The Mahayana believes that a Buddha has no consciousness but acts based on past merit and volition

[Tutareture]

I remembered backwards. It's not that they have no mind. It is that they do not perceive our reality allegedly and merely respond to our karma etc that they are able to intuit as Buddhas rather than "perceiving" us. What they perceive appears to be a pure luminous nothing-or-something in these narratives

I have never heard this.wich sutras say they perceive a pure luminous something?I had always read that they have no Citta and no sensation or wisdom contact.

Sometimes those in the Shentong tradition make vague claims like that. I'll try to find a citation.

Hi.have you found any sources on this yet?I read that a Buddha has no consciousness or perception and no Citta .

[Coëmgenu]

Hi.have you found any sources on this yet?I read that a Buddha has no consciousness or perception and no Citta

A version of it is in the DharmaWheel thread linked to here. See later down the thread when Malcolm explains how the Lotus Sutra implies that Buddhas see a significantly different reality than normal sentient beings. They also allegedly see sentient beings as fully enlightened Buddhas according to his perspective though.

[form]

Does this make sence?is this possible?if not,why not ?

Doesn't the Heart Sutra say that the aggregates are empty? Including consciousness.

Empty means don't have own-essence, in Theravada terms, dependently originated. So consciousness being empty, does not imply that there is no consciousness anymore than it implies that the chair I'm sitting on, which is also "empty" (but also full!) does not exist.

Emptiness is about perceiving correctly, not in the static "reified" manner.

The Buddha told Ananda there is consciousness after nibanna. Let me find that reference and post it here.

[Tutareture]

Doesn't the Heart Sutra say that the aggregates are empty? Including consciousness.

Empty means don't have own-essence, in Theravada terms, dependently originated. So consciousness being empty, does not imply that there is no consciousness anymore than it implies that the chair I'm sitting on, which is also "empty" (but also full!) does not exist.

Emptiness is about perceiving correctly, not in the static "reified" manner.

The Buddha told Ananda there is consciousness after nibanna. Let me find that reference and post it here.

The sandhinirmocana sutra says they have none and that’s what mahayanists follow.

[Coëmgenu]

The sandhinirmocana sutra says they have none and that’s what mahayanists follow.

Actually, that sutra is specific to the Yogacarins. It is a Yogacara sutra. Most of DharmaWheel is Tibetan Buddhists in various Tantric traditions, so I suspect many of them would quote this sutra.

[form]

I am still looking for that sutta. I did not have time to go over all my nikaya books yet. That sutta will give evidence that a superior consciousness exist in Nibanna although it is beyond words to describe.

Mahayana sometimes talk about Buddha nature, a natural state. That could be it also.

[SteRo]

That sutta will give evidence that a superior consciousness exist in Nibanna although it is beyond words to describe.

Mahayana sometimes talk about Buddha nature, a natural state. That could be it also.

it is just that simple: either there is ignorance or there is no ignorance.
Now the concept of "absence of ignorance" of course is subject to ignorance if there still is ignorance.

[form]

That sutta will give evidence that a superior consciousness exist in Nibanna although it is beyond words to describe.

Mahayana sometimes talk about Buddha nature, a natural state. That could be it also.

it is just that simple: either there is ignorance or there is no ignorance.
Now the concept of "absence of ignorance" of course is subject to ignorance if there still is ignorance.

Not wrong but at level of labelling and theory only.

[SteRo]

The paper "Thoughtless Buddha, Passionate Buddha" by Dunne is worth reading in the context of this topic.

Buddhist philosophers have not failed to create conceptual problems
for themselves. Perhaps the most persistent of these problems focus
on the nature of a buddha: as truly awakened (buddha), a buddha must
embody the utter transcendence of nirvana; but as a compassionate guide,
a buddha must also remain completely immanent in sumsara, the world of
suffering, so as to show others the way to freedom. This tension between
a buddha’s transcendence and immanence-his location within both nirvana
and samsuru-prompted much debate among Buddhist philosophers.
In this article, I examine how Dharmakirti and Candrakirti, two
prominent Buddhist thinkers of India’s post-Gupta period (sixth to seventh
century C.E.), address the question of a buddha’s transcendence and
immanence