User:Lama.Norbu.Repa
Some considerations on “Mind” A collection of study notes by Lama Norbu Repa
Since beginningless time, in the West, as soon as a human being felt a need or a desire, he tried to satisfy this very need and this very desire; as a result of which, the very sciences and technologies were developed. .In the eastern culture however, since the same beginningless times, instead of trying to answer his needs and his desires, he questioned himself: “Why do I feel a need or a desire?” As a result of this he understood completely the workings of the mind. The focus of investigation was set on the various conscious principles involved. This developed a thorough understanding of the mind resting on the practice of meditation.
There are three specific Sanskrit terms referring to ‘Mind’: 1. The Sanskrit "manas" (yid), refers more to the ability to think, it is the idea of "the thinking mind". 2. The Sanskrit "vijñana" (rnam shes), refers more to the sense of being aware, that there is something which knows or perceives. 3. The Sanskrit "citta" (sems), refers more to the complex apparatus which contains all of the perceiving, thinking, and associated apparatus that goes with the general sense of the English word "mind". It has the sense of "the whole cognitive apparatus of dualistic mind" and is closest of all the other terms to the general sense of the English word "mind".
1. Yid:
Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word "manas", the particular word for mind refers to "mind" as part of the process of perception. It provides the specific meaning of "the faculty that knows mental objects via mental consciousness". "Manas" is the general faculty of mind that sentient beings have that thinks and mentates. It does not refer to the process of consciousness of an object (rnam par shes pa) or to the higher levels of rational thought but just to the fact that mental function occurs. It is experienced by sentient beings with a dualistic mind (Skt. citta, Tib. sems); buddhas do not experience it. In other words, it is the general mental function that occurs in a being with a dualistic perceptual process. This term has the sense of the mind consciousness which knows mental objects. Yid does not connote rational mind with all of the faculties of directed thought; that aspect of mind is called blo. “Manas” is the specific aspect of mind that is conscious of mental consciousnesses. “Citta” is the general name for the whole process of dualistic mind that sentient beings have. Within that overall mind process there is the specific process of cognizing items through consciousness; consciousness is the knowledge of any given thing that arises through one of the sense doors. Despite that, in the Madhyamaka Prasaogika system asserted by the Gelugpa tradition, for example, yid and sems are declared to be the same. However, this does not mean that they refer to the same thing, it only means that they are equivalent for the purposes of the arguments made in that system. “Manas” itself is as explained above.
2. rNam-par shed-pa:
"Consciousness". Translation of the Sanskrit "vijñana". The term is used in two, distinct ways in Buddhist perceptual theory: 1) Generally speaking, the terms yid, rnam par shes pa, and sems are equivalent when referring to the basic fact of "a knower". When used in a general way like this, rnam par shes pa consciousness just refers to the fact that a being is aware; somewhat like saying in English "Is there consciousness there or not?" Because of this, although consciousness is normally defined as a dualistic operation (see below) the term rnam par shes pa is not always used in that sense e.g., in the higher tantras the term rnam par shes pa can be used to mean "awareness / consciousness in general" and in that case can and is used to refer to non-dualistic minds. 2) Specifically, consciousness is that aspect of the sems dualistic mind which just knows an object of perception (yul). Here "knows an object" does mean that there is any conceptual understanding of the object but that there is merely an awareness of the object; the object is known for what it is. E.g., a blue colour is known for its "blueness" by eye consciousness but there is no conceptual thought of it being "blue" in the moment of the consciousness itself. For this reason, consciousness is said to be mi rtog pa not conceptual but note that not conceptual does not mean "non-dualistic" but simply means that there is no activity of conceptualized comprehension together with the moment of the consciousness itself.
The word for consciousness (Skt. vijñana, Tib. rnam par shes pa) was coined in contrast to the word for wisdom (Skt. jñana, Tib. ye shes). Consciousness is defined as yul rnam par shes par byed pa, that which makes known the aspects of an object. Wisdom is the ye gnas kyi shes pa awareness present from the beginning in every mind. Consciousness is the rnam par shes pa awareness of superficial aspects that knows reality in a variety of processes which are like windows that know only certain aspects of that reality. Wisdom is present in every consciousness and knows things as they are in direct perception without any of the dualistic process of knowing an object that is the hallmark of consciousness. Thus there are differing consciousnesses which know differing superfices. Generally in Buddhism, beings in the desire realm are said to have rnam par shes pa drug six consciousnesses, one for each of the sense faculties. I.e., a consciousness for each of the five physical sense faculties and a sixth consciousness for the mental faculty. This six-fold group of consciousness is called the tshogs drug "six-fold group". In the sems tsam Mind-only school of Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist schools such as the tantras which follow that system, there are considered to be eight consciousnesses, the group of which is referred to as the tshogs brgyad "eight-fold group". Consciousness is a crucial part of the process that drives sentient beings' cycling through births in deluded existence and hence is the third of the rten cing 'brel bar 'byung ba'i yan lag bcu gnyis twelve links of dependent-related origination. The consciousness being referred to in this case is specifically the mind consciousness because that is the place which receives the karmic imprints. The link of consciousness is divided into two; the consciousness at the time of receiving the karmic impression and the consciousness at the time of its ripening; these are most often consciousnesses in different lives however, under certain circumstances they can be in the same life.[later] See rten cing 'brel bar 'byung ba'i tshul bcu gnyis twelve processes of dependent-related arising for more information on consciousness in this context. "Consciousness" element is one of the 'byung ba drug "the six elements" and one of the khams drug "six constituents" of the body. It functions to make the otherwise inert body into a sentient being.
3. Sems:
"Mind"=Translation of the Sanskrit "citta". This term in buddhist perceptual theory specifically refers to the whole apparatus of dualistic mind that arises from the ye shes non-dualistic primordial awareness. When the primordial awareness stops recognizing itself for what it is, there is ma rig pa ignorance and that ignorance serves as the basis for the creation of a whole structure of cognition that operates only in a dualistic mode. That apparatus is called "citta" or sems "(dualistic) mind". Citta has many facets to it. However, generally speaking, it has the gtso sems "principal minds" (which are the rnam par shes pa consciousness that perceive the outer world) and the sems las byung ba events that arise from it in conjunction with those consciousness (and which colour and tone the raw experiences of the individual perceptions). Citta in the Indian and Tibetan traditions does not have a static sense, it has the sense of "minding", that it is a complex of processes running together which form a "minding" mind.
Ye-shes:
"Wisdom". Translation of the Sanskrit "jñana". In Sanskrit, the word "jñana" has many meanings but it is important to note that it has an overall sense which is just the basic idea of "knowing". Of the many connotations in the original Sanskrit, the one used by the Buddha was a very literal one, and one which is close to the overall sense of the word. The sense he used was "the most basic knowing that there is" and he explained that that kind of knowing is something which is present as the most fundamental level of mind. Because of this meaning, the Tibetans translated it as ye gnas kyi shes pa "the shes pa particular awareness which is there at the ye origin, which is ye gnas present at the most primordial level" of mind. The Tibetan has been translated into English in various ways. Interestingly, the most accurate translation would be "gnosis"; this being the word jñana brought through Greek culture. Unfortunately, that word has obtained so many theistic connotations that it has been dropped as a real possibility for buddhist translation. The next word that would follow would be "knowing" which is cognate to "gnosis" but that word lacks the "primary" sense of knowing which is so important to the Buddhist usage. Cognition comes from Middle English / French roots and means "to know". It too lacks the "primary" sense and seems better suited to translating other terms. "Primordial awareness" is a translation that does fit the meaning correctly and has become popular amongst translators. However, many translators prefer to have a single word for the translation and "wisdom" was chosen as an appropriate translation. The drawback with "wisdom" is that there is a usage of it in English which has a long history and which refers to "expertise /skill of knowledge and its application especially with age" rather than the more fundamental knowing that the Buddha was referring to. For these reasons, there is some consensus at this point that while "wisdom" will do for the moment, the invention of a new term such as "prime-knowing" would be appropriate. Still many other translations terms have been used, with various faults: "pristine cognition" has the problem that, although it is a cognition, the quality that is being referred to is one of "being there at the root" whereas "pristine" says that it is pure. "Original cognition" sounds too much like "an original cognition of something"; the correct translation would be "original cognizer". The term "original wakefulness" is clever and sounds good but adds considerable meaning which is not there in the original. The original simply says, "of all the knowings that you have, the most fundamental one"; remember that the original term in Sanskrit carries an over-riding sense of simply "knowing". The original term does not suggest some special, better, or more awake quality to the knowing and it is important to avoid adding such meanings. (And it should be noted that there are other terms which specifically indicate the more awake quality of this primordial knower, so such terms as wakefulness should be reserved for them.) Some other translations use "innate" but this is not the meaning intended; the primordial quality is the meaning. Then there is "ever-fresh awareness" but this too adds a meaning that is simply not there in the original. "Divine wisdom" also speaks of the "divine" wisdom but this is not the meaning or intent of the original. Some translations use the term "intelligence" but this term is not speaking of blo rationality; this term is speaking of that which is fundamental to mind and which is prior to any kind of rational intelligence. The sutra vehicles do not speak much of jñana; it is only mentioned as a quality of the Buddha. However, in the tantras where the qualities of enlightenment are taken as the path, ye shes is one of the most important issues since it is the fundamental fact of enlightenment. Thus, in the tantras there are many methods for bringing the students to primordial awareness. Some of them bring the student first to something which is similar to the wisdom so that the student can then progress to real wisdom. Thus there is the key pair of terms, dpe'i ye shes "simile wisdom" and don gyi ye shes "real wisdom". Simile wisdom is often translated as example wisdom but that is being literal to the extent of losing the meaning. The simile wisdom is a similitude of the real wisdom, the actual wisdom which is shown in various ways, including by the fourth empowerment.
bLo:
"Rational mind". Translation of the Sanskrit "buddhi". One of several terms for mind. This term refers to the discriminating mind. The mind that can make distinctions between this and that. It is the rational mind, the one that carries out the activities of rational thought. In Buddhism, the term is generally understood to mean a dualistic mind. Specifically, it is defined as a mind that perceives objects through a dmigs pa "reference point". (And, because rational mind only operates using "reference points", "reference point" and "referencing / referential" mean rational mind by implication.) With this understanding, the term is used in two ways as follows: 1) Within the context of dualistic mind itself, the term usually has a positive sense. It usually has this sense because it is the mind that is capable of rational understanding. 2) Within the larger context of non-dualistic mind, it has an extremely pejorative sense. It has this sense because it is the epitome of dualistic mind; it is the mind that is capable of rational understanding but no more than that. It cannot understand things in any other but a rational way and as such, is the very antithesis of ye shes non-dualistic, non-rational mind. Merely translating this as "mind", which is the common approach these days, utterly loses the importance of the word. This is not just mind but is the rational mind of a dualistic being, the particular mind which is always at the root of all sentient being's problems. Merely glossing it as "mind" means that the reader / listener loses the real import of the term which is often crucial to the meaning being explained. For example, when discussing non-rational minds i.e., wisdom, this term is often used as the antithesis of wisdom. Merely translating it as mind means that the whole impact of the words is totally lost. There is one important issue with the term, which is that the Gelugpa tradition does not regard it in the same way as the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions do. Specifically, that tradition maintains that even a Buddha has a "rational mind". That tradition posits two kinds of rational mind; the one of ordinary beings, and the special one of a buddha. They claim that the buddha has a non-dualistic type of rational mind. The other traditions regard this as ridiculous and a major error on the behalf of the Gelugpa tradition. The Gelugpa tradition in reply simply asserts that they are correct. It is one of several points of major contention between the two sets of traditions which has resulted in warfare over the centuries. Regardless of this problem, the English term "rational mind" or "rationality" works exceptionally well as a translation of this term. And it works very well, whether the term is referring simply to dualistic mind or to the special version of intellect that the Gelugpa's claim a buddha has since the particular flavour of the original is that it makes distinctions between this and that i.e., it is rational. Here is a quote from the bodhisatvacaryavatara (ninth chapter) which both defines the term and shows clearly what the Indians of the time thought about its meaning: /don dam blo yi spyod yul min/ /blo ni kun rdzob yin par brjod/ Superior-meaning is not the domain of rational mind; Rational mind is said to be real-obscuration! In other words, according to Shantideva, rational mind only operates at the level of kun rdzob real obscuration, not at the level of don dam superior meaning. Stated another way, it is only a dualistic mind and could never be the mind of a buddha. This term has been translated as "intellect" but that is not the meaning of the term. This term means the whole, rational mind that is involved with dualistic rationalization. The term blo gros, translating the Sanskrit "mati" is much closer to "intellect". Translating the term with "thought" is quite off the mark, as is translating it with "cognition". Translating this with "attitude" is very far off the mark. The attitudes that one has are the 'dun pa and mos pa of mind according to Abhidharma and, in a more general way of speaking, one speaks of "attitude(s)" in Tibetan with the word bsam pa. Having a rational mind might result in the development of an attitude but it would be the process of bsam pa that would make the attitude, not the blo rational mind per se. In terms of the translation, it is also important to take into account the explanation of how rational mind perceives objects; for that see dmigs pa "reference point". Because only rational mind using "reference points" in its perceptual operation, "reference point" and "referencing / referential" mean rational mind by implication.