« Our Disneyland world | Main | A hyper-subtle positive medium »

March 17, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yes, indeed, the Buddha did mention "mind" quite a bit, for example here in DN 1.2.13 where he lists a Wrong View:

'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.' (courtesy of accesstoinsight.org)


"Mind has been virtually ignored in the modern Buddhist discourse; nor is it understood to be a concrete reality like space."

I think this is the cause of the persistent materialism amongst Western Buddhism.

Here's another quote about mind, this time from Padmasambhava:

The view free from deviations
Is impartial like the sky.
Everything is mind and mind itself is empty
And free from partiality just like the sky.

My teacher told me (in the beginning of my path;

"Because you have not actualized your Buddha-nature you have nothing of real value. You can in fact not even claim to know the slightest real thing about the Mind of Buddha. Until you actualize this great Mind within yourself, you should remain silent, study hard and row like a mad man, far away from this cursed land of ill-advising desire beings until you hit the other shore, where a myriad Buddhas and Bodhisattvas awaits you for further instructions in the uncreated light of Nirvana."

Perhaps you could comment on your understanding of what you think others mean when they say "Awareness". Clearly in this post you say they are speaking of something other than Buddha Mind, and am curious what you assume this to be (or at least it reads that way).

Where you might speak of the brain (and Mara) and of Buddha Mind, I might speak of mind and Awareness. I sometimes also use the Buddhist terms, or those of other traditions. It this really a mistake, or just the nature of communication? As a Buddhist, your path offers you some clarity [limits] in terminology, but no monopoly on Truth (aka "Buddha Mind", Awareness", "Tao", "Christ", "Gnosis", etc...)

Linguistic and cultural multiplicity adds to the confusion for most (but this too is a pointer!). Regardless of the label, all is That (as you say about Ch'an/Mind). A non-Buddhist is unlikely to want to use the term "Buddha Mind", much as you relate to "Awareness". What would you have them say?

"Buddha Mind", "Awareness", "Ch'an" - these are only different for "Mara". Choosing "Brand B" over "Brand A" is not "Right View".

No religion owns This, no words can say it. For those with eyes to see, some of them can do a nice job of pointing.

I can appreciate the directness of Zen, and of Advaita (this being simple preferences among appearances only), though the latter is fast becoming a New Age train wreck the way "Western" Zen [to keep to your themes] has in recent decades. Advaita needs the same discernment you are applying to "Western" Buddhism, but only to avoid misunderstanding in the same way. To each his own. All words, best not to get hung up there.

How hard is pointing? How hard to point the "blockhead" at themselves? At the human mind? All is "Buddha Mind", so All points to All. The "blockhead" cannot see this of course, or worse THINKS they do (this perhaps you main point?), and so it goes.

Mara weaves a tight web. The jewels of Indra's net shine brightly. Entrapped or bedazzled or both, All is our nature. To see is to laugh, and cry...

I find no words without something to reflect on. Your posts offer that. Thank you.

maybe if you insulted people less, more might be inclined to listen a little bit to what you're saying.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo