What's mind consciousness and why it's a magic show?

[starter]

Hi Teachers/Friends,

Among the six sense consciousness (or the aggregate of consciousness), the mind consciousness is the most difficult to penetrate. We might think we've broken the self identity view but probably not yet -- we could still hold the mind consciousness as the unestalished, which is not the sensing/thinking mind, but the pure "mind" free from the conditioned including defilements/5 aggregates/birth/death, and with all fabrications stilled, as the "true self". Some teachers/practitioners regard "the knowingness" in the Apana samadhi as the pure "mind" itself. Is such knowingness devoid of the five senses (the body and the physical world have "disappeared") really the pure "mind", or rather the mind consciousness? In my immature opinion, such knowingness still has the mind (state) as its object (although no object of the five senses) and still has both feeling (upekkha) and perception, which is inseparable from the mind consciousness. Only when dwelling at the sphere of cessation of perception and feeling the mind consciousness has ceased and that transcendental awarness of the living arahants thern (which is beyond the 5 aggregates) is the liberated pure "mind". Therefore, "the knowingness" in the Apana samadhi is not the liberated mind itself but rather the mind consciousness. Furthermore, even that liberated mind is not a "true self", since it has no sense of "self". The sense of "self" is an illusion/notion, the result of the "magic show" of consciousness due to avija. The defiled mind misinterprets and grasps the six sense consciousness and the other aggregates as "self". If one still conceives "the knowingness" in the apana samadhi as true citta, or conceives the liberated mind or nibbana as "I"/"mine" or as just having no identity like all the same water drops in the sea [this view still has a sense of self but only this self is not different from the others), then one probably hasn't broken the first fetter (the self identity view) yet. We can become liberated only when we have removed any views of self:

“View the world, … as empty [of “self”—“I” & “Mine”] — always mindful to have removed any view about self [e.g. "I have a self" or "I have no self"]. This way one is above & beyond death. This is how one views the world so as not to be seen by Death's king.” — Sn 5.15

Why did the Buddha teach us that the mind consciousness is a "magic show"? As soon as the mind generates sense consciousness and becomes aware of an object, it discriminates this object from itself as other than itself, and differentiate between itself as the subject and the sensed as the object, which creates a sense of "self". It's through penetrating the sense consciousness (the aggregate of consciousness) is ANATTA that the mind can be liberated by not clinging/attaching to such consciousness/knowingness/awareness, and the other aggregates. For an attempt to explain the relationship between sense consciousness and the other aggregates, please see How to develop bhavanamaya panna? [http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9262&p=144961#p144961]. Your comments and corrections would be highly appreciated. Metta to all,

Starter

[kirk5a]

This seems relevant, from Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/frames.html

Here I would like to back up and discuss the question of the mind in a little more detail. The word 'mind' covers three aspects:

The primal nature of the mind.
Mental states.
Mental states in interaction with their objects.
All of these aspects, taken together, make up the mind. If you don't know the mind in this way, you can't say that you really know it. All you can do is say that the mind arises and falls away, the mind doesn't rise or fall away; the mind is good, the mind is evil; the mind becomes annihilated, the mind doesn't become annihilated; the mind is a dhamma, the mind isn't a dhamma; the mind gains release, the mind doesn't gain release; the mind is nibbāna, the mind isn't nibbāna; the mind is sensory consciousness, the mind isn't sensory consciousness; the mind is the heart, the mind isn't the heart...

As the Buddha taught, there are only two paths to practice — the body, speech, and heart; and the body, speech, and mind — and in the end both paths reach the same point: Their true goal is release. So if you want to know the truth concerning any of the above issues, you have to follow the path and reach the truth on your own. Otherwise, you'll have to argue endlessly. These issues — for people who haven't practiced all the way to clear insight — have been termed by people of wisdom as sedamocana-kathā: issues that can only make you break out in a sweat.

So I would like to make a short explanation: The primal nature of the mind is a nature that simply knows. The current that thinks and streams out from knowing to various objects is a mental state. When this current connects with its objects and falls for them, it becomes a defilement, darkening the mind: This is a mental state in interaction. Mental states, by themselves and in interaction, whether good or evil, have to arise, have to disband, have to dissolve away by their very nature. The source of both these sorts of mental states is the primal nature of the mind, which neither arises nor disbands. It is a fixed phenomenon (ṭhiti-dhamma), always in place. By the primal nature of the mind — which is termed 'pabhassara,' or radiant — I mean the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present. But whoever isn't able to penetrate in to know it can't gain any good from it, like the proverbial monkey with the diamond.

Thus the name given by the Buddha for this state of affairs is really fitting: avijjā — dark knowledge, counterfeit knowledge. This is in line with the terms 'pubbante aññāṇam' — not knowing the beginning, i.e., the primal nature of the mind; 'parante aññāṇam' — not knowing the end, i.e., mental states in interaction with their objects; 'majjhantika aññāṇam' — not knowing the middle, i.e., the current that streams from the primal nature of knowing. When this is the case, the mind becomes a saṅkhāra: a fabricator, a magician, concocting prolifically in its myriad ways.

This ends the discussion of the mind as a frame of reference.

[cooran]

Hello starter, all,

This might be relevant:

The Magic Show (Kalakarama Sutta Prologue)
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=288

Magic of the Mind - An Exposition of the Kalakarama Sutta by Bhikkhu Nanananda

The philosophically and psychologically important Kalakarama Sutta brings out some striking features of the epistemology of early Buddhism. As a prologue and as a framework for discussion of his exposition of the discourse, the author gives the simile of the “magic-show” to show the illusory nature of consciousness in the context of doctrinal categories such as the five aggregates. Throughout the exposition similes and analogies, both canonical and modern, and quotations from other discourses are given to illustrate and explain the relevant facts.
The author, Bhikkhu Ñanananda, is a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk well known for his knowledge of Buddhist and Western philosophy. Before his ordination he was an assistant lecturer in Pali at the University of Peradeniya. Since entering the Buddhist Order in 1969 he has resided mostly in meditation hermitages.
http://www.bps.lk/expositionsandstudies.asp

with metta
Chris

[starter]

Hi thanks for the input. Just to share with you my immature understanding about the above-quoted:

“The source of both these sorts of mental states (good and bad) is the primal nature of the mind, which neither arises nor disbands. It is a fixed phenomenon (ṭhiti-dhamma), always in place. By the primal nature of the mind — which is termed 'pabhassara,' or radiant — I mean the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present."
 The source of the unwholesome mental states is NOT the primal nature of the mind (the pure radiating mind), but the incoming defilements with Avija as root.
 …“the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present” is NOT the primal nature of the mind, BUT the mind consciousness.

"When this is the case (the mind with avija), the mind becomes a saṅkhāra: a fabricator, a magician, concocting prolifically in its myriad ways."
 Indeed so. But here we need to understand the magic show of the fifth aggregate, sense consciousness (which is generated by the mind).

Metta to all!

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Starter,

I'd be a bit wary of any explanation that says things like "the primal nature of the mind, which neither arises nor disbands. It is a fixed phenomenon (ṭhiti-dhamma), always in place. By the primal nature of the mind — which is termed 'pabhassara,' or radiant — I mean the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present.""

This bolded bit seems to contradict the Buddha's teachings in relation to anatta and anicca (or at least, even if it doesn't, it could easily be interpreted that way).

Check out the link Cooran supplied, it contains a link to a PDF of Venerable Nanananda's excellent essay on this very topic.



Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

 …“the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present” is NOT the primal nature of the mind, BUT the mind consciousness.[/b]

Apparently you disagree with Ajahn Lee's explanation. For what reason, or based upon what source?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

 …“the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present” is NOT the primal nature of the mind, BUT the mind consciousness.[/b]

Apparently you disagree with Ajahn Lee's explanation. For what reason, or based upon what source?

What starter says about mind-consciousness exists in many suttas.

I'd suggest the need for an explanation on this "primal nature of the mind" lies with Ajahn Lee moreso than Starter. It's Ajahn Lee introducing this new terminology that seemingly defies the Buddha's ti-lakkhana.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Perhaps "The Great 'Luminous is the mind' thread" (my title ) has some relevance to this discussion.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7878


Mike

[kirk5a]

What starter says about mind-consciousness exists in many suttas.

Starter says what, exactly, about mind-consciousness which exists in many suttas? Perhaps we could have a sutta reference to illustrate.

I'd suggest the need for an explanation on this "primal nature of the mind" lies with Ajahn Lee moreso than Starter. It's Ajahn Lee introducing this new terminology that seemingly defies the Buddha's ti-lakkhana.

Ajahn Lee does explain it, right in that quote. Whether that defies the Buddha's ti-lkkhana or not... em... what is "ti-lakkhana" I am unfamiliar with that term?

edit:
ti-lakkhaṇa:
Three characteristics inherent in all conditioned phenomena — being inconstant, stressful, and not-self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary ... i-lakkhana

Right - so whether what Ajahn Lee says defies the three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena or not is a separate question, it does not have a self-evident answer to me.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

Starter says what, exactly, about mind-consciousness which exists in many suttas? Perhaps we could have a sutta reference to illustrate.

I'll leave that one for Starter to respond to.

Right - so whether what Ajahn Lee says defies the three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena or not is a separate question, it does not have a self-evident answer to me.

On the contrary, three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena is such a foundational concept upon which the Dhamma rests, that if Ajahn Lee's explanation cannot adequately account for this, then it must be regarded with extreme caution.

Metta,
Retro.

[Kenshou]

It seems to me that the idea of the "unconditioned citta" or whatever that many Thai teachers seem to use is simply pointing to the nature of the nibbanized mind by describing how it remains unmoved and unagitated by the flow of our conditioned experience. It is "unconditioned" in regard to those things, not bothered by the arising and passing of the various conditions of life. But it's not that they're saying this aloof mind is a metaphysically transcendent thing which exists beyond conditions and causality.

That would be a no-no.

[kirk5a]

On the contrary, three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena is such a foundational concept upon which the Dhamma rests, that if Ajahn Lee's explanation cannot adequately account for this, then it must be regarded with extreme caution.

I don't disagree. I am just saying that whether or not it does adequately account for that, is not self-evident to me.

[Nyana]

It seems to me that the idea of the "unconditioned citta" or whatever that many Thai teachers seem to use is simply pointing to the nature of the nibbanized mind by describing how it remains unmoved and unagitated by the flow of our conditioned experience. It is "unconditioned" in regard to those things, not bothered by the arising and passing of the various conditions of life. But it's not that they're saying this aloof mind is a metaphysically transcendent thing which exists beyond conditions and causality.

That would be a no-no.

[Akuma]

Only at the stage of cessation of perception and feeling the mind consciousness has ceased and that transcendental awareness of the living arahants (which is beyond the 5 aggregates) is the liberated mind/citta.

How can there be a citta beyond the aggregates?

[kirk5a]

How can there be a citta beyond the aggregates?

Well we can read the following passages and find it answers questions or gives rise to new ones. Probably gives rise to new ones.

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-8

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

How can there be a citta beyond the aggregates?

Well we can read the following passages and find it answers questions or gives rise to new ones. Probably gives rise to new ones.

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-8

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.

Yes, but what does it really mean?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Akuma]

How can there be a citta beyond the aggregates?

Well we can read the following passages and find it answers questions or gives rise to new ones. Probably gives rise to new ones.

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'

According to apparently the Atthakatha to Kevatta Sutta vinnanam doesnt mean consciousness here but "should be cognized [as]". Dmytro cited Dhammanando Bhikkhu here on Dhammawheel:

Herein [in this sutta], viññāṇaṃ means "should be cognized".

The commentarial tradition strongly rejects the idea that nibbāna is any kind of consciousness and the commentator's point here is that viññāṇaṃ in this context is not to be understood in its more common sense (i.e. as a noun meaning "consciousness") but rather as an adjective qualifying the noun anidassanaṃ. (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5618&start=0)

Starter wrote tho that he believes there to be a "transcendend awareness" in the Arahant. So unless Nirvana is an awareness thats seeing itself then there would here be two unconditioned dhammas, one Nibbana and one the unconditioned Citta perceiving Nibbana since the latter would be not part of the Khandas. Thats why I ask. ^^

[starter]

 …“the ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present” is NOT the primal nature of the mind, BUT the mind consciousness.[/b]

Apparently you disagree with Ajahn Lee's explanation. For what reason, or based upon what source?

Hi Kirk and Akuma,

As I understand, "the primal nature of the mind" probably refers to the "original", "luminous" nature of the pure mind without defilements; only this unconditioned, transcendental awareness could be the primal nature of the mind before the incoming defilements set in. The ordinary, elementary state of knowing in the present is surely a conditioned state, belonging to the conditioned dhamma. Only after we have completely removed the incoming defilements the mind can return to its "primal nature", an unconditioned state. I think it's very important to be able to distinguish mind consciousness (the sixth consciousness aggregate) from the nibbanized mind. As I mentioned in my post, "We might think we've broken the self identity view (or have become liberated) but probably not yet -- we could still hold the mind consciousness as the (liberated) citta, as the "true self". ... As soon as the mind generates sense conciousness and becomes aware of an object, it discriminates this object from itself as other than itself, and differentiate between itself (the senser) as the subject and the sensed as the object, which creates a sense of "self". Due to avija, the defiled mind misinterprets and grasps the mind consciousness and the other aggregates as "self". It's through penetrating that the sense consciousness (the aggregate of consciousness) is ANATTA, that the mind can be liberated by not clinging/attaching to such consciousness, and the other aggregates."

"How can there be a citta beyond the aggregates?"
-- I'm not saying that there's an unconditioned citta existing together with the aggregates. The relationship between the defiled mind (conditioned by greed/aversion/delusion) and the purified/liberated mind (unconditioned by the assavas/defilements) is kind of like a calm water (the citta) and stormy water; the storm/waves (the aggregates including mind consciousness) is caused by incoming defilements. The mind of a living arahant is nibbana with residue (of the aggregates), and the residue is of course not the deathless; however, at the stage of cessation of perception and feeling the aggregates including mind consciousness have "disappeared" (ceased functioning) and that transcendental awareness (beyond the aggregates) of the arahant is truly the deathless, to my understanding.

Metta to all!

[kirk5a]

Yes, but what does it really mean?

It means that

if you want to know the truth concerning any of the above issues, you have to follow the path and reach the truth on your own. Otherwise, you'll have to argue endlessly.

[starter]

Hello Dhamma Friends,

Happy new year!

Just listened to a Dhamma talk by a teacher who has been internally considered to be enlightened (though he has never claimed that himself). To my understanding, he mentioned something like "the mind that doesn't think is the citta" (?), and "the mind that thinks / the knower is not the citta" (I agree with this part). I also read a similar teaching some time ago by a Mahayana master who has also been considered as an arahant: the mind that doesn't think at present is the "true nature" or "true self"). I was wondering how could the enlightened ones in the Mahayana tradition still remain in or came back to Samsara and thought it's probably through their own will. But now I'm wondering if it could be because they still haven't broken the finest delusion -- delusion of mind consciousness as true citta, and the delusion such as "the emptiness is form" ("nibbana is Samsara"). I don't think that the Buddha has ever taught us that "the emptiness is form", but only taught "the form is empty (of self)". To my immature opinion, the most important differences between the Buddha's teaching and the teachings of the other schools (including the other Buddhist branches) are that the five aggegates (including mind consciousness) are anatta, and nibbana is beyond the five aggregates (Samsara) and should not be conceived as "self". The teachings of the other schools don't seem to have broken the self identity view (e.g. mind consciousness as true nature/self) and don't seem to have correctly understood nibbana, and therefore they can't lead to true liberation. It might suit the Bodhisattas' vows though, so that they can remain in Samsara until becoming self-enlightened Buddhas (now I also understand why they have to be self-enlightened eventually). So their path might not be wrong either. Just some thoughts to share with you, and your input would be appreciated.

Metta to all,

Starter