to have parts?

Nature of mind has no parts. These are aspects of the nature, not parts. And they are not different from one another.
Even so, being concepts they are just attempts by the masters to express the inexpressible experience.
They are just meant as a help to recognize it.

So, since you hold clarity as ultimate, how can it cognize or be aware of anything, including itself?

The nature of mind is not latent (referring to krodha's saying "latent and unrecognized nature of mind") and not contained in anything.

When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.

Because the nature is not an object, not a phenomenon, not a concept but emptyness which is infinite potentiality.
All possible phenomena appear from the nature, withinin the nature and liberate back to the nature.
The have no separate, inherent existence.

So you are claiming a nonphenomena as a source of phenomena? How does that happen?

The ordinary conditioned mind operates only with objects, categories, concepts. That is all.
The nature of mind is not an object, not a concept, not a phenomenon.

So the ordinary mind cannot percieve it, because it is looking for an object outside or inside of itself.

It can of course make a concept and an object out of the nature of mind through abstraction, but this is not real experience.
This is why it will never be able to percieve it

So here, you are absolutely claiming that the mind can never see its own nature. Right?

The clarity of the nature of mind means it is self-aware.

What do you mean by self-aware? Is this clarity of the nature of the mind part of the mind or something different than the mind?

If is not different than the mind, why claim the mind cannot see its own nature?

If it is different than the mind, why call it the nature of the mind since it is other than the mind?

The way of recognizing nature is direct perception, not through the conceptual mind.

Direct perception with what instrument of perception?

[tatpurusa]

So, since you hold clarity as ultimate, how can it cognize or be aware of anything, including itself?

So you say nature of mind is not self-aware? How do you reconcile this with Dzogchen?

The nature of mind is not latent (referring to krodha's saying "latent and unrecognized nature of mind") and not contained in anything.

When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.

I understand what krodha means. This does not make it correct though.

Because the nature is not an object, not a phenomenon, not a concept but emptyness which is infinite potentiality.
All possible phenomena appear from the nature, withinin the nature and liberate back to the nature.
The have no separate, inherent existence.

So you are claiming a nonphenomena as a source of phenomena? How does that happen?

You might claim it, I don't.
Phenomena are created by avidya and are illusion by definition.
They originate from the incapacity of the conceptual mind to percieve reality as it is.

The ordinary conditioned mind operates only with objects, categories, concepts. That is all.
The nature of mind is not an object, not a concept, not a phenomenon.

So the ordinary mind cannot percieve it, because it is looking for an object outside or inside of itself.

It can of course make a concept and an object out of the nature of mind through abstraction, but this is not real experience.
This is why it will never be able to percieve it

So here, you are absolutely claiming that the mind can never see its own nature. Right?

So, you are claiming here that the mind (owner) has a nature (object). Right?
What about dualism and conceptual thinking?

The clarity of the nature of mind means it is self-aware.

What do you mean by self-aware? Is this clarity of the nature of the mind part of the mind or something different than the mind?

If is not different than the mind, why claim the mind cannot see its own nature?

Maybe you think "nature of mind" (not nature of "the" mind!) is a possession or a part of the mind. I have never thought or heard anything like that.
So please explain me: where does the (ordinary conceptual) mind come from?
How can it "have" a nature?
Can a wave, existing for 30 seconds, and even within this 30 seconds ever changing its shape and position, "own" the ocean.
Can you claim it's "his" ocean? In everyday speach maybe, but that's all.

If it is different than the mind, why call it the nature of the mind since it is other than the mind?

The way of recognizing nature is direct perception, not through the conceptual mind.

Direct perception with what instrument of perception?

Why would you need an instrument to perceive something that is not dualistically separate from the perceiver?
Instruments you need in order to manipulate objects. In this case there is a manipulator, an instrument and a manipulated object.
This is the function of the ordinary mind, avidya by definition.
Dou you really think avidya is a proper "instrument" in order to reach bodhi?

tp.

[krodha]

When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.

I understand what krodha means. This does not make it correct though.

If I’m incorrect, then all sentient beings are aware of the nature of their minds at all times. Is this what you are asserting?

[tatpurusa]

When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.

I understand what krodha means. This does not make it correct though.

If I’m incorrect, then all sentient beings are aware of the nature of their minds at all times. Is this what you are asserting?

"Who" and "what" are these sentient beings in reality? Their ordinary, ever changing minds?
What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion?
Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion?
Are samsara and suffering absolute reality?
What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

tp.

[krodha]

"Who" and "what" are these sentient beings in reality? Their ordinary, ever changing minds?

This depends on what you mean by “reality.” If by “reality” you mean their actual nature, then these sentient beings are ultimately nothing at all. That absence of identity, essence, etc., is the ultimate truth of sentient beings, and everything for that matter.

Nevertheless, we do not engage in these teachings from the standpoint of ultimate truth, and if we insist on an ultimate view from the standpoint of our relative condition then we err into nihilism.

Therefore in the context of the application of these teachings, sentient beings are beings who are deluded regarding their actual nature.

What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion? Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion? Are samsara and suffering absolute reality? What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

tp.

This is a landslide of questions, I’m not sure what your intention is in asking all of these questions.

The point we are discussing is the fact that sentient beings are precisely “sentient beings” because they are ignorant of their nature. That nature is veiled due to the presence of adventitious obscurations, and therefore is “latent,” meaning “present but obstructed by certain conditions.”

[tatpurusa]

"Who" and "what" are these sentient beings in reality? Their ordinary, ever changing minds?

This depends on what you mean by “reality.” If by “reality” you mean their actual nature, then these sentient beings are ultimately nothing at all. That absence of identity, essence, etc., is the ultimate truth of sentient beings, and everything for that matter.

Nevertheless, we do not engage in these teachings from the standpoint of ultimate truth, and if we insist on an ultimate view from the standpoint of our relative condition then we err into nihilism.

Shunyata has nothing to do with nihilism. If you think ultimately sentient beings are nothing at all, you definitely do not understand what emptiness means.

What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion? Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion? Are samsara and suffering absolute reality? What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

tp.

This is a landslide of questions, I’m not sure what your intention is in asking all of these questions.
The point we are discussing is the fact that sentient beings are precisely “sentient beings” because they are ignorant of their nature. That nature is veiled due to the presence of adventitious obscurations, and therefore is “latent,” meaning “present but obstructed by certain conditions.”

I have not asked this "landslide of questions" in order to somehow confuse you.
I have asked them because their clarification is necessary in order to understand what the difference and what the relationship is between *ordinary, conditioned, conceptual mind" and "nature of mind"

tp.

[krodha]

Shunyata has nothing to do with nihilism. If you think ultimately sentient beings are nothing at all, you definitely do not understand what emptiness means.

All phenomena, including sentient beings, are ultimately unfindable, this is the actual meaning of emptiness. The ultimate invalidity if sentient beings is an integral teaching of the Mahāyāna that is found even in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

Regarding nihilism, because I have not negated the conventional status of sentient beings, I have not advocated for a nihilist view.

What is awareness? What is reality and what is illusion? Are sentient beings really, absolutely deluded in your opinion? Are samsara and suffering absolute reality? What is time and what is the relationship between time and emptiness?

This is a landslide of questions

I have not asked this "landslide of questions" in order to somehow confuse you.

I never said you intended to confuse me, but seven questions launched in consecutive sentences is a bit excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps choose one or two so the conversation is manageable.

I have asked them because their clarification is necessary in order to understand what the difference and what the relationship is between *ordinary, conditioned, conceptual mind" and "nature of mind

The ordinary, conditioned mind is dualistic, it cognizes external entities, and mistakes itself to be an established entity, a self, that acts as an agent, engaging in activities and being subjected to positive and negative occurrences, etc.

The nature of mind is the ordinary mind’s actual nature, which is its ultimate insubstantiality.

When the nature of mind is defined as inseparable emptiness and clarity [stong gsal dbyer med], the actual meaning of this is “the emptiness of clarity,” the emptiness of the knowing or cognizant aspect of the mind, and the unreality of the self that is imputed into that knowing, cognizant quality.

To know the nature of the mind we must awaken [budh]. Buddha literally means “awakened one” because a Buddha has awakened to the nature of their mind and has eradicated all obscurations so that they rest in that nature at all times.

In brief: when the mind is ignorant of its nature then it is expressed as the ordinary dualistic mind [skt. citta, tib. sems], with all of the implications listed above. This ignorance occurs because the mind’s clarity, or its aware aspect is not recognized to be empty, and is reified as an abiding, background substratum as a result. That substrate becomes the foundation for the misconception of a self, and the misconception of external phenomena by default.

When ignorance ceases, the mind awakens to its actual nature, and the nature of phenomena in general. Meaning the self, and the substrate the self is imputed upon are realized to be false, and allegedly external entities — persons, places and things are also recognized to be false.

[Malcolm]

So, since you hold clarity as ultimate, how can it cognize or be aware of anything, including itself?

So you say nature of mind is not self-aware? How do you reconcile this with Dzogchen?

This kind of self-awareness is rejected in Dzogchen teachings, since it does not go beyond the level of yogacāra and leads to the formless realms.

With respect to this:

Phenomena are created by avidya and are illusion by definition.
They originate from the incapacity of the conceptual mind to percieve reality as it is.

This contradicts your assertion that phenomena are created by the nature of the mind:

All possible phenomena appear from the nature, withinin the nature and liberate back to the nature.

With respect to this statement:

Maybe you think "nature of mind" (not nature of "the" mind!) is a possession or a part of the mind.

If it is isn't an aspect of mind, it is stupid to call it "nature of mind," or "nature of the mind" since it is something different from "mind" or "the mind." (The presence or absence of the article "the" does not change the meaning at all).

Why would you need an instrument to perceive something that is not dualistically separate from the perceiver?

Direct perceptions require subject apprehenders and apprehended objects. If you claim the nature of the mind needs to be directly perceived, you have to define both the means of perception as well as the object being perceived.

[Grigoris]

This kind of self-awareness is rejected in Dzogchen teachings, since it does not go beyond the level of yogacāra and leads to the formless realms.

So, are you saying that Yogachara is not a valid path of liberation and that it only leads to rebirth in the formless realms?

[Malcolm]

This kind of self-awareness is rejected in Dzogchen teachings, since it does not go beyond the level of yogacāra and leads to the formless realms.

So , are you saying that Yogachara is not a valid path of liberation and that it only leads to rebirth in the formless realms?

In terms of philosophical positions, this assertion (that self-aware clarity is ultimate) does not go beyond Yogacāra. As a consequence, meditating from a perspective that holds that such self-aware clarity is ultimate leads to rebirth in the formless realms at best.

And yes, the Yogacāra position will not lead to the path of seeing, since it is realist position, and is refuted in detail by such Mādhyamika authors as Āryavimuktisena, Candrakīrti, Bhāva, Śantideva, Śantarakṣita, Atisha, and so on

[Grigoris]

In terms of philosophical positions, this assertion (that self-aware clarity is ultimate) does not go beyond Yogacāra. As a consequence, meditating from a perspective that holds that such self-aware clarity is ultimate leads to rebirth in the formless realms at best.

So East Asian Chan and Zen practices (which tend to be based on the Yogachara view) lead to, at best, rebirth in the formless realms?

[Malcolm]

In terms of philosophical positions, this assertion (that self-aware clarity is ultimate) does not go beyond Yogacāra. As a consequence, meditating from a perspective that holds that such self-aware clarity is ultimate leads to rebirth in the formless realms at best.

So East Asian Chan and Zen practices (which tend to be based on the Yogachara view) lead to, at best, rebirth in the formless realms?

According to all Indian Mādhyamikas, if someone's practice is based on the Yogacāra view, the latter will not achieve the path of seeing.

[Grigoris]

According to all Indian Mādhyamikas, if someone's practice is based on the Yogacāra view, the latter will not achieve the path of seeing.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

An opinion that proved rather dangerous for the Jonangpa.

[Malcolm]

According to all Indian Mādhyamikas, if someone's practice is based on the Yogacāra view, the latter will not achieve the path of seeing.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

An opinion that proved rather dangerous for the Jonangpa.

No, it is not merely an opinion. There is an entire Madhyamaka literature which definitively refutes the Yogācāra school in terms of citations and reasoning. Not to mention many mentions in the tantras where Yogacāra is relegated to an inferior position.

With respect to the Jonangpas, they were not banned because of gzhan stong. Jonang was suppressed because they supported the King of Tsang during the war between the King of Tsang and the Ganden Phodrang of the Great Fifth.

Also, it is an error to assert that east Asian Buddhists are "Yogacārins." Yogācāra is a well understood school in East Asian Buddhism, thanks to Hsuan Tsang, and no one really follows his school. Yogacāra is definitely not considered a definitive position by native Huayen scholars, Tientai scholars, Chan scholars, and so on.

Interestingly enough, the idea that East Asian Buddhism is unduly influenced by Yogacāra is basically a Gelgupa idea advanced by Thuken and taken up by some western scholars.

[Grigoris]

No, it is not merely an opinion. There is an entire Madhyamaka literature which definitively refutes the Yogācāra school in terms of citations and reasoning.

And the Catholics have a few things to say about Protestant and Orthodox Christians...