Talk:Mindstream/Archive 1

Archive 1

over-Wikilinked

This article is over-Wikilinked. Many of the links should be removed. Generally understood words which are not specific to the topic should not be linked. Words which are pertinent to the topic should only be linked from their first occurance. Thank you. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking to see if there was a tag for overlinking, but I couldn't find anything... Dj stone 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Flowery obscuration

Apart from overlinking, some of this article seems a celebration of flowery obscuration. Consider the opening definition:

"Mindstream, not to be conflated with (though informed by) stream of consciousness, is a compound conjunction of mind and stream and in Vajrayana and Tantric Buddhism creatively defines the nonlocal metaphoric stream of moments or quanta of consciousness proceeding endlessly from lifetime to lifetime and beyond."

Is this earnest or tongue-in-cheek? - Geronimo20 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yantra dialogue

• Yantra in Sanskrit denotes "loom", "instrument" and "machine". Yantra is an aniconic temenos or tabernacle of deva, asura, genius loci or other archetypal entity. Yantra are theurgical device that engender entelecheia. Yantra are realised by sadhu through darshana and samyama. There are numerous yantra. Shri Yantra is often furnished as an example. Yantra contain geometric items and archetypal shapes and patterns namely squares, triangles, circles and floral patterns; but may also include bija mantra and more complex and detailed symbols. Bindu is central, core and instrumental to yantra. Yantra function as revelatory conduits of cosmic truths. Yantra, as instrument and spiritual technology, may be appropriately envisioned as prototypical and esoteric concept mapping machines or conceptual looms. Certain yantra are held to embody the energetic signature of both the Universe and consciousness. Some Hindu esoteric practitioners employ yantra, mantra and other items of the saṃdhyā-bhāṣā (Bucknell, et. al.; 1986: p.ix) in their sadhana, puja and yajna. Though often rendered in two dimensions through art, yantra are conceived and conceptualised by practitioners as multi-dimensional sacred architecture and in this quality are identical with their correlate the mandala.

The aforecited was informed through the mindstream of Herbert V. Günther, teacher, writer and scholar.
सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः। B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what citation you are making. I don't know what you mean by the term "mindstream". Buddhipriya 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be sorry Buddhipriya, be joyful! You have nothing to be sorry for, asking mindful, thoughtful and insightful questions is honourable and so are you. Your tireless devotion to Wikipedia and mapping various knowledges inspires me with joy. There is too much for any one to hold except in direct Communion. In answer to your question, Mindstream may be nailed as the resolution of Atman and Anatman and it may be envisioned as, and has the functionality of, Indra's Net. You are the first formidable person I have encountered in a very long time. Thankyou for honing my facility.

Aum

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tears of joy

Tears of joy during sadhana is the most sublime primal emotion in my lived experience: a bodily manifestation of the limbic bubbling forth of the divine mindstream, springing eternal from the Wellspring of Mysterium Magnum. But by the grace of Guruji Yoga go I!
Wheels within wheels
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

dear b9, while it's obvious that you want to construct something aesthetic here this is an encyclopedia meant for concise explanation of a subject for those with a passing interest. i would take it apart piece*by*piece to show how each section is either not properly referenced (e.g. Mindstream is a conflation subsuming "heartmind"; which incidentally might be poor use of english http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflation rather than idiosyncratic [and it makes no sense to use idiosyncratic tropes on wikipedia: if you want people to trust your article]) or is an obscure fact that is on its own of no interest but is not put into any kind of context (the introductory quote). i don't want to sound mean but a) i think it'd be more helpful to be blogging this, and b) it's not so aesthetically pleasing.

there is absolutely no *way* this article should remain as it is and i will take it upon myself to edit it down if nothing changes, and i am an ignorant ****. not jealous just obvious.

PS what school of Buddhism do you practice in?

edited to add that verbose is the right word... also it would help that each time you introduce a new theory that it clearly stated what school you are talking about. is the whole article just making the one point? is that for all buddhism? ok thanks and i hope that you can work on the article...

Synthesis: unveiling the unveiled

"The anusaya are so-called passions that lie dormant in a person's stream of consciousness (citta-santana) that is called bhavaṅga citta in Theravada and the Alāyavjñāṇa in the Yogācāra school. It is like a sleeping serpent existing from unknown time but it may cause the mental patient to act in an unreasonable manner."

NB: Citta-santana is the triunic trikaya aka kundalini.

To the medicine, the energetic signature, the yidam of the hummingbird totem...my root guru...

Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1996: unpaginated) in contextualizing and redressing the general misconception of anātman (rendered as "no self") and ātman (rendered as "self"), in relation to the view he holds of the intention of Shakyamuni Buddha, states:

...the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

This clear evocation of what later became canonized in Buddhist discourse as Madhyamika or "middle way", is key to tender a description of the ineffable Mysterium Magnum of the "Great Continuüm" that is rendered in English as "Mindstream": the nondual resolution of ātman and anātman.

In the entwined Dzogchen traditions of Bönpo and Nyingmapa, the Mindstream is constituted by a continuüm of gankyil comprised of the Five Pure Lights of the Five Wisdoms which unite the trikaya. These 'tantric correlations' (or Twilight Language) are evident in the iconographic representation of the Five Jinas and visualization of the gankyil and mandala in Dzogchen sādhana and discourse. The 'supreme siddhi or 'absolute bodhicitta of the Dzogchenpa is when the Mindstream of their bodymind (a rendering of namarupa) is 'released' (a rendering of Nirvana) as the Rainbow Body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Simultaneous versus successive operations of plural consciousnesses

Nobuyoshi Yamabe (2004: p.176-177) states:

Since the Yogācāra model of eight consciousnesses means that two layers of unconscious mind are always operating behind the conventional six consciousnesses, it naturally presupposes the simultaneous operations of different types of consciousness. This position, however, was not uncontroversial among Buddhist traditions. Since the stream of consciousness represents a personal identity in Buddhism, there was a strong opinion that more than one stream of consciousness could not exist simultaneously in any sentient being at a given moment. According to this position, strongly advocated by the Sarvāstivāda school, when one feels, for example, that one is seeing something and listening to something at the same time, the visual consciousness and the auditory consciousness are in fact operating in rapid succession and not simultaneously.

It is recorded that some schools belonging to the Mahāsāṃghika lineage did not share this opinion, but it seems to have been widely accepted by other schools. The Sautrāntika (Those Who Follow Sūtras) tradition, which, according to the common view, was an offshoot of the Sarvāstivāda school, was considered to have shared the Sarvāstivāda opinion on this matter, but this has been questioned recently by some scholars.

Evolution of mindstream

Alex Wayman (1965: p.2) states:

Early Buddhism emphasized karma ("action") as what transmigrates - and this is as surprising to a first reading as is the Samkha theory of evolutes. If one goes further into the Buddhist texts he finds out that the karma that determines destination (gati) after death is explained as an important meaning of manas-karma ("acts of mind") and finds out that this particular manas-karma is cetana ("volition"). This word "cetana" has the root cit- ("to think"), which is the root of the word citta, often translated "mind," as in the expression "Mind Only" (cittamatra), a frequest title for doctirnes of the Yogacara school. Later Buddhism used the expression "citta-samtana" or "citta-samtati" both: "stream of thoughts") for the transmigrating entity. Thus, the words "karma" and "citta" are doctrinally equivalent to indicate the transmigrating entity. If a "stream of thoughts" can bring about a set of external circumstances compensatory and retributeive of past acts, we have at once the idealistic picture of a subjective element of a conscious or subconscious nature projecting the "world." If this is true for early Buddhsim, it cannot be the whole truth, because early Buddhism was certainly realistic and pluralistic also.

Verhaegen (2002: p.11) states that:

Price writes that "Karma is the force or energy created by human thoughts, words and deeds", a law of action and reaction, of cause and effect which shapes our destiny in terms of future lives. Buddhists believe that the attitudes and patterns of this life determine our next life. Cessation of this continuous cycle leads to nirvana, which, according to Smith, is an extinction of the boundaries of the finite self, or, more literally, a going out of the fires. The Buddha regarded nirvana as the highest destiny of the human spirit, and referred to it as bliss, a bliss that is incomprehensible and indescribable.

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche (2001: p.254) states:

[Ground mahamudra] is present within the mind-stream of all sentient beings. It is the inseparability of appearances and emptiness, awareness and emptiness, and bliss and emptiness. It is spontaneously present as the nature of the three kayas and the five wisdoms. It is free from arising, abiding, and cessation, and from the extremes of the conceptual elaborations of existence and nonexistence.

Laird (2006: p.24) states:

As I listened carefully to the Dalai Lama, an image took shape in my mind of how reincarnation shaped the history the Dalai Lama spoke of. I thought of different human "souls" as strands braided together, down through time, forming a rope. The lineage of fourteen Dalai Lamas has not been a reincarnation of one human soul. Several human souls have been the vessel for Chenrizi in their own time, and a few of these have reincarnated several times. At the same time, they all interact with one another, as humans, during different incarnations. This was completely different from the idea I had previously had that the Dalai Lama was the fourteenth reincarnation of a single human soul, who was also a manifestation of the compassion of the buddha.

Venerable Thubten Chodron (undated) when asked the question "Is there one universal mind that we are all a part of?" answers:

According to Buddhism, no. Each of us has our own mindstream. However, when we purify our minds and become Buddhas, we will no longer have the feeling of being separate, isolated individuals. We will each be an individual Buddha, but we will have the same spiritual realizations. We won't feel cut off from each other.

Thrangu Rinpoche

His Holiness the Dalai Lama bestowed upon Thrangu Rinpoche the title of Kagyu Khenpo, and at the main seat of the Kagyu lineage in Rumtek, Sikkim, the glorious Karmapa showered him with praise, bestowing the title of Great Khenpo and stated that his mindstream was one with that of Ngokchö Kudorje, Gyedze Marpa Lotsawa's close disciple, who held his exegetical lineage.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness (need date) By Bstan-ʼdzin-rgya-mtsho, Francisco J. Varela, Jerome Engel (p.84):

"From the biologist's point of view," I insisted once again, "the only possible inheritance consists of a physiological and a morphological organism. The idea that we can inherit what our parents have learned is called a Lamarckian evolution, which standard biology sees as false. Instead, I can only inherit from my parents such things as constitution and features; anything more I learn as a young child in contact with my parents. In biology this is the difference between phylogeny (the genetic inheritance) and ontogeny, which is what I learn, one I start my life. It seems that in Buddhism the notion of mindstream is neither phylogenetic nor ontogenetic, but represents a different kind of lineage, because it comes from a transindividual mindstream. This doesn't make too much sense in current science..."

This term is a neologism / original research?

I haven't encountered the term "Mindstream" before, and I don't find any independent sources online that use it with the same meaning as this article.
Can we produce any cites to show that this term is not a neologism (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) or original research (Wikipedia:No original research)?
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a common term in Tibetan Buddhism. Moonsell (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting...

...to see so many expert minds at work here... and no beginners, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.92.153 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Beginner's Mind = Flow (psychology)

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Dalai Lama

• "# July 15 2006

Q: ...what is the nature of the mindstream that reincarnates from lifetime to lifetime?

A: ...If one understands the term "soul" as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness. From that point of view, the debate on whether or not there is a soul becomes strictly semantic. However, in the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.

    Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.
    We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness.

--from Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective

taken from link in section External Weblinks.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.10 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

for a better reading,

Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.

We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness.

--from Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective

Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

isn't the alaya unconscious? not that i understand what you're getting at because i don't understand the article... does it even say that the buddha nature is found in the mindstream??

Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry By Terry Clifford

Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry By Terry Clifford Source: [6] P. 111 B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Linkage

The yogacharas described the alaya vijnana as a vast whole of vijnana or namshe, which they compared unto a great tank the contents of whihc are not automaticlly accessible tot eh conscious maind--which implies that a great deal of the alaya vijnana may be said ot conform an uncionscious. Furthermore, (unlike the Dzogchen teachings) they asserted the source of the creativity of awareness and therefore of all possible contents of consciousness to be the alaya vijnana as well, thus implicitly included the workkings of what freud christened "primary process" (though they did not refer to thecharacteristics Freud attributed to this process). However, the alaya vijnana may not be identified with Western concestions fo the "unconscious" insofar as the term embraced both the potentiality for all experience, and the experiencing process that this school univies under the term "mind" (Skt. chitta; Tib. sem): all of the perceptions that during wakefulness manifest through trhe six sensory vijnanas or namshe, those that take place during sleep, and even the yogi's meditattive absorptions, according ot the Yogacharas have as their basis the alaya vijnana, which is itself the continuum linking the different states of sconsc iousness (this being the reason whythe concept explains the above-discussed phenomena of remembering the object of one's worries or the face of one's beloved after coming out from a swoon, from sleep and so on). Furthermore, the term "storehouse" and the metaphor of the tank should not not deceive us into conveying it as a container-like topos, statis and passisve: the alaya vijnana (is) a continually changing stream of consciousness (Skt. santatna; Tib. semgyud) consisting of successive isntants of knowledge (and as such, rather than being a contnusous entity, as implied above it may be compared ot a succession of perfectily elastic, friciton-free billiard balls hitting each other), which is regarded as a vehicle carrying karmic imprints (skt. avarana or vasana, according tot he case; Tib. bagchag) from one life to the next--or , which is the same, from one psychological state to the next. 146.178.95.1 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In his public lectures, Alan Wallace says the store consciousness is a third level underlying the conscious and unconscious minds of western psychology and that primordial wisdom is a fourth level underlying that. Moonsell (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

a mess

If the participants who do not understand this VERY intricate matter could possibly restrain themselves from editing things they do not understand or cannot relate to, would be much obliged and grateful. Hummingbird's contribution is a wisdom source for us, long time Buddhists (30+ yrs). may all be auspicious, please do NOT delete this wonderful compilation due to the fact you cannot understand it. Others can, and cherish it profoundly. Konchog Rinchen

This article is a mess. It is mostly the work, as far as I can see, of one editor (B9_Hummingbird_Hovering) and as is typical, contains a mix of original research with 'citations' that are carefully selected to support the author's own agenda and possibly some actual, verifiable, relevant 3rd party sources. It seems to me that B9 is banking on the fact that no one will be able to understand the article, let alone verify that the plethora of 'citations' are in fact relevant. I'm at a loss about what to do about this, aside from nominating the whole wreck for deletion. Zero sharp (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much of the uncited material is incomprehensible or incorrect, and much of the cited material is irrelevant. Mitsube (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you two missed my edits? Contention, contestation and debate, prized in our tradition, engenders direct intimacy of the Triratna. Are u endeavouring to incite me to enter into chittychat and to continue editing? FYI, I am undergoing a dedicated retreat on the Ratnagotravibhaga in Sanskrit, with English commentarial literature atm. In relation to the your respective jibes (refer above), I have extracted the following from the talk page of the Longchen Nyingthig by Shunyata# (Key: # = the keen sword of prajna):

"Thank you. Just please try to remember when editing that not everyone who reads the article has your level of erudition and the connections you make that may seem obvious to you will be baffling to so [sic]. Your style is a little jarring sometimes, but my goodness do you know how to reference. I'm happy to work with you as well. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"

Ah (Resonance of Atiyogatantrayana Mantrayana)

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How wonderful. However the 'traditions' of _wikipedia_ which are what is relevant here, prize citations for material added to articles, clarity of writing (such that encyclopedia articles are useful, clear and intelligible to people _outside_ of the 'tradition') and are not merely exercises in linguistic fireworks to fan ones own ego, which you do. But, I'm really *really* tired of explaining this to you. Again and again. So I'll just continue to clean up after you. Or not. Zero sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tone and manner represent yourself clearly: as they misrepresent me.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While you may not be a moron, you are certainly a twit. 67.67.219.184 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have no idea who wrote this, nor how many people contributed to it, but this is not remotely justifiable as an encyclopedia article.

There is simply no logical relationship between the sources that are alluded to under this heading: the article neither defines "mindstream", nor does the miscellany of evidence relate coherently to the quotation from Rhys-Davids at the top of the article (nor is there any reason why that quotation would entail an encyclopedia article to explain it).

This could be an essay (not a good one), but it is neither an article on "Mindstream" nor on any one of the other Sanskrit terms alluded to.

If you wanted to start an article on "European scholars' responses to technical terms in Buddhist Philosophy" you could do so (but even this would be difficult to justify as part of the Wikipedia, and should probably stand outside of it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.18.68 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan terms unrelated to the wording?

Under "Detailed Exegesis", we have: "In Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhism) it may be understood as an upāya (Sanskrit) doctrine of the nonlocal, atemporal[2] metaphorical stream of moments[3] (Tibetan: bkod pa thig le[4]) or 'quanta of consciousness' (Tibetan: thig le; Sanskrit: Bindu)[5] proceeding endlessly..." What on earth do these Tibetan terms refer to? They seem to have been stuck in at random to just spice up an already unreadable sentence. Moonsell (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sems-rgyud and thugs-rgyud (Tibetan)

As the article says, rgyud is "continuum". Thugs and sems both mean mind, but inasfar as the former is honorific it refers to Buddha's mind, unlike the latter, which refers to an ordinary person's mind. Thus, the two terms do not make homonyms, as the article says they do. Also, why so many words on such a small distinction? Moonsell (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Too many quotations

The preponderance of quotations makes this article very difficult to read. As a quick fix, some may be relegated to footnotes, but the content in them really needs to be summarized *succinctly*. Moonsell (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Undid changes using AWB

I've undid changes by LilHelpa using AWB. AWB needs to be used with caution. We need to check each proposed change to make sure it's correct. In this case, AWB recommended changing two occurrences of "hsi" in Chinese transliterations to "his" because it thought they were typos and the changes had gone through unchecked. Moonsell (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Too long!

This article is far too long and doesn't address anything interesting about the concept, so that it is just confusing.