No end to samsara?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by kalden yungdrung » Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:15 am

Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:09 am


Samsara is not without a cause. The cause of Samsara is part of the four noble truths.
Here was spoken / explained that Mind has no cause.
Samsara and al dualisms inside Samsara have a cause and result based on :

- Poisitive Karma
- Negative Karma
- Neutral Karma
The best meditation is no meditation

tatpurusa
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by tatpurusa » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:02 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:05 am
In that case Arhats, Bodhisattvas or Buddhas would not perceive time, would not perceive past, present or future, but that clearly is not the case.
Arhats, Bodhisattvas or Buddhas exist in reality. Reality is dharmakaya and is beyond time. Dharmakaya does not depend on ordinary mind.
It does not mean they do not "know" it.
They "know" it the same way they know the rest of the aspects of samsara: without any delusion regarding its illusory nature.

tp.

tatpurusa
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by tatpurusa » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:11 pm

Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:09 am
kalden yungdrung wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:25 pm
WuMing wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:19 pm
no end ... there was not even a beginning.
Something which is without a cause has also no beginning, so no end.
Samsara is not without a cause. The cause of Samsara is part of the four noble truths.

The point is that unless one removes the cause with the nidana of the path, samsara will never end of its own.

There is no first cause that can be identified. No beginning, because it is an endless cycle.
The only cause of samsāra is avidyā. Avidyā is a function of the ordinary mind. It is illusion, including the illusion of time.
The only reality is emptyness which is timeless.

tp.

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1725
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Crazywisdom » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:15 pm

tatpurusa wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:11 pm
Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:09 am
kalden yungdrung wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:25 pm


Something which is without a cause has also no beginning, so no end.
Samsara is not without a cause. The cause of Samsara is part of the four noble truths.

The point is that unless one removes the cause with the nidana of the path, samsara will never end of its own.

There is no first cause that can be identified. No beginning, because it is an endless cycle.
The only cause of samsāra is avidyā. Avidyā is a function of the ordinary mind. It is illusion, including the illusion of time.
The only reality is emptyness which is timeless.

tp.
There’s no beginning of avidhya, no first moment.
I got my Chili Chilaya.

tatpurusa
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by tatpurusa » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:19 pm

Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:15 pm
tatpurusa wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:11 pm
Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:09 am


Samsara is not without a cause. The cause of Samsara is part of the four noble truths.

The point is that unless one removes the cause with the nidana of the path, samsara will never end of its own.

There is no first cause that can be identified. No beginning, because it is an endless cycle.
The only cause of samsāra is avidyā. Avidyā is a function of the ordinary mind. It is illusion, including the illusion of time.
The only reality is emptyness which is timeless.

tp.
There’s no beginning of avidhya, no first moment.
Exactly. How could there be a first moment if there is no time?
Someone could explain me how time would make sense to emptyness (wich is infinite potentiality)?

tp.

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1725
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Crazywisdom » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:39 pm

tatpurusa wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:19 pm
Crazywisdom wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:15 pm
tatpurusa wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:11 pm


The only cause of samsāra is avidyā. Avidyā is a function of the ordinary mind. It is illusion, including the illusion of time.
The only reality is emptyness which is timeless.

tp.
There’s no beginning of avidhya, no first moment.
Exactly. How could there be a first moment if there is no time?
Someone could explain me how time would make sense to emptyness (wich is infinite potentiality)?

tp.
There’s relative time.
Last edited by Crazywisdom on Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I got my Chili Chilaya.

tatpurusa
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by tatpurusa » Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:03 pm

Emptyness is śunyāśunya (both empty and full) meaning "infinite potentiality".
We all know that in samsāra everything is an eternal process of transformation (arising, degrading, perishing , transformation of
energy-matter-energy etc.). This implies causation and time. But this is samsāra, illusory by definition.
Reality, śunyāśunya, infinite potentiality cannot be processed by the ordinary mind as it is. It has to invent some orientation.
So it cuts up this reality into categories of nāmarūpa. This division is as we know quite arbitrary.
nāma ("name") is the concept, the identification of those arbitrary divisions of reality.
rūpa ("form") is the state of the appearance defined at a certain point of time.
So this division of reality according to nāmarūpa follows concept and time. These are the coordinates it uses for
orientation and processing.
This is the way the ordinary mind creates the illusion of causality, samsāra, karma and all that follows.

Reality, śunyatā, nirvāņa, dharmakāya do not depend on the processing by the ordinary mind and are therefore without concepts and timeless.
They are actually completely unaccessible/unattainable to the ordinary conceptual mind.

tp.

Seeker12
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Seeker12 » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:47 pm

The naive imagine cessation
As the annihilation of an originated being;
While the wise understood it
As like the ceasing of a magical illusion.

Yukitsastika
Therein is nothing to remove
And thereto not the slightest thing to add.
The perfect truth viewed perfectly
And perfectly beheld is liberation.

Uttaratantra

User avatar
Monlam Tharchin
Global Moderator
Posts: 1896
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Monlam Tharchin » Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:16 am

Beings are so numerous they're beyond counting, like the grains of sand in a river.
This refers not only to beings but to their afflictions, which they've spent an incredibly long time accumulating.
To help one severely deluded being takes a very long time.
To help many takes that much longer.

Chenrezig spent a long time carrying out bodhisattva activities.
When he took a break to see if the number of deluded beings had reduced, even after all this work, he saw they were just as numerous as before.
His determination faltered and, in despair, his head split into a thousand pieces.

What did Amitabha do in response? He gave Chenrezig a thousand faces and a thousand arms. He turned this despair into even greater motivation and means.
This gives us some idea of the task before us.
We must be just as bold, just as untiring.
We have the Dharma and the buddhas to help us do this. It is in fact the only thing worth doing.
Amitābha Buddha!

The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have unobstructed vision in all directions. Everything is in their presence; and I stand in front of them. -- Shantideva

Free Pure Land Buddhism resources

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by kirtu » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:45 am

Vasana wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:01 am
kirtu wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:00 pm
Temicco wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:17 pm
Really, the question is just, what rationale is there behind the idea that samsara doesn't end?

Clearly people become unconfused. As for individual samsara, that is how it is framed in basically every tradition. There are many teachings that discuss how certain practices etc. will end samsara and bring about Buddhahood.
There will always be deluded beings because there are an infinite number of beings some of which will not attain enlightenment.

Kirt
Is this a general statement or a view particular to Ati? I remember seeing something similar before but hadn't looked in to it.
It's a general Buddhist statement so it is a lower view. Nonetheless it appears to be "correct" even in Ati, although Ati should definitely support the view that all beings would eventually awaken directly to their Buddha Nature. I long for a counter statement from Jigme Lingpa, et al.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Supramundane » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:21 am

Monlam Tharchin wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:16 am
Beings are so numerous they're beyond counting, like the grains of sand in a river.
This refers not only to beings but to their afflictions, which they've spent an incredibly long time accumulating.
To help one severely deluded being takes a very long time.
To help many takes that much longer.

Chenrezig spent a long time carrying out bodhisattva activities.
When he took a break to see if the number of deluded beings had reduced, even after all this work, he saw they were just as numerous as before.
His determination faltered and, in despair, his head split into a thousand pieces.

What did Amitabha do in response? He gave Chenrezig a thousand faces and a thousand arms. He turned this despair into even greater motivation and means.
This gives us some idea of the task before us.
We must be just as bold, just as untiring.
We have the Dharma and the buddhas to help us do this. It is in fact the only thing worth doing.
:good: :heart: :heart: :heart:

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Vasana » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:15 am

kirtu wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:45 am
Vasana wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:01 am
kirtu wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:00 pm


There will always be deluded beings because there are an infinite number of beings some of which will not attain enlightenment.

Kirt
Is this a general statement or a view particular to Ati? I remember seeing something similar before but hadn't looked in to it.
It's a general Buddhist statement so it is a lower view. Nonetheless it appears to be "correct" even in Ati, although Ati should definitely support the view that all beings would eventually awaken directly to their Buddha Nature. I long for a counter statement from Jigme Lingpa, et al.

Kirt
Thanks, I found the thread were some of this was mentioned.

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=22669&start=20
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Vasana » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:18 am

This explanation from Berzin on this topic is very good in that it distinguishes different types of (a)temporality.

[...]Four Types of Temporal Continuums

In general, there are four types of temporal continuums.

The first type is a continuum that has both a beginning and an end. For example, this body that we now have has a beginning, when we were conceived, and an end, when we will die. And it continues from moment to moment while we are alive, without any break. That’s easy to understand.

The second type has no beginning, but has an end. This is more difficult to understand. Examples are uncontrollably recurring rebirth – in other words, samsara – and ignorance or unawareness about how we and everything exists. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call that “confusion about reality.” Samsara and confusion about reality, which fuels samsara, have no beginning. But, they can have an end. When that lack of awareness that is perpetuating our samsaric existence is replaced by awareness – in other words, when that confusion is replaced by correct understanding – and perfect concentration is maintained without any break on that correct understanding, then our confusion comes to a true end, and so does our uncontrollably recurring rebirth. Correct understanding and incorrect understanding – knowing and not knowing – cannot coexist at the same moment on one mental continuum.

The third type of temporal continuum is one that has a beginning, but no end. An example would be the disintegration of a glass. When I break a glass, that disintegration, that ending of the glass, has a beginning. It starts when the glass breaks, but it has no end, does it? It is going to go on forever: that glass will always be broken. A million years in the future, that glass will still be broken. It is not going to come back. The disintegration of the glass, then, has a beginning, but no end.

The fourth type is something that has no beginning and no end. A mental continuum is an example of something with no beginning and no end. This is what we need to understand when we are trying to understand the Buddhist teaching on rebirth: we are dealing with a continuum of mental activity that has no beginning and no end.

We need to be careful, here, and make a clear distinction. Any individual mental continuum has no beginning and no end. But, each mental continuum can have two phases. One phase is the samsaric phase, when that mental continuum undergoes uncontrollably recurring rebirth under the influence of confusion about reality, and therefore is filled with the various forms of suffering. This first phase has no beginning, but can have an end. The second phase is the nirvanic or liberated phase, when that mental continuum continues to manifest birth and death, but totally free of confusion about reality, so that it contains no suffering at all.

This second phase will have a beginning, but no end. Different schools of Buddhism offer several interpretations of this second phase. Let us simplify the discussion here and present only one point of view. The nirvanic phase may continue for a limited period as merely being liberated from samsara. During this merely liberated period, the mental activity will still be limited; it will not yet be omniscient. But, eventually, the merely liberated period will come to an end with the attainment of enlightenment and the nirvanic phase will then have an unending period as an omniscient Buddha. And so, if we consider these phases and periods all together, then any individual continuum of mental activity has no beginning and no end.

To understand the Buddhist teaching on rebirth, then, requires understanding what underlies rebirth – the Buddhist explanation of mind.

Mind

What Buddhism means by “mind” is very specific. It refers to a continuum of mental activity – a “mental continuum.” Let’s not go into a detailed explanation of mind here, but rather let’s make it simple. A mental continuum is an unbroken succession of moments of experiencing things. There is a moment of experiencing, followed by another moment of experiencing, and another, and so on. That’s what we’re talking about. And it is an experiencing of things, an experiencing of something. There can’t be experiencing without it being the experiencing of something, just as there can’t be thinking without thinking something.

We’re not talking about a physical or immaterial object that does the experiencing. And we’re not talking about some sort of “tool” that somebody is using to experience things, like a camera to take a photo, or as in: “I’m using my mind to experience this.” It’s not that the mind is some sort of thing that is experiencing something. Because of that, then to understand the Buddhist presentation, it’s perhaps better to use the word mind as little as possible, because it can be confusing. All we’re talking about is the activity alone, the activity of experiencing something. If we want to specify it more, we would have to say it is the “mere, individual, subjective experiencing of things.[...]”

https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... n-buddhism
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:56 am

In 'Guide to the Middle Way' by Chandrakirti he states:

[VI.194] Because samsara lacks both
A first beginning and a final end
It is described as beginningless and endless.
Because it is free from coming and going, it is like a dream.

[VI.195] In the scriptures it clearly says that
That which is the isolation of this samsara
Is called the ‘emptiness
Of the beginningless and endless’.

Samsara lacks a first beginning and, if we do not apply the antidotes, it will have no final end. Therefore it is called ‘beginningless and endless'.

This does not mean that samsara has no end. Because its cause - self-grasping ignorance - can be eliminated through the wisdom realising emptiness, it can come to an end but it will never end on its own. For as long as a cause exists, its effect will continue to be produced.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Vasana » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:40 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:56 am
For as long as a cause exists, its effect will continue to be produced.
This point has been hitting home a lot recently (better late than never, I guess). Samsara is pretty awful :cry:
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

Motova
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Motova » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:11 pm

kirtu wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:45 am
Vasana wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:01 am
kirtu wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:00 pm


There will always be deluded beings because there are an infinite number of beings some of which will not attain enlightenment.

Kirt
Is this a general statement or a view particular to Ati? I remember seeing something similar before but hadn't looked in to it.
It's a general Buddhist statement so it is a lower view. Nonetheless it appears to be "correct" even in Ati, although Ati should definitely support the view that all beings would eventually awaken directly to their Buddha Nature. I long for a counter statement from Jigme Lingpa, et al.

Kirt
I might be wrong, but I remember Malcolm said that all sentient beings realize buddhahood at the end of this eon according to Ati.

I may also be wrong about this as well, but I remember those who don't realize the Great Transference revert back to sentient beings after awhile and Samsara restarts.
To become a rain man one must master the ten virtues and sciences.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:07 pm

That would mean that the awakened are substantially retrogradable.

Does that mean that all sentient beings become arhantaḥ at the end of the kapla? It doesn't seem to make sense.

According to the dispensation to the śrāvaka, beings inhabit the Brahmā Heaven (大梵天) after the destruction of the lower realms by the elements. Sentient beings then descend to repopulate the kāmadhātu. Perhaps that is what you were remembering?
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

Motova
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Motova » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:05 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:07 pm
That would mean that the awakened are substantially retrogradable.

Does that mean that all sentient beings become arhantaḥ at the end of the kapla? It doesn't seem to make sense.

According to the dispensation to the śrāvaka, beings inhabit the Brahmā Heaven (大梵天) after the destruction of the lower realms by the elements. Sentient beings then descend to repopulate the kāmadhātu. Perhaps that is what you were remembering?
No.
To become a rain man one must master the ten virtues and sciences.

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3001
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:47 am

Aemilius wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:47 am
"Samsara" is a word of human language, a concept in a human culture. Hence the word "samsara" and the view that evolved it have some kind of a beginning. There is a time when they didn't exist. At least in the modern view of history, geology and astronomy that is so.
I love it when people use the word, exist when discussing dharma,
because, of course, sunyata. phenomena lack intrinsic existence.

Yes, the word "samsara" is merely a label for what is merely a conceptualization of the way that beings suffer.
But obviously there were beings who suffered long before there were humans around to invent labels for their suffering.

So, what you are saying is, there had to be a time in the universe before sentient beings existed.
We can certainly determine that there was a time on Earth before life existed.
As far as the known universe, that's hard to say.
"Materialists" maintain that atoms and molecules and combinations of chemical compounds can spontaneously generate conscious awareness, that, for example, salt and water and amino acids can "know" they exist. This is the view of people who assert that consciousness is produced by the physical brain.

It can also be argued that consciousness is what results purely as an interaction of awareness with any object of awareness, that awareness without an object to be conscious of isn't consciousness per se, it is potential consciousness.
If you ask, "how can there be awareness of it isn't consciousness?" , consider that If I enter a completely light-proof room, a room that is completely dark, even though I possess the potential ability, the optical apparatus needed to see objects, there is no consciousness of any objects in the room, because the causes of being conscious of objects (light reflecting off objects and going to my retina) aren't there. Likewise, if there was nothing in the dark room, even though I have eyesight, no interaction will arise.

There may be some confusion due to the words being used. "consciousness" and "awareness" refer to different things. You may be used to using them in the opposite way I use them. People usually say, "I'm conscious ( as an existent state first), and secondly, being aware or not aware (of temporary events). Buddhist texts often refer to basic or fundamental awareness first, and consciousness second, meaning that consciousness only arises in relation to objects. Meditation is said to return one to the mind's basic awareness. Consciousness refers to an aspect of conceptualization.

So, by inference, it can likewise be asserted that awareness can thus exist prior to any encounter with phenomena, prior to becoming what we recognize and experience as consciousness. If this case, awareness can be beginningless.
And if awareness can be beginningless, then samsara can be beginningless, because samsara is, ultimately, confused or clouded awareness.

Another argument frequently made in reference to this (though usually in talking about rebirth) is that every thought is preceded by one before it. You cannot find when the first "moment" of awareness begins. Even sperm cells are attracted by the chemical surface of the egg. They have no brain, no sense organs, but, unlike, say, plant seeds that scatter randomly in the wind, sperm swim intentionally to the egg. Any "attraction" means that there is a very, very basic kind of awareness that an object (the egg) is there in its external environment. It doesn't "know" about the egg in any conceptual sense, perhaps. The sperm isn't thinking, "I have to go fertilize something", jyet neither is it drawn to the egg by gravity or magnetic polarity, or by some physical force such as condensation or suction.

When asked about the Big Bang theory, HH Dalai Lama replied something to the effect that if scientists are saying there was only one big bang, that this doesn't match the Buddhist view. However, if one suggests that the big bang that we can trace is just one in an endless chain of big bangs (energy expanding and contracting into black holes or whatever and then expanding again) then this model makes sense in the Buddhist view.

"Beginningless" is, as you say, just a concept. But so is the idea that the universe has to have a finite starting point.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2079
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: No end to samsara?

Post by Aemilius » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:23 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:47 am

If you ask, "how can there be awareness of it isn't consciousness?" , consider that If I enter a completely light-proof room, a room that is completely dark, even though I possess the potential ability, the optical apparatus needed to see objects, there is no consciousness of any objects in the room, because the causes of being conscious of objects (light reflecting off objects and going to my retina) aren't there. Likewise, if there was nothing in the dark room, even though I have eyesight, no interaction will arise.
That is false. "Darkness" is a perception, it is a conceptualization based on the perception of the lack of light.

Also, there are many places in the teachings of Dharma that state that there is no consciousness or awareness without an object. Consciousness arises depending on the six senses and the objects of the senses. There is no independent or separate consciousness. Claiming such would be same as grasping consciousness or awareness as the "self".


from Nagarjuna's Mula Madhyamaka Karika chapter 9. Investigation of the Presence of Something Prior, (tr. S. Batchelor)

1. Some say that whatever is involved in seeing, hearing etc. and feeling etc. exists prior to them.

2. If [that] thing is not evident, how can there be seeing etc? Therefore, the presence [of that] thing [must] exist before them.

3. What configures/makes known that thing which is present before seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc.?

4. If it were present even without seeing etc., there would be no doubt that they would exist even without it.

5. It is illuminated by them; they are illuminated by it. How could it exist without them? How could they exist without it?

6. It is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc. From among seeing etc. a different one illuminates [it] at different times.

7. If it is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc., how can it be evident prior to [each of them] seeing etc. individually?

8. If the seer itself [were] the hearer and the feeler [were] it too, if it existed prior to each, in that way it would not make sense.

9. If the seer were different, the hearer different, the feeler different, at the time the seer exists, there would be a hearer. Many selves would come about.



It is also said that the consciousness (vijñana) in the twelve links is dependent on avidya/ignorance and samskaras/volitions, and that therefore consciousness is a dependent arising, it is non-selfexistent. This is said in another work of Nagarjuna, (in the Sixty Stanzas or in the Seventy Stanzas).
Consciousness is dependently arisen also as the intermediate state consciousness and as consciousness in the other states of existence (Devas, Asuras etc..).

The teaching of the dependent nature of mind or consciousness is taught in the teaching of the 18 Elements or Dhatus, in the sutras.

I see no difference between consciousness and awareness. Is there a sutra or some other teaching which makes this difference? What terms do they translate?
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.)

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Heruka85, Norwegian, Tiago Simões and 58 guests