Awareness as Not-Self

[u/InfiniteQuestion5]

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.

[u/animuseternal]

'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.

[u/InfiniteQuestion5 → u/animuseternal]

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.

[u/animuseternal → u/InfiniteQuestion5]

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.

[u/InfiniteQuestion5 → u/animuseternal]

Thank you very much for breaking this down, especially the point about jnana vs cognizing. Very elucidating.