Luminous mind = Buddha nature?

[Lazy_eye]

Hi,

This is a follow-up to an existing thread (http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&p=11936#p11936). It was suggested that I might initiate a new one.

-- Is "buddha nature" in Mahayana similar to, derived from, or otherwise related to "luminous" mind?

-- Is there a connection between bhavanga and the alaya?

Bhavanga (bhava-anga), which, in the canonical works, is mentioned twice or thrice in the Patthāna, is explained in the Abhidhamma commentaries as the foundation or condition (kārana) of existence (bhava), as the sine qua non of life, having the nature of a process, lit. a flux or stream (sota). Herein, since time immemorial, all impressions and experiences are, as it were, stored up, or better said, are functioning, but concealed as such to - full consciousness, from where however they occasionally emerge as subconscious phenomena and approach the threshold of full consciousness, or crossing it become fully conscious. This so-called 'subconscious life-stream' or undercurrent of life is that by which might be explained the faculty of memory, paranormal psychic phenomena, mental and physical growth, karma and rebirth. etc.

I've seen the alaya defined in similar terms.

-- How is "luminous mind" differentiated from "atman" -- in other words, how is it not a case of sneaking an atman in through the back door? Is it that luminous mind is universal and non-differentiated, whereas atman always implies the idea of a self? Couldn't someone object that the mindstream/atman distinction is basically a question of semantics?

Thanks! Your pardon please for any ignorance expressed above.

LE

[clw_uk]

-- How is "luminous mind" differentiated from "atman" -- in other words, how is it not a case of sneaking an atman in through the back door? Is it that luminous mind is universal and non-differentiated, whereas atman always implies the idea of a self? Couldn't someone object that the mindstream/atman distinction is basically a question of semantics?

My current understaning is that luminous mind is pure conscious awareness, complete mindfulness that is there behind every experience. Its the natural state that is there before all the artifical constructs of "I am" "I like" "good" "bad" etc are fabricated

It is not atman since atman comes from thinking/perception which arises out of the luminous mind, so the luminous mind is the ground of all experience, atman is a thought that comes out of it due to engaging in thinking or grasping at perceptions

For example when being mindful your just seeing things as they are (the pure state of which is the luminous mind), when you think of self its just thinking and not being aware of things as they are, so when one is truly aware there is no thought/perception/view of self/atman

The luminous mind is the unborn, the uncreated, its uncreated because its the fundemental level of awareness
Atman is the born, the created, its created because of thinking "I am" which is a mental creation due to thinking and grasping

If its Buddha-nature teaching or not i cant really say, im not to familiar with the Buddha-nature teachings


Thats my take anyway taken from teachings ive heard from Ajahn Sumedho

“‘Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of consciousness
each is here brought to an end.’

[sukhamanveti]

The point of the "luminous mind" passage at AN 1.6.1-2 is that the defilements are not inherent in the mind, not essential to it. In other words, defilements can be removed. The point is not that we are already enlightened. The Anguttara Atthakatha (Commentary) equates this luminous mind with the bhavanga citta of the Patthana (Abhidhamma text), although some Theravada teachers dispute this. The bhavanga citta is a stream of moments of the unconscious mind.

Two views of buddha nature exist within Mahayana. According to one, buddha nature is complete enlightenment already present in the mind but buried under defilements. In contrast the bhavanga citta is not enlightened. The second view of buddha nature in Mahayana is that it is the seed of or the potential for enlightenment within all beings (sometimes equated with the mind's emptiness of inherent existence or relative nature). The luminous mind of AN 1.6.1-2 is not a potential or a seed or emptiness of inherent existence of the mind. It is more akin to the subconscious mind.

The luminous mind differs from the atman in several respects. First, each moment of consciousness or mentality arises in dependence upon the previous moment in Theravada. Thus, bhavanga citta is a dependent arising whereas the atman is self-existent. Moreover, the bhavanga citta is impermanent and subject to change in that it consists of arising and ceasing moments (khana). The atman is permanent and not subject to change. If the luminous mind is the bhavanga citta then it is not blissful, just unconscious. (If it is not the bhavanga citta, then it is still not blissful.) The atman, however, is blissful. In short the luminous mind is nothing like the atman at all.

The "consciousness" that is "all-luminous" in DN 11.85 & MN 49.25 appears to be the consciousness of an enlightened person experiencing Nibbana. It is not something that the rest of us possess yet.

Ed

[clw_uk]

The atman, however, is blissful

How can something thats not there be blissful?

The "consciousness" that is "all-luminous" in DN 11.85 & MN 49.25 appears to be the consciousness of an enlightened person experiencing Nibbana. It is not something that the rest of us possess yet.

Since the Buddha teaches non-becoming and not becoming couldnt it be said thats its already there, something you awaken to or realise since you dont "become" or create the luminous mind because its uncreated, its something thats already there just over looked

[sukhamanveti]

The atman, however, is blissful

How can something thats not there be blissful?

The "consciousness" that is "all-luminous" in DN 11.85 & MN 49.25 appears to be the consciousness of an enlightened person experiencing Nibbana. It is not something that the rest of us possess yet.

Since the Buddha teaches non-becoming and not becoming couldnt it be said thats its already there, something you awaken to or realise since you dont "become" or create the luminous mind, its something thats already there just over looked

I agree that the atman does not exist. I am a Buddhist. I am referring to the attributes that this fictional thing is supposed to possess so that I can distinguish two very different concepts.

As for enlightenment already being present, I don't have the quotations at my fingertips. I will have to track them down. However, I know that this is not the Theravadin view.

Also, let me emphasize that I do not think that the luminous mind and the consciousness that is all-luminous are the same.

Ed

[clw_uk]

I agree that the atman does not exist. I am a Buddhist. I am referring to the attributes that this fictional thing is supposed to possess so that I can distinguish two very different concepts.

Sorry i thought you meant it exsists

As for enlightenment already being present, I don't have the quotations at my fingertips. I will have to track them down. However, I know that this is not the Theravadin view.

Im a Theravadin myself and while aware that its not orthodox i havent come across anything in the suttas that could be evidence against such an interpretation, my reasoning comes from this passage

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned

True mindfulness isnt created or fabricated, it doesnt come from nor is it the result of thought/views/conjecture etc so therefor not part of samsara, its just complete, pure awareness so its uncreated etc

I equate this to what is mentioned here

Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around:

That is pure conscious awareness, since pure awareness isnt created its just there, one just needs to awaken to/realise it


When ones mind is completely aware it is luminous because its free from defilement, this i feel is its true nature

[sukhamanveti]

I agree that the atman does not exist. I am a Buddhist. I am referring to the attributes that this fictional thing is supposed to possess so that I can distinguish two very different concepts.

Sorry i thought you meant it exsists

As for enlightenment already being present, I don't have the quotations at my fingertips. I will have to track them down. However, I know that this is not the Theravadin view.

Im a Theravadin myself and while aware that its not orthodox i havent come across anything in the suttas that could be evidence against such an interpretation, my reasoning comes from this passage

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned

True mindfulness isnt created or fabricated, it doesnt come from nor is it the result of thought/views/conjecture etc so therefor not part of samsara, its just complete, pure awareness so its uncreated etc

I equate this to what is mentioned here

Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around:

That is pure conscious awareness, since pure awareness isnt created its just there, one just needs to awaken to/realise it


When ones mind is completely aware it is luminous because its free from defilement, this i feel is its true nature

Hello clw_uk,

The "unborn, unmade, unbecome" is Nibbana, not mindfulness. This is why Nibbana is called "the unconditioned element." Nibbana is the only existing thing that does not arise or cease. It is permanent, eternal. However, everything that we are (the five aggregates) arises and ceases, is subject to change, according to the Buddha, even our consciousness. The experience of this element or realm (Nibbana) includes experiencing the nonexistence of attachment, aversion or ill will and delusion. All three Unwholesome Roots are finally gone forever. See Bhikkhu Bodhi's general introduction to the Samyutta Nikaya, for example, or Maurice Walshe's Intro to the DN for sutta-related infor about Nibbana.

With enlightenment one sees and knows reality as it really is. Delusion/ ignorance is eradicated. Before one is enlightened one cannot see reality accurately. It can only be one or the other--not both. The Buddha once said that he did not claim to have already been enlightened until he directly saw and knew the Four Noble Truths in the experience of enlightenment. He never said he was already enlightened but uncovered it.

Ed

[clw_uk]

With enlightenment one sees and knows reality as it really is. Delusion/ ignorance is eradicated. Before one is enlightened one cannot see reality accurately. It can only be one or the other--not both. The Buddha once said that he did not claim to have already been enlightened until he directly saw and knew the Four Noble Truths in the experience of enlightenment. He never said he was already enlightened but uncovered it.

When your truly mindful your seeing things as they are


It is through deep, concentrated and pure mindfulness or awareness that the Buddha penetrated into the insights of the four noble truths etc


One thing i have noticed in my meditation is that mindfulness isnt created, one doesnt think "i will be mindful" or "i am mindful" one just is mindful, its just something that gets over looked because of the defilements etc

As Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Chah say its something really ordinary


nibbana is the extinction of the fires of greed, hatred and delusion which comes about through having complete and pure awareness and so therefore complete understanding of things as they are

He never said he was already enlightened but uncovered it

Uncovered what was there, you dont become an arahant you realise it, since its uncreated, unbecome its something thats already there

thats why the Buddha said wake up, wake up and see it

[sukhamanveti]

With enlightenment one sees and knows reality as it really is. Delusion/ ignorance is eradicated. Before one is enlightened one cannot see reality accurately. It can only be one or the other--not both. The Buddha once said that he did not claim to have already been enlightened until he directly saw and knew the Four Noble Truths in the experience of enlightenment. He never said he was already enlightened but uncovered it.

When your truly mindful your seeing things as they are


It is through deep, concentrated and pure mindfulness or awareness that the Buddha penetrated into the insights of the four noble truths etc


One thing i have noticed in my meditation is that mindfulness isnt created, one doesnt think "i will be mindful" one just is mindful


nibbana is the extinction of the fires of greed, hatred and delusion which comes about through having complete and pure awareness and so therefore complete understanding of things as they are

According to the Buddha, mindfulness arises. For example, at MN 66.16 the Buddha says "His mindfulness may be slow in arising..." The Buddha never says this about Nibbana, because Nibbana does not arise.

If mindfulness were permanent, then we would always been mindful. We are not.

Ed

[clw_uk]

From the teachings i have heard from Ajahn Sumedho, its something that is always there but just overlooked because its ordinary and its obscured by other things i.e. defilements



the awareness is permanent, your aware now

[clw_uk]

A third time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One: "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss."

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

This is an instruction to develop mindfulness to its fullest extent, so there is just seeing, just heard etc. This is what leads one to the end of stress, where it says "when for you there will be ....." it is saying that when there is complete mindfulness for oneself there is nibbana, the end of stress

Since mindfulness isnt created its just there


You dont become a stream-winner or an arahant since this would be becoming and conditioned, they are realisations. A realisation of what is already there although obscured through ignorance

[sukhamanveti]

From the teachings i have heard from Ajahn Sumedho, its something that is always there but just overlooked because its ordinary and its obscured by other things i.e. defilements



the awareness is permanent, your aware now

Being aware and being mindful are two different things. Mindfulness is a special type of awareness involving bare, focused attention. It leads to enlightenment and gives us glimpses into reality, but that doesn't mean that we are seeing things like a buddha merely because we are mindful.

All types of consciousness are impermanent and change continually, according to the Buddha. Consciousness changes from moment to moment. (I explained this to some extent above.) All are dependent arisings. This is a teaching of the Buddha: "For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness." (MN 38.7) "...consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises..." (MN 38.8)

Nibbana does not change, according to the Buddha. It does not arise or cease. It is "unborn."

Ed

[sukhamanveti]

A third time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One: "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss."

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

This is an instruction to develop mindfulness to its fullest extent, so there is just seeing, just heard etc. This is what leads one to the end of stress, where it says "when for you there will be ....." it is saying that when there is complete mindfulness for oneself there is nibbana, the end of stress

Since mindfulness isnt created its just there


You dont become a stream-winner or an arahant since this would be becoming and conditioned, they are realisations. A realisation of what is already there although obscured through ignorance

The Buddha never says that mindfulness isn't created. He says the opposite. He says that it arises. He also says that whatever arises ceases.

I agree that we are to develop mindfulness to its fullest extent, but the scriptures say that Nibbana is not developed or cultivated, because it is unchanging. Mindfulness is developed. Nibbana is not.

[clw_uk]

I agree that we are to develop mindfulness to its fullest extent, but the scriptures say that Nibbana is not developed or cultivated, because it is unchanging. Mindfulness is developed. Nibbana is not.

Nibbana just means extinquish, so you put out the fires of greed hatred and delusion and what remains is cool, calm and bliss. Nibbana is not a state or anything like that, its just terminology IMO

Mindfulness is developed. Nibbana is not.[/

In a sense Mindfulness is uncovered and so strengthened, not developed, for example when in meditation you dont practice to achieve, to become or make something, you practice to let go and so uncover through that letting go. There is no "i am mindful" or "i will be mindful" if one is truly aware, there is just mindfulness

so by letting go ones mindfulness becomes stronger. IMO the word "developed" is just a conventional word to imply the strengthening of mindfulness

Thats coming from my experience during meditation anyway

Being aware and being mindful are two different things. Mindfulness is a special type of awareness involving bare, focused attention. It leads to enlightenment and gives us glimpses into reality, but that doesn't mean that we are seeing things like a buddha merely because we are mindful

Mindfulness in the term we use is basic, awareness in terms of the arahant is still mindfulness just pure. When we are being mindful during meditation we arent seeing things as a buddha would because our minds are still tarnished with defilements.

When mindfulness is developed the defilements weaken and then eventualy disolve thus leading to deeper and more pure/refined awareness and therefor since the more aware one is the more one understands, the closer one gets to enlightenment which is pure awareness and pure knowing

All types of consciousness are impermanent and change continually, according to the Buddha. Consciousness changes from moment to moment. (I explained this to some extent above.) All are dependent arisings. This is a teaching of the Buddha: "For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness." (MN 38.7) "...consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises..." (MN 38.8)

These are sense consciousness, pure awareness can be said to be pure consciousness (although these are just words trying to describe something thats hard to describe)

All types of consciousness are impermanent and change continually

Yes they do and when there is pure awareness one is aware of them changing, the awareness itself is permanent because its always aware of everything, seeing everything as it is (when defilements are gone)

The other kind of consciouness is mentioned here

Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around

"Consciousness without surface"
Without surface i take as pure awareness being without features, so good/bad, I and mine and so on

"Without end"
Without end because awareness is always aware, that is to say there is no boundry for awareness (getting hard to describe now lol)

"Luminous all around"
Luminous all around because there is no longer any defilements to tarnish or obscure it



Im not stating it to be a self in anyway, since when one is completely aware there is no I making, just awareness of how things are

One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no desire. There being no desire, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

Pure mindfulness is unwavering since its not dependent on anything since its just awareness of how things are. When one is completely aware there is calm, no desire and no I making so no death and birth and no stress

This i take to be

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

It's hard to see the unaffected,
for the truth isn't easily seen.
Craving is pierced
in one who knows;
For one who sees,
there is nothing.

"Hard to see the unaffected"
Hard to see whats already there, to see something it must already be there. Unaffected since awareness isnt affected by pain, pleasure etc since its just aware of those things and not grasping at them or taking them up, just watching dhammas rise and fall. This i feel is the essence of what the Buddha means when he says to "wake up", wake up and see it.


"Craving is pierced in one who knows"
When one is truly mindful there is no craving because you see things as they are

"for one who sees, there is nothing"
This i take to mean that when one is completely aware there is no longer any sense of self


Another good quote

For one stranded in the middle of the lake,
in the flood of great danger — birth —
overwhelmed with aging & death,
I will tell you the island, Kappa.

Having nothing,
clinging to no thing:
That is the island,
there is no other.
That's Unbinding, I tell you,
the total ending of aging & death.

Those knowing this, mindful,
fully unbound
in the here & now,
don't serve as Mara's servants,
don't come under Mara's sway

I will tell you the island, Kappa
Awareness is the island, since when one is aware there is no I so no birth and death, no craving and clinging, no pain or pleasure


Having nothing,
clinging to no thing

When one is aware there is nothing except mindfulness of everything, clear knowing of everything and so no clinging to anything

That's Unbinding, I tell you,
the total ending of aging & death
So IMO pure awareness is unbinding


Those knowing this, mindful, fully unbound in the here & now

I take this to mean those knowing this are mindful and so are unbound in the here and now








Saying that arahantship is already there i feel is in line with what the Buddha meant when he said "wake up", wake up and see it

Reality is already there isnt it, you dont create it. Arahantship is the realisation of that reality thats always present

IMO the Buddhdhamma is an unfolding of reality, uncovering what is already there


Id recomend listening to Ajahn Sumedho's talk called

"realise the unborn, the uncreated"

You can find it here as well as some other really good talks

http://www.dhammatalks.org.uk/sumed.php

[clw_uk]

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.


"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.


"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words

Here the Buddha states that one directly knows earth as earth, this is done through awareness. By being fully aware one is Just seeing earth as earth, or pain as pain etc and by seeing them as they are your not ignorant and so dont crave/cling or make a self out of them since there is just pure awareness, clear knowing

The part in red suggests mindfulness or awareness, to directly know is to be mindfully aware



Metta

[sukhamanveti]

These are my final remarks on the subject. You may have the last word. I think that we will have to agree to disagree. We see very different things in the suttas.

Many others can convey these ideas much more effectively to you than I can. I regret my inability to do so.

Yes, Nibbana refers to the extinguishing of the fires of attachment/ desire, aversion/ ill will, and delusion, but it is much more, according to the suttas. In the suttas it is said to be a “reality” (amosadhamma), a “truth” (sacca), a “domain” or “base” (ayatana) and so forth. It is described in many ways.

The Buddha taught that all conditioned things are impermanent. This is one of the Three Characteristics of Existence. However, the Buddha said that Nibbana is “unconditioned.” This makes it utterly unique and a permanent reality. Even Ajahn Sumedho, who is sometimes given to innovative definitions, has acknowledged this: “Nibbana is unconditioned…. Now what is the unconditioned?... It doesn’t arise or pass away, begin or end.” [Ajahn Sumedho, The Mind and the Way (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1995) pp. 110-111]

At MN 26.12 the Buddha specifically says that “Nibbana” is “unborn,” “unageing,” “ unailing,” and “deathless.”

If you want an in-depth look at Nibbana from the perspective of the suttas, see chapter 4 of What the Buddha Taught by Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula. I think that it is exceptionally clear.

I also recommend a look at MN 38 to answer the question of whether consciousness is unchanging. This was the view of Sati, the son of a fisherman. He believed that an unchanging consciousness transmigrated: “it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.” The view is rejected by the Buddha in the same discourse.

At MN 38.8 the Buddha says that consciousness arises variously dependent upon upon the eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and flavors, the body and tangibles, and even the mind and mind objects. These 6 types cover everything, including mindfulness. When we are mindful of the breath at the edges of the nostrils or mindful of the body, we are using awareness of tactile sensation (the fifth type of consciousness listed by the Buddha).

Direct knowledge of reality is always the goal in the suttas. It always occurs at the end, at enlightenment. It is the very definition of enlightenment (bodhi=knowledge). Mindfulness is part of what gets us there, but once we arrive, we see things in a radically different way. At AN 10.6 the meditative experience of Nibbana is described: "nor is he percipient of this world...but yet he is percipient" and "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime...Nibbana."

Thank you for the discussion. It got me searching through the suttas.

Take care.

Ed

[clw_uk]

Greetings

I also recommend a look at MN 38 to answer the question of whether consciousness is unchanging. This was the view of Sati, the son of a fisherman. He believed that an unchanging consciousness transmigrated: “it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.” The view is rejected by the Buddha in the same discourse.

At MN 38.8 the Buddha says that consciousness arises variously dependent upon upon the eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and flavors, the body and tangibles, and even the mind and mind objects. These 6 types cover everything, including mindfulness. When we are mindful of the breath at the edges of the nostrils or mindful of the body, we are using awareness of tactile sensation (the fifth type of consciousness listed by the Buddha).

I dont feel MN38 applies to what im saying (although i can see why you think it was) as I dont claim that consciousness is permanent and unchanging and transmigrates through rebirth

I said consciousness rises and falls but awareness is always there, aware of the rise and fall of consciousness as well, if it wasnt one couldnt see the rise and falls of consciousness

Awareness changes but yet it is still awareness, the only simile i can give that best can describes what im trying to put accross is one i have heard from Ajahn Chah

"Still, flowing water"



Sati's view was that this same consciousness is self, that it is who he is and what carries memories etc through each moment/life and it never changes which of course is wrong view (if consciousness never changed there would only ever be an awareness of one thing forever)

The way i have been using consciousness is different, ive being using it as another word for pure awarness, pure reconition of everything rising and falling

. These 6 types cover everything, including mindfulness. When we are mindful of the breath at the edges of the nostrils or mindful of the body, we are using awareness of tactile sensation

I agree but in your opinion what does the Buddha mean by

Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around

There are the six types of consciousness, rising and falling but there is always awareness isnt there, awareness isnt a self since its not created and when one is aware there can be no sense of self since things are just the way they are

This makes it utterly unique and a permanent reality. Even Ajahn Sumedho, who is sometimes given to innovative definitions, has acknowledged this: “Nibbana is unconditioned…. Now what is the unconditioned?... It doesn’t arise or pass away, begin or end.” [Ajahn Sumedho, The Mind and the Way (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1995) pp. 110-111]

I agree, Ajahn Sumedho has also said many times that pure consciouss awareness is the true refuge, since you dont create awareness but you can create a self around/out of awareness through ignorance but its this pure awareness that is the unconditoned, unmade, unborn etc

As i said before you dont think into mindfulness or create it, there just is mindfulness, this is because mindfulness is always there otherwise it would be something created and arahants who had full awareness in everything would still having conditioning in the mind

When in meditation, at least for myself, when my mindfulness is good i dont think "i am aware" or "i will be aware" there is just awareness thats always there just, for want of a better word, hidden under all the conditioned thinking, craving, ignorance etc

Mindfulness is part of what gets us there, but once we arrive, we see things in a radically different way

And how does one see things completely? through sustained and deep mindfulness

Arahants dont think "I am this" or "this is mine" there is just pure mindfulness, understanding of "this just is"


as quoted earlier

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.

This is the state of mind an awakened one has, when one is seeing "earth as earth" this is mindfulness or clear awareness of things as they are isnt it, when one is mindful one just sees things as they are so pain is just pain, breath is just breath and so on for every dhamma that there is



In relation to the point you raised about MN26

"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.

There is now no further becoming
In mindfulness there is no becoming, no sense of "I am" because there is just awareness of things as they are so there is no grasping

grasping/clinging is a condition of becoming
becoming is a condition for birth

So when one has pure awareness there is no grasping so no becoming, no birth and no death etc. Its the deathless, the uncreated, unborn


'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize
Pure, untarnished awareness is deep, its hard to see and realize (implying its already there) because of the defilements etc


peaceful
Its peaceful, which is what pure mindfulness is since there is no pain or pleasure etc there is just awareness of sensations etc, there is no taking up as self and becoming, its just calm and peacful which one can begin to see through meditation (at least in reguards to myself)


refined
So its a pure awareness i.e. not tarnished


beyond the scope of conjecture
As i said before, one doesnt think "i am aware" or even think oneself into awareness. Its not a view or metaphysical opinion, its a reality to be realised Awareness is always there


subtle
Easily overlooked








Of course dont take any of this as true just because i have said it, this has come from my own meditation practice and understandings of the Buddha's word

Thank you for the discussion. It got me searching through the suttas

Anytime it was good discussion, take care