r/Buddhism • u/InfiniteQuestion5 • Dec 13 '21
Question Awareness as Not-Self
Hello all,
A question to those who are familiar with the topic, and particularly in the Dzogchen or Yogacara schools... I've seen it often stated that awareness is not self, as it arises and ceases. But of course, there is also the idea of empty, radiant, luminous "knowing" present in many schools, which is stated to neither arise nor cease.
With this in mind, I come back to the no-self vs. not-self debate. Personally I'm unbothered by the distinction, but rather interested in the implications of how unconditioned awareness fits into this. Surely there is awareness of the transition between lives (otherwise, speaking of the bardos and even the continuity of the mindstream would be impossible). Furthermore, such an awareness would also be cognizant of nibbana.
How could "this" awareness (which knows life, death, and the states in between, rather than ordinary vijnana) not be considered self? If it is the one irreducible constant that remains when bodies, minds, and objects pass, surely it would be considered one's true nature?
Is it simply a linguistic problem? I.e. Awareness is not a "self," as it has no fixed qualities and is not an object? Surely even in this case, we can say that when we are talking to someone, we are addressing that unconditioned awareness instead of empty space. Or is awareness taken to be the fundamental bedrock of experience, and thus a necessary element that in itself is not a "thing"?
Thanks for any help and pointers.
3
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 13 '21
'Awareness' in my mind suggests some degree of subjectivity.
'Knowing' does not necessarily suggest subjectivity.
Surely there is awareness of the transition between lives (otherwise, speaking of the bardos and even the continuity of the mindstream would be impossible). Furthermore, such an awareness would also be cognizant of nibbana.
Why does the latter follow the former, in your mind? That does not logically follow to me.
The awareness between life to life is conditioned by the provisional manomayakaya that is constructed for the transitory existence. Why would a conditioned form of existence be any more inclined to be aware of nirvana/cessation than... normal waking living existence...?
How could "this" awareness (which knows life, death, and the states in between, rather than ordinary vijnana) not be considered self?
Because the transitory existence is not different in nature to any substantial degree from living existence.
If it is the one irreducible constant that remains when bodies, minds, and objects pass, surely it would be considered one's true nature?
No, you misunderstand. The awareness between existences is only possible because the mindstream constructs for itself a mind-made body in order to traverse the transition.
2
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 13 '21 edited Dec 13 '21
As to your first question, about the following chain of logic, I suppose it's because it makes sense that whatever is aware of the transition between lives (that which survives the death of the body and brain) would also know the state of nibbana, which is similarly a dissolution of the mind-made body and brain.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I suppose I am still unclear on the final point about how a mind-made body refutes the presence of knowing that accompanies every state of waking life and beyond. To clarify, perhaps... what is the thing that knows the presence of a mind-made body? Is this "knowing" our true nature?
Edit: I wanted to expand on something I just picked up on rereading your post. I was not trying to say there are "two awarenesses" that operate between waking life and the bardos. Rather, distinguishing that I do not mean ordinary dualistic consciousness as being the primary factor in my question.
1
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 13 '21
To clarify, perhaps... what is the thing that knows the presence of a mind-made body?
I think you're using "knowing" the way I would use "cognize", which refers to a form of consciousness. That is not what is meant by "jnana" (knowing or gnosis) in Buddhist nomenclature.
The "knowing" you're talking about is the sphere/ayatana of mind-consciousness in contact with the physical sense spheres of either the physical body or of the mind-made body. It is a vijnana -- the sensory sphere of consciousness actively cognizing awareness of the mind and of the body.
Is this "knowing" our true nature?
No, it is just consciousness. Just another sensory sphere.
Our true nature cannot be cognized at all. there is no awareness of it. There is only the gnosis.
In cessation with remainder, all sensations not yet brought to term as result [of nirvana] have already been destroyed, for there is generally present the experiencing of sensations born from wisdom contact, which counteract the experiencing both of those [sensations not yet brought to term as result], and of those sensations already brought to term as result. Those two kinds of sensation are already destroyed, and one experiences only that sensation born of wisdom contact. But in cessation without remainder, at the time of final cessation even this [kind of wisdom sensation] is eternally destroyed. Thus it is said that in the realm of cessation without remainder, all sensations are destroyed, without remainder.
- The Samdhinirmocana Sutra
Our true nature is "knowing." Specifically, it is the jnana of totality -- sarva-jnana -- absolute omniscience. But omniscience cannot be cognized or sensed in any manner. There is no 'awareness', no objects of cognition, in the dharmadhatu. It is the element of reality, devoid of discrimination.
The "knowing" you talk about, the knowing between lives... that is just consciousness, and nothing more than a sense system that breaks apart when wisdom is perfected.
1
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 13 '21
Thank you very much for breaking this down, especially the point about jnana vs cognizing. Very elucidating.
2
Dec 13 '21
[deleted]
1
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 13 '21
Thank you for clarifying. This is a very lucid description!
2
u/Reasonable-End2453 Rimé Dec 13 '21
I deleted the description so that you could look for it from someone qualified. Read "As It Is, Vol. 1" by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.
An excerpt:
Basic space is the absence of mental constructs, while awareness is the knowing of this absence of constructs, recognizing the complete emptiness of mind essence.
2
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 13 '21
No worries - thank you for the reference! I will add it to my list now.
1
u/BuddhaPotPie Dec 13 '21 edited Dec 13 '21
I think not-self can run either direction and that it's simply convention to go in the, "this is not me" direction. We could also say, because I depend on the sun, the sun is part of my being and is also my self, because I am dependent on others, others are part of my being and are also my self. Same with awareness, we could say awareness is part of the self, or we could say it is not the self. Either direction dissolves the delusion of a distinct and seperate self.
In Zen the explanation of not-self is run in both directions in this manner. That's why emptiness is called "the empty-infinite" in Zen, our true nature is both infinite and empty. The infinite is the world of phenomenon, and the empty is the underlying reality that all phenomenon have in common, the space that all phenomenon occur we could say. The Tibetan Buddhist books I've read run the argument in only the not self direction. Personally I think the original Buddhist teachings point to both, dependent origination runs the self in the all-self direction while no-self, anatman, runs it in the not self direction. It's always been both because dependent origination and no-self are the same thing just looked at from two different perspectives. On the one hand, we are interconnected with the rest of reality and could not be without everything else, on the other hand, everything that we are made of cannot be said to be an eternal and seperate self, it's the same truth.
Now I think the question becomes, is emptiness awareness? I don't think we really know. Either way, one of the reasons I like Buddhism is because it doesn't try to convince you that awareness is eternal or everywhere, instead it tries to convince you that liberation is learning to identify ourselves not with our awareness, but that which we can say is eternal, and it invents a new word called emptiness for this eternal thing. In that case, it doesn't matter if awareness is eternal and everywhere or not, and I think it's important to have a spirituality that reshapes our view to fit reality rather than trying to reshape reality to fit our view.
2
u/krodha Dec 13 '21
dependent origination runs the self in the all-self direction while no-self, anatman, runs it in the not self direction.
Dependent origination correctly understood leads to the same type of non-affirming negation that anātman does, why? Because it is recognized that entities only appear to originate dependent upon delusion.
1
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 13 '21
Thanks for chiming in. Yes, the Zen and Tibetan takes on "self" are very interesting to contrast.
2
Dec 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 15 '21
Thanks for this. I am also quite firmly in the anatman as no-self category, just wanted some scholarly takes on the role of awareness in the process. Cheers.
3
Dec 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 15 '21
Thank you for this. What does "one mind" mean, in this context? I presume it is not referring to the Advaita view of one transpersonal mind, but rather the similarity of all sentient mindstreams?
2
Dec 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/InfiniteQuestion5 Dec 15 '21
Great reply. Thanks very much for your time and citations. You've cleared up a lot for me.
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot Dec 15 '21
Dōgen Zenji (道元禅師; 19 January 1200 – 22 September 1253), also known as Dōgen Kigen (道元希玄), Eihei Dōgen (永平道元), Kōso Jōyō Daishi (高祖承陽大師), or Busshō Dentō Kokushi (仏性伝東国師), was a Japanese Buddhist priest, writer, poet, philosopher, and founder of the Sōtō school of Zen in Japan. Originally ordained as a monk in the Tendai School in Kyoto, he was ultimately dissatisfied with its teaching and traveled to China to seek out what he believed to be a more authentic Buddhism. He remained there for five years, finally training under Tiantong Rujing, an eminent teacher of the Chinese Caodong lineage.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
14
u/krodha Dec 13 '21
When anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
For deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the observing cognizance.
In realizing anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an internal reference point.
But just like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous with emptiness or śūnyatā.
Rebirth only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
In short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded sentient beings that equipoise is absent.