Discovering Buddhism at Home -FAQ

Module 1 - Mind and Its Potential (page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4)

Buddhism asserts that our mind has no beginning or end. But I'm still curious why or how our delusions have accompanied our minds since beginningless time.

The mind is generally described as "mere clarity and awareness." Does this description apply to both the primary mind and the mental factors that can result in greed or anger?

Why does a thought seem to arise from nothing? Where does it come from?

We learn that "formless cannot come from form." But can't the mind create physical things? For instance, doesn't the mind manifest humans for the purpose of savings other beings?

Please distinguish the clear light of death from Buddha nature.

We learn the consciousness has two functions: perception and conception. But doesn't the consciousness also include an action function?

What is Samadhi and can it be utilized during death?

The mind is described as beginningless, with every mind moment having a prior mind moment. Is the physical realm also self-sustaining in this way?

When I'm contemplating the subjects in the module readings, how do I keep from getting myself all tied up and stuck in mental knots?

Buddhism asserts that our mind has no beginning or end. But I'm still curious why or how our delusions have accompanied our minds since beginningless time.

A student asks:


I realize that Buddhism does not posit a beginning or end to our mind or a "fall from grace", to borrow a phrase from Christianity. Why or how is it that the delusions have been with us since beginningless time? I guess an answer could be simply that "that is the nature of things." Just wondering if a more satisfying reply is out there.


Thubten Yeshe replies:


Beginningless mind means beginningless mind moments. Beginningless ignorance means beginningless moments of ignorance. But it could also be said of greed or anger or whatever mental factor you can think of.

back to top ^

The mind is generally described as "mere clarity and awareness." Does this description apply to both the primary mind and the mental factors that can result in greed or anger?

A student asks:


I am still confused about the technical definition of mind. I understand the definition given as 'mere clarity and awareness,' or at least I think I do. But, at you continue through the module it seems to me that later on you are adding a lot more to the definition than just clarity and awareness.

As I understand it, mind is composed of two functions that operate simultaneously - the primary mind and the mental factors. The mere clarity and awareness given as the definition of mind seems to correspond to the primary mind. The object, whether perceived by one of the 5 sense organs or a mental object, arises in the mind and the mind knows of its existence, it takes the aspect of that object.

At the same time, the mental factors begin to analyze, evaluate, and do any number of other nasty things to that object. But, it's not that the mind became aware of the object and then something else (the mental factors) took over. No, the mental factors are just another aspect of the mind, another of its functions.

If that is so, then the 'mind' is more than mere clarity and awareness. No?


Thubten Yeshe replies:


Nothing is added to the definition. That definition can be applied to all primary minds and mental factors. Even such 'nasties' as anger or greed have the basic nature of mere clarity and awareness.

All the other aspects of consciousness that you refer to come into area of the functions and mechanics of the mind. The underlying character is clarity and awareness, nothing else.


Tim adds:


It is interesting, eh? I think this is actually something very profound. Two factors like pride and embarrassment share the same relative nature, yet they are also clearly different. What makes them different? Where does that different "ingredient" come from? What is it? It seems like a good object for meditation/investigation.

back to top ^

Why does a thought seem to arise from nothing? Where does it come from?

We learn that "formless cannot come from form." But can't the mind create physical things? For instance, doesn't the mind manifest humans for the purpose of savings other beings?

Please distinguish the clear light of death from Buddha nature.

A student asks:


Regarding the assertion: "everything comes from the immediate prior event", I would like to know why a thought occurs in a certain moment when at the prior moment I had been sitting quietly. In other words, why did something come from an apparent nothing?

Also, it is stated the mind and body are different. The proof was "One is formless and the other is form. Since formless cannot come from form and vice, versa, mind had to make mind and body had to make body. The body has the physical cause of heterosexual union and the mind has the cause of a prior moment." But can't the mind create things? The infinite spiritual power of mind can manifest humans for the purpose of saving sentient beings. This is a case of mind making bodies, or forms coming from the formless mind.

Also, please distinguish the clear light of death from the buddha nature layer of consciousness. The lecture states that mind is impermanent and changing - it is changing from moment to moment based on what object arises before it. But then it is likened to a mirror, which does not change even though various things shine on it. I don't understand why the buddha nature mind layer is not considered immortal and immutable device of awareness with the properties of compassion, wisdom and infinite power.

The lecture also says, "At death, fundamental mind of clear light goes to next life. No aspect of mind which is contaminated travels into next life" however in "Understanding the Mind" by Lama Zopa Rinpoche it is stated "of the 6 consciousnesses, it is the mental consciousness which goes from life to life... as long as you do not cease karma, these aggregates will circle from one life to another." If no contaminated aspect travels, then how can samsaric aggregates form in the next life?


Tim replies:


Regarding form and formlessness, I think when Buddhist philosophers talk about "form" they mean "matter," so the dichotomy is between what is material and what is non-material. Since modern physics asserts an equivalance between matter and energy, that might put "energy" in the "form" category as well, while consciousness is something far more subtle.

Perhaps what happens when Buddhas or others emanate bodies is that they cause matter to come together in a certain way. In that sense, mind does not "create" a body, but rather "assembles the pieces" of one from pre-existent materials. We label such a construction "a body" or even "a person" but that labelling process is kind of problematic and a subject of much discussion. It's also possible that an emanation isn't matter at all, but just something that appears to the minds of other beings... a deliberately constructed illusion. I'm not sure. But in any case, I don't think there's a contradiction.

Something that may be worth considering is that the Buddha Nature isn't so much a "layer of mind" as a fact about mind. Because the mind is empty of any inherent nature of its own, all impurities can be removed, and Buddhahood is possible. Sometimes people speak about this in metaphorical terms, though, almost like an inner core or essence. This emptiness is the mind's ultimate nature, but you have to be very careful about how you interpret any statement about ultimate natures. Also I think different tenet systems have different views.

Meanwhile I think the clear light mind is an actual thing, a positive phenomenon -- the continuum of the essential clarity and awareness that is what makes consciousness conscious. It's this consciousness, in its moment-by-moment way, that travels from life to life, linking the two. The six consciousnesses are just the five normal sensory ones plus the mental consciousness, which takes mental phenomena (thoughts, mental images, etc) as its objects. I imagine what Lama Zopa Rinpoche had in mind when he said it's the mental consciousness that goes from life to life is the subtlest level of this consciousness, which is the the clear light mind. So the two teachings are in harmony.

What may be the cause of confusion is that karmic imprints also have a continuity from life to life, in association with a mind, but they are not the mind itself. I think TY is being very precise. There is more on the levels of consciousness in the subsequent teachings in module one, plus a very systematic discussion in module five.


Thubten Yeshe adds:


Every mind moment arise in dependence on the previous mind moment. Without the immediately prior moment there is nothing to act as a cause of the next moment. There is no time in our life, including in deep sleep, deep meditational states or apparently 'thought-less' moments of relaxation, when that continuum of mind moments (or mental events) is not occurring.

Because it happens at such a great rate of speed, 65 moments in a single finger snap (which works out the about three milliseconds per mind moment!) we are mostly unaware of what is going on in our minds.

As stated in the teachings, buddha nature is defined as the emptiness of the fundamental clear light mind. The clear light of death is still a relative level of mind. But, because of the lack of conceptual thought at this level - its clear, luminous nature - it is see as analogous to buddha nature and used in meditation to approach complete union with buddha nature.

The mirror is an imperfect, but useful, analogy for the mind. Like a mirror mind 'reflects' what it comes in contact with. In that sense it also changes from moment to moment. The basic clear and knowing nature of the mind is sustained, just as the mirror's clear, reflective nature does not change.

That which is clear and knowing (the definition of mind) is eternal, as opposed to permanent. Eternal because it never ceases; it continues in its momentary, ever-changing (impermanent) flow into eternity. So, it is eternal and impermanent.

It is true that no contaminated aspect of consciousness/mind travels from life to life, BUT the potential for contaminated thoughts, words and actions does travel from life to life in the form of karmic imprints. These imprints may be understood as a kind of influence or memory that can affect our behavior in the future.

Mind acts as the impetus for rebirth. There is no question that this is so. But, it is not the direct cause of a material body. As Lama Zopa states, the ovum and sperm of the mother and father give rise to the physical body. Without the ovum and sperm there would be no human body! Without the impetus provided by the mind there would be no intention to be reborn human.

The (ordinary) mind with a magnetic attraction to the human realm will naturally gravitate towards the appropriate circumstances to realize its goal of human life. Those circumstances entail connecting that formless mind with the material body of a human. That matter/form is provided by the mother and father.

back to top ^

We learn the consciousness has two functions: perception and conception. But doesn't the consciousness also include an action function?

A student asks:


In this section it is stated "Basically our consciousness has two functions - perception and conception"

I think our teacher is intentionally omitting the action aspects of consciousness for the sake of discussion?

The above functions are the "jnanendriyas" and are 1/2 of what consciousness does. The other half being karmendriyas or actions.

I support my assertion by this quote from "Understanding the Mind" by Lama Zopa Rinpoche: A thought comes from the principal consciousness and persuades the body and speech to act.


Thubten Yeshe replies:


Those actions are performed by the voice and the body not the mind. As Lama Zopa says, the mind 'persuades the body and speech to act.' The actions of the mind are purely mental and that mental activity (it is certainly 'action', but mental action) occurs through the functions of perception and conception.

back to top ^

What is Samadhi and can it be utilized during death?

A student asks:


Is samadhi (no breathing and no thought) part and parcel of moving down into the subtler levels of mind? After all, at death, there will be no breathing but we will still have mind states?


Thubten Yeshe replies:


Literally samadhi means 'union' or 'combination' (according to Geshe Thubten Jinpa, His Holiness the Dalai Lama's translator) and refers to a state of single-pointed meditative absorption, not necessarily without breath, but certainly without conceptual thought processes operating.

In the final stages of death, after respiration and heart beat have ceased, consciousness may still remain in the body for some time. This time can be used fruitfully to reach high states of spiritual attainment, if one is properly trained.

back to top ^

The mind is described as beginningless, with every mind moment having a prior mind moment. Is the physical realm also self-sustaining in this way?

A student asks:


This is similar to the question: "if a log falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" In other words, is the physical realm genuinely self-sustaining? Without beginning? Self-creating? We know the mental realm is this way because Lord Buddha could find no mind moment without a prior mind moment. But I know of no direct statement from Lord Buddha or Lama Zopa Rinpoche indicating that the physical realm exists in this same self-sustaining way.


Thubten Yeshe replies:


Physical matter requires a cause, just as mind moments do. The example of a plant arising from a seed, from a previous plant, etc. is a common and obvious instance. The universe itself is thought to have arisen from the Big Bang, but it was not 'nothing' that went bang. Something was there. Where did that something come from?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama discusses this and many other pertinent questions in a most interesting way in "The Universe in a Single Atom" (a terrific book). And, he has stated in various places that there are aspects of natural processes that are not related to karma, that are simply natural processes. For example, the horrendous earthquake and tsunami in Asia; the minds of those affected did not create the earthquake and tsunami (they were natural events), but they did create the cause to be born in those lands. This is an idea to explore more deeply.

back to top ^

When I'm contemplating the subjects in the module readings, how do I keep from getting myself all tied up and stuck in mental knots?

A student asks:


I'm new to this board & have just started studying module 1..

Regarding sitting v study.

Being something of a beginner, I sometimes feel that the best / kindest thing I can do, when sitting / meditating is to be as relaxed, calm & spacious with myself - thoughts, emotions etc. and very gently introduce these subjects (karma/precious human rebirth) to my mind.

Whereas contemplating on certain subjects (& also the reading, I'm afraid -not being the brightest spark in the flame.) involves going through a certain analytical process.? that tends to get me tied up in knots.. or is that me just being lazy..? I wondered if anyone has any suggestions, as to how I could approach these two component parts.


Tim replies:


I guess I'd say go at your own pace, but make sure you keep moving forward. When you find yourself getting tied up in knots, one way to deal with it is to slow down and unravel the knot one step at a time. But if, after doing that for a time, you find that the knot is still there, then an approach that I think many people have found useful is to set the issue aside for the time being and continue. Buddhism is a huge subject and often it seems like it's necessary to understand more of the whole before a given piece makes sense. It's kind of like learning a language in that way. You need a certain amount of basic grammar and vocabulary before things start fitting together, but the only way to get that grammar and vocabulary is to keep going, keep taking in more until the pieces start to click.

Also one of the fascinating things is that everybody seems to have their own set of knots, and what's hard for me may be a piece of cake for you. It's one of the things that makes groups like this so valuable.


Thubten Yeshe replies:


This is very good advice from Tim.

The only thing I would add is that you remember that, just as the rest of our life is, our spiritual practice is also a balancing act. I like the analogy of a tightrope walker who must constantly attend to the minutest imbalance or face a terrible fall. In the same way we must be very mindful of what is happening on every level of our practice, and restore balance each time we find ourselves too heavily weighted in one way or another.

Tying ourselves in intellectual knots is easy to do in Tibetan Buddhism, so be vigilant and when you catch yourself, as Tim has suggested, ease off.


Pende adds:


I find that when I get tied up in knots it is due to an idea or subject setting off numerous other ideas, many of which conflict with each other. It is like an English Parlimentary debate. A minister presents an idea and a hundred voices rise either in agreement or opposition.

Often I have to isolate those "voices" and understand why they agree or disagree with the original statement. I do this in meditation and in discussions with friends. Sometimes I am not able to arrive at an understanding that completely silences all opposition. In those cases, I choose the conclusion that seems most reasonable and I am most confident in.

back to top ^