Help
Sign In
anna
January 2009 
Another Question from Anna (HummingBird)
Posted on Jan 25th, 2009
by 
True Eloquence
True Eloquence
Path to higher Consciousness
Assaji, if you have a moment – I'd be so interested if you could take a peek at this website and see if or how it relates to a Buddhist perspective. Thank you so much http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html
Reply:
According to Buddhist Philosophy, consciousness/mind (citta/vijnana) is only one and the rest are its concomitants (cetasika), just like the governor in relation to the governed. In another word, when you say "happy mind", happy is qualifying the mind. Same is with "sad mind", "angry mind", etc. These qualities are its associates. They arise together with the mind. However, one must not take this mind/consciousness to be the "Ego/Self" as we see in the diagram below: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html
Because if the consciousness/mind is the ego (a permanent entity), then enlightenment or liberation is impossible. Foolish will remain foolish forever, intelligent will remain intelligent forever. Poor will be poor forever, rich will be rich forever. That theory contradicts in itself. There are no layers of mind/consciousness. Consciousness is a process or rather consciousness is no more than an empirical or functional reality that results from an assemblage of conditions. That the consciousness (citta) is the chief is also to be understood from the fact that the unenlightened are attached to it - not to the concomitants (cetasikas) - as the Atman (Ego/Self).
Moreover, when a person is liberated, one speaks only of the consciousness (citta) being liberated even though it is at that moment being accompanied by its concomitants (cetasikas) and dharmas belonging to other skandhas (factors). This is once again because these accompanying dharmas are all depended on the consciousness (citta), and when the consciousness (citta) is pure, the other skandhas (factors) are likewise pure.
We should clearly understand what do we mean by consciousness and how consciousness comes about. Consciousness comes about with the contact of eye-organ and the external object as a unit. For instance, when my eye-organ hits on a book (external object), only then the consciousness of a book is arisen. Other than that, consciousness is merely an immaterial dharma. But then again that image imprinted over again and again can perpetually co-exist in the "mental consciousness" (mano-vijnana) that recognizes that particular object whenever I see that again and it continues through out time and space; thus samsara. This consciousness can function pertaining to the three periods of time: past, present and future, while in fact, the so called "original nature" of the mind/consciousness was/is nothing but a pure impersonal dharma, that is often ineffable in its highest sense. It can be realized in deep/high meditational (jhanic) experiences, when every delusional thoughts, i.e. prapanca-s (imaginations/conceptual proliferation) are suspended or dis-communicated. However, one has to be really - i have to emphasize here - really careful not to be misled at this crucial stage, because this fine consciousness (citta) can seem like the "Ego/Self" existing throughout time. With ethereal bliss gained from the seclusion of some defilements by the near-saint-yogi, it's still plausible to attach to that desirable object thinking it is the ultimate permanent entity, while in fact, it is not. The yogi must finally go beyond even that stage in order to become fully enlightened and liberated.
I hope this explanation is helpful to your understanding.
Access: Public
Thank you so much for posting this here, Assaji! I responded:
Thank you so very much, Assaji! There’s a lot to think about and absorb here!
One of the 1st things I see is that in a sense Buddhism turns the diagram, in http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html,
around. The ego is somewhere on the periphery rather than the centre.
And also Buddhism does away with the layers in the diagram and replaces
this with ‘process’ or ‘what arises out of conditions’. So I guess there could be no comparative diagram for how consciousness is perceived in Buddhism.
What grabs my attention too is your reference to ego as permanent
entity. This ‘permanence’ is a notion or perception isn’t it, rather
than anything which exists?
Thank you for speaking about consciousness - more thought provoking
stuff here! I get the sense that consciousness is ‘divided’ between
what is learned or constructed by ego, such as awareness of time,
recognition of an object, etc, and the ineffable or awareness such as
in meditation where there’s more of a sense of ‘being’ … and this is
where words become more and more elusive
much love, precious
thanks to both of you Assaji & Anna…..I always wanted to learn more about buddhism but never seem to make the time for it, but for yrs my instincts have been telling me to study this more in my life….
Hope this finds you both spiritually, mentally & physically well today…twb:)
The following has been mentioned in the above post by Assaji,
“…the so called “original nature” of the mind/consciousness was/is nothing but a pure impersonal dharma, that is often ineffable in its highest sense.”
With regard to this statement, i would like to clarify that if the so called “original nature” of the mind is pure, why do people have to strive for enlightenment? Because “original nature of the mind is pure”, it refers to the mental state of an Enlightene3d one, in whom there is no greed, hatred, delusion….
Shuva, I am wondering if the “original nature” refers to that which we truly are, but due to obscurations do not recognise
love
there's a conversation happening here which may interest all of you
Anna, this fact or the statement “original nature of the mind is pure” could be understood from the Discourse named “Agganna Sutta” which is literary translated as “Discourse on the origin of the world” where it has been mentioned that beings came to this world, from a world/heaven named “Abbassara” and their bodies were self-redient, fed naturally but as the time passed they were driven by strong motivations by which they made themselves test the ground which was sweet in test (or kind of a food) and they gradually lost their self-redient and later became normal beings as the humans today.
This description shows that nature of the people or mind was “pure in it's original form”, but, on other hand it has been mentioned (not in that particular discourse) in other places that these people came to this world because their good kamma that led them to live in heaven was getting to be over.
So, considering all these, if not fully, in some extend, how could we understand that 'original nature of the mind is pure”? Of course, i was also told so but yet i'm wondering how it could be? What i feel is that answer to this question could be understood or console ourselves by considering what Assaji has mentioned above that it ”is often ineffable in its highest sense”