What kind of mind do Buddhas have

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
cloudburst
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by cloudburst »

conebeckham wrote:
Relative and absolute,
These the two truths are declared to be.
The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,
For intellect is grounded in the relative.
The first two lines are clear--there are two truths, Relative and Absolute. The third line indicates that the Absolute is not an object of the intellect. "Intellect," in this case, is a fairly specific word, in Tibetan, blos., which stands for an aspect of conceptual mind. "Intellect" is a good translation, IMO. Malcolm translated it as "Mind," and that is okay, but it's a more specific aspect of the mental continuum, in my opinion, and "Intellect" is more precise. It is this aspect of the mind, blos., which is considered to be of, or on the level of, the conventional truth. I find this to be very clear--it says that our conceptual mind, analytic capacity, Intellectual knowledge, etc., is relative and cannot cognize the Ultimate.
I agree with all this
conebeckham wrote: Show me, in the Sanskrit or Tibetan, where the "non-affirming negative phenomenon" is mentioned.
I don't think you have understood my points, I don't think I ever defended this translation. In my understanding, which is limited, I think this translation is meant to transmit to students what the translator feel is the intended meaning. He has obviously given himself considerable leeway to interpolate etc. That said, I personally feel the translation does a good job of making explicit the meaning of the verse.
conebeckham wrote: Explain to me why blos. must needs be translated as "dualistic appearance."
to say it needs to be translated in this way would be to go way to far, but I will hazard that it is being translated in this way because any conventional mind (intellect) will necessarily have dualistic appearance
conebeckham wrote: Show me where the original concludes that blos. is "mistaken awareness."
if it is a conventional mind, it DEFINITELY is mistaken, no? Again, I am not saying this is found in the original translation, but am happy to explore why the meaning offered may be helpful.....
conebeckham wrote:
hope to get back to some of your previous points soon, I have no stake in arguing about translations of Shantideva
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by Tsongkhapafan »

conebeckham wrote: This verse says nothing about existence, conventional or ultimate, by the way. TsongKhapaFan's version adds these elaborations. To repeat:
The two truths are explained as conventional truths and ultimate truths.
Ultimate truth, emptiness, is a non­affirming negative phenomenon
That cannot be realized directly by a mind that has dualistic appearance,
For such minds are conventional, and thus mistaken awareness.
Show me, in the Sanskrit or Tibetan, where the "non-naffirming negative phenomenon" is mentioned. Explain to me why blos. must needs be translated as "dualistic appearance." Show me where the original concludes that blos. is "mistaken awareness." The original does not say such a thing explicitly.
The translation is not a literal translation of the words but a translation of the meaning, which is far more important for practical purposes - i.e., attaining enlightenment.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5107
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by conebeckham »

cloudburst wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Relative and absolute,
These the two truths are declared to be.
The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,
For intellect is grounded in the relative.
The first two lines are clear--there are two truths, Relative and Absolute. The third line indicates that the Absolute is not an object of the intellect. "Intellect," in this case, is a fairly specific word, in Tibetan, blos., which stands for an aspect of conceptual mind. "Intellect" is a good translation, IMO. Malcolm translated it as "Mind," and that is okay, but it's a more specific aspect of the mental continuum, in my opinion, and "Intellect" is more precise. It is this aspect of the mind, blos., which is considered to be of, or on the level of, the conventional truth. I find this to be very clear--it says that our conceptual mind, analytic capacity, Intellectual knowledge, etc., is relative and cannot cognize the Ultimate.
I agree with all this
conebeckham wrote: Show me, in the Sanskrit or Tibetan, where the "non-affirming negative phenomenon" is mentioned.
I don't think you have understood my points, I don't think I ever defended this translation. In my understanding, which is limited, I think this translation is meant to transmit to students what the translator feel is the intended meaning. He has obviously given himself considerable leeway to interpolate etc. That said, I personally feel the translation does a good job of making explicit the meaning of the verse.
I would argue that the intended meaning of this verse is as follows: "There are two truths, conventional and ultimate. Ultimate cannot be an object of mind. Mental activity, in the sense of discursive mind, intellect, etc., is conventional (and therefore not ultimate). That is all the verse says.
cloudburst wrote:
conebeckham wrote: Explain to me why blos. must needs be translated as "dualistic appearance."
to say it needs to be translated in this way would be to go way to far, but I will hazard that it is being translated in this way because any conventional mind (intellect) will necessarily have dualistic appearance
No argument with that assertion, but that verse does not point to that assertion. There may be other verses of the text that do, however.
Cloudburst wrote:
conebeckham wrote: Show me where the original concludes that blos. is "mistaken awareness."
if it is a conventional mind, it DEFINITELY is mistaken, no? Again, I am not saying this is found in the original translation, but am happy to explore why the meaning offered may be helpful.....
Again, no argument with the assertion that conventional mind is "mistaken awareness" with respect to the ultimate, which the verse clearly defines as something not to be encompassed by the "mind," the discursive consciousness, intellect, etc. I think this is a case of reaching a conclusion that is clear in the "root text." However, it does lead to a question, potentially--which is, "well, then, what is UNMISTAKEN Awareness?" Is such a thing possible? It strikes my as an unnecessary tangent, and one with potential pitfalls.

Summing this up even more succinctly, I think we can say: "Conventional Truth is what is an object of mind, and all such objects cannot be Ultimate Truth." That's it. No assertion of "existence," per se, at any level of truth, in this verse, at least.
hope to get back to some of your previous points soon, I have no stake in arguing about translations of Shantideva
Okay, but you should have some concern about the accuracy of translations of Shantideva!
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Malcolm
Posts: 32632
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by Malcolm »

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
The translation is not a literal translation of the words but a translation of the meaning, .
We disagree. It does not translate meaning of the verse, nor the words.
User avatar
Artziebetter1
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 13, 2020 12:09 pm

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by Artziebetter1 »

So from what I'm reading here,is that before I attain buddhahood I will be unconscious and like in a coma state?I will be a robot as a buddha?and this is due to my past actions?I thought the mahayana view was different to the sravaka view.I am not sure I want to go into permanent uncosnciousness,as that is just like going into oblivion.
User avatar
Artziebetter1
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 13, 2020 12:09 pm

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by Artziebetter1 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:15 pm
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

and what is your citation for this?
You know I can't give my citations because of the TOS, however, I will quote Dharmakirti's definition of mind which is 'that which is clarity and cognising'. Buddhas have minds, minds cognise, cognition requires mental factors, ergo, Buddhas have minds with mental factors. Bliss for example is experienced by mental factor feeling.

Buddha are not like stones.
Of course you can give your citations. But I meant from Sutra.

When one says that a Buddha has jñan̄a, but not vijñāna, this does not mean a Buddha is inert, it means the opposite.

Cognition for an ordinary sentient being requires mental factors, but a Buddha's jñāna does not require mental factors.

For example there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states:
  • "Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?"

    "Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation."

    "Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors arise without the action of formations?"

    "Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom.

    Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of method and wisdom."

    "Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?"

    "Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless, because minds are neither independent nor dependent."
In other words, the mind of a tathāgata is like an emanation, it appears to function in all the ways that a mind functions, but in reality, there are no present active formations happening. Everything that seems to happen in the mind of a Buddha is based on some past cultivation of method and wisdom on the path.

So Buddhas seem to have minds, but in reality, all they have is wisdom.
this is Scary to me.I hope this isn't the case and Tsongkhapafan is right.I do not want to go into oblivion.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5107
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have

Post by conebeckham »

Who said anything about oblivion?

Buddhas reside (in some sense) in wisdom. Wisdom is not oblivion.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”