2/22 -The Self that Lives the Whole Truth p. 27

[John]

Hello Lynn and Paige,

I remembered that Thich Nhat Hanh talks a lot about ‘store consciousness’, so I looked it up in his book ‘The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching’. I was surprised to find that in Buddhism, this idea of the subconscious is not only individual, but also collective.

“ ….We may think that our agitation is ours alone, but if we look carefully, we’ll see that it is our inheritance from our whole society and many generations of our ancestors. Individual consciousness is made of the collective consciousness, and the collective consciousness is made of individual consciousnesses. They cannot be separated. Looking deeply into our individual consciousness, we catch the collective consciousness. Our ideas of beauty, goodness, and happiness, for example, are also the ideas of our society. Every winter, fashion designers show us the fashions for the coming spring, and we look at their creations through the lens of our collective consciousness. When we buy a fashionable dress, it is because we see with the eyes of the collective consciousness. Someone who lives deep in the upper Amazon would not spend that amount of money to buy such a dress. She would not see it as beautiful at all. When we produce a literary work, we produce it with both our collective consciousness and individual consciousness…..”

Maybe that is the sense of the subconscious Uchiyama means?

Gassho,
John

[paige]

Hello again,

I've never delved too deeply into the Yogacara/ Cittamatra (Mind Only) texts, so I'm pretty much just going off (what I remember of) the Lankavatara sutra. There are 6 sense consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), and a 7th "ego" consciousness, that forms the sense of self via input from the sense consciousnesses, and backed up by the store-consciousness (as a kind of 'silent partner'). The 8th consciousness is passive and non-discriminating, it contains the actualised and potential karmic tendencies. The 8th consciousness is supposed to be what survives the death of the body, and the karmic tendencies stored within it determine the next rebirth.

So it's 'collective' in the sense that it contains the stored-up impulses and characteristics of many lifetimes (but not in the Jungian sense of "collective unconscious"). And it's like a 'soul' in the sense that it survives the death of the body and the ego, but I think a 'soul' is usually thought of as independently aware, active, and discriminating.

[Kelly M.]

Hello,

I acquired a copy of the book, and I've been trying to catch up so I can join the discussions. I was quite confused by the schedule until I realized that I'm reading the 1993 printing. Many of the sections and chapter titles are in a radically different order.

Oops.

Kalka, I also have the '93 edition (with the purple new-age looking cover ). Its not too bad, some minor differences here and there. This is the first chapter so far that is not included in our edition (but we also have a few chapters that they don't).

G,
-K

[Lynn]

Thanks, Paige and John!

I very, very vaguely recall something about this teaching somewhere in my studies. I am kind of getting a sense of what you are explaining, but it is quite esoteric, so it's one of those teachings that seems to float like a moth on my peripheral vision and every time I turn to actually *look at it...it's not there.

Either way, this is really interesting dharma to ponder....

In Gassho~

Lynn

[Jundo]

Hey,

I have been so busy with our family's move this week that I could not join in until now. Anyway, good to see things develop in the conversation this week.

So, what is this "BIG SELF"? That's a BIG question!

Need we, and even can we, answer that BIG question completely?

I think 'no' to both, and 'yes'. Human brains (even an 'Enlightened' brain like Shakyamuni Buddha's) are simply incapable of grasping such things, any more than an ant's brain can grasp physics or fly a plane. The Buddha realized, however, that there is no need to fully grasp such things. It is not necessary to life. Further, by giving up trying to fully grasp all of it, the Buddha was able to fully grasp it in another way (just as we realize some things in Shikantaza or a Koan when we -stop- looking for them!).

For example, do we need to know every aspect of the ocean, every inch of its coastlines, all the mysterious creatures it contains in its depths ... in order to savor and appreciate the saltiness of a single drop of sea water on our tongue right here and now? That saltiness is a way to know the whole ocean right here, the whole universe in a single drop. We are that single drop of the ocean, and the "tasting" is the living of our life. No need to know the whole ocean, and thus we know the whole ocean showing itself right here. (Another example might be how we cannot grasp the full power of our sun, all the light and heat it produces, yet we can fully grasp the warm sunshine that falls on our shoulders). Furthermore, we can allow ourselves to 'go with the flow' of the ocean, let it carry us 'where it will', without even needing to know that there's a reason or destination in doing so ... we can float along even if there is not reason behind it.

My point is merely that we need not define or grasp every aspect of this 'Big Self' ... or even what 'it' is (assuming it is an 'it') ... in order to know that we are just 'it'. To not know that you and I are each 'it' may be compared to two drops of sea water (self aware drops!) that, while knowing they are individual drops, cannot see that they are also the sea.

But, going further, perhaps we should not think if 'it' even as an 'it' ...

Throughout the history of Buddhism (and all of Eastern philosophy really) they has been a tug-o-war between those folks who wished to make our 'essence' into a 'thing' (a 'pure life force', perhaps, or an 'ocean' or a 'garden' or a 'god' etc.) and those who saw it as more of a verb or experience of life (instead of a noun).

For example, let's look at the ocean again ...

So, some folks might teach that our "individual self" is like a wave or drop of water of an ocean, and our BIG Self is this 'thing' that is the whole ocean. But Dogen (and others ... it is related to the Buddha's opposition to anatman if you know that) felt that a better way to approach this is by tasting the saltiness and richness of the ocean on your own tongue (that's what we do in Zazen). THAT is who you are, without subtle dualisms. It is not so much learning to think of yourself as part of something greater (and trying to define exactly what that is), but instead 'tasting' that something that is immediately, vibrantly and completely, right here and now, underlying the immediate experience of your life.

Taste the ocean, and you have found the ocean.

Then, without even knowing exactly what 'it' is, we yield to it, allow it, saying "do with me as will be done, whatever 'you' are or are not" ... rather as a child trusts its parent before even having a clear idea of 'mom' or 'dad'. Something is placing food in its mouth, something has given the infant life ... nothing to do but trust in that and live that life.

Again, we are as a drop of ocean water that allows the ocean tides to carry us where they will ... without even caring what the ocean is, or calling it 'ocean'. In fact, more than a ocean, it is just some grand 'flowing' of tides and current of events that we are part of.

So I think that Uchiyama, when he says things like ...

The whole or universal self is the force that functions to make the heart continue beating and the lungs continue breathing, and it is also the source of what is referred to as the subconscious.

This inclusive self is at heart the creative power of life. It is related to what the Judeo-Christian tradition calls the creative power of God. That power--what is immediately alive and also what is created--that is self too.

... Uchiyama is not saying that this 'source' is the subconcious itself (he says "source of the subconscious"), or that it is 'god'. Instead, he is saying that it is the mysterious, wondrous flowing that makes the heart beat, creates a mind and subconscious, and is the 'creative power of life'. No need to define 'mom & dad' more (nor can a small human mind grasp 'its' true nature).

Finally ... "store consciousness' and related ideas ...

After the time of Buddha, various folks with good imaginations cooked up all kinds of 'models' of human consciousness and creative theories to explain how the mind might work and reincarnation might work. Dogen did not have much use for it ... I think it is not much more relevant than, for example, "phrenology" (the 19th century "science" that involved feeling the bumps in the skull to determine an individual's psychological attributes). Both are likely just very cute ideas invented by folks of centuries past to explain stuff, but ideas that don't pan out really. I am a skeptic. Some Buddhists feel they most cling to any old theory or idea just because it is old.

For real Dogen-osophers, here is a very detailed discuession of the issue (from page 111). I don't recommend most folks to bother to read it, as it is too technical.

http://books.google.com/books?id=j0byXF ... #PPA112,M1

Gassho, Jundo

[John]

The 8th consciousness is supposed to be what survives the death of the body, and the karmic tendencies stored within it determine the next rebirth.

So it's 'collective' in the sense that it contains the stored-up impulses and characteristics of many lifetimes (but not in the Jungian sense of "collective unconscious"). And it's like a 'soul' in the sense that it survives the death of the body and the ego, but I think a 'soul' is usually thought of as independently aware, active, and discriminating.

Thanks Paige. This is making the idea of rebirth a bit clearer for me, I think. Not an enduring self that goes through a series of lives but just a 'karmic tendency' that sinks into a kind of sea of consciousnesses and surfaces again into another form?

Gassho,
John

PS Sorry, I wrote this before I read Jundo's post and I can see I am philosophising again too much.

[Janice]

Thanks for your post, Jundo. I found it very illuminating.

[Tony-KY]

Thanks Jundo for your explanation.

Whenever I come across words or phrases such as "life-force" or "creative power of God", I assume, by habit, they are defining some kind of transcendent essense or entity.

The "tasting" analogy was really helpful. Nothing to be mentally grasped.


Gassho,
Tony

[Bansho]

Hi,

... But Dogen (and others ... it is related to the Buddha's opposition to anatman if you know that) felt that a better way to approach this is by tasting the saltiness and richness of the ocean on your own tongue (that's what we do in Zazen).

Buddha's opposition to atman. Sorry, couldn't resist. :wink:

Gassho
Ken

[Jundo]

Hi,

... But Dogen (and others ... it is related to the Buddha's opposition to anatman if you know that) felt that a better way to approach this is by tasting the saltiness and richness of the ocean on your own tongue (that's what we do in Zazen).

Buddha's opposition to atman. Sorry, couldn't resist. :wink:

Gassho
Ken

Absolutely right Batman. I meant anatman opposition to atman. Attaboy.

http://www.babylon.com/definition/ANATMAN/English

Gassho, J