Another Buddhist chat with ChatGPT

I was looking at Buddhist suchness before. What is the difference between being consciousness of the world and suchness. Does suchness present itself even when we are unconscious.

ChatGPT said:

Great question! The difference between being conscious of the world and suchness (tathatā, 如如) lies in the way experience is framed.

Consciousness of the World

Being conscious of the world typically involves perception, thoughts, and interpretations. It implies a subject (the perceiver) and objects (what is perceived). In Buddhist thought, this is often linked to dualistic thinking—where we divide things into categories like self/other, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc.

Suchness (Tathatā)

Suchness is reality as it is, beyond conceptualization, judgment, or dualistic distinctions. It is the direct, unfiltered nature of existence before the mind starts labeling and interpreting. In Zen and Mahayana Buddhism, suchness is seen as the true nature of reality—completely ordinary yet profound. When one fully sees suchness, they experience life without attachment to ideas, expectations, or self-referential thoughts.

Does Suchness Present Itself Even When We Are Unconscious?

Yes. Suchness is not dependent on human perception or awareness. It is simply the way things are, whether or not anyone is conscious of it. In a way, suchness is always present, but consciousness (especially conceptual thought) tends to obscure it.

For example, a tree exists in suchness whether someone is there to perceive it or not. But when a person sees the tree, their mind might immediately name it, analyze it, or form opinions about it—this is moving away from suchness into conceptualization. In deep meditation or moments of pure presence, one might experience reality as it is without these mental overlays.

So, while consciousness of the world is a mind-based process, suchness is prior to and beyond mind—it is reality itself.

You said:

Does suchness imbue consciousness with the sense of reality? Does this sense of here and now arise with consciousness or is it prior.

ChatGPT said:

Suchness doesn’t “imbue” consciousness with reality in an active sense—rather, it is reality itself, whether consciousness recognizes it or not. However, the sense of reality, or the here and now, is an interesting question because it touches on the relationship between consciousness and being.

Does Suchness Give Consciousness a Sense of Reality?

Consciousness (vijñāna) typically operates by distinguishing and interpreting phenomena. But suchness (tathatā) is not something separate from what is experienced—it is simply the way things are, beyond dualistic distinctions. The sense of "this is real" that arises in conscious experience could be seen as an echo or partial glimpse of suchness, but consciousness itself is often wrapped in conceptualization, filtering direct experience.

In deep meditative states, where conceptual thinking quiets down, one may perceive suchness more directly, and with it, an undeniable felt sense of reality—a raw, immediate presence that is beyond intellectual grasp.

Does the Sense of Here and Now Arise With Consciousness, or Is It Prior?

This depends on how we define "consciousness." If we mean ordinary waking consciousness, then the felt sense of here and now arises along with it. However, if we are speaking about awareness in a deeper sense, some Buddhist perspectives suggest that suchness—the unconditioned presence of reality—is always present, prior to conceptual consciousness.

For example:

• Before a thought arises, before perception organizes reality, suchness is already there.
• In deep sleep or unconsciousness, the mind may not be aware of the here and now, but reality (suchness) hasn’t disappeared—it is simply beyond the grasp of conceptual knowing.
• In meditative insight, the sense of here and now becomes more fundamental, more vivid, and less tied to an individual sense of self—suggesting that the present moment is not created by consciousness but rather revealed when conceptual thinking subsides.

Conclusion

Suchness is not dependent on consciousness, but when consciousness becomes still enough, it can reflect suchness more clearly. The "here and now" that we typically experience is a filtered version of reality, shaped by memory, expectation, and mental constructs. But the deeper sense of presence—the suchness of this very moment—was always prior, untouched by conceptual thought.

You said:

There is a brightness to consciousness that is not conceptual. It is how we know what is real. When someone says "I experienced this", they are conceptualising the fact that something happened so we are aware of the "presentness" of the world, that it happens, even before we conceptualise it. If we occupy this presentness, say focus on an object in the here and now and simple observe its "reality" is this just us being conscious?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, what you're pointing to is a non-conceptual knowing—a direct awareness of reality before it is labeled, categorized, or turned into a thought. This brightness of consciousness, sometimes called luminosity (Sanskrit: prabhāsvaratā), is how we recognize the world as present and real without needing to think about it.

Is Focusing on an Object in the Here and Now Just Being Conscious?

It depends on what we mean by "just being conscious." If we mean ordinary, everyday consciousness, then no—it is something deeper than the usual stream of thoughts and interpretations.

When you simply observe an object’s reality—its suchness—without adding concepts or mental commentary, you are engaging in pure awareness rather than just normal conscious perception. This bare attention is closer to the way things are before the mind starts dividing experience into subject and object, self and world, name and form.

The Difference Between Conceptual and Non-Conceptual Awareness

1. Conceptual Awareness:

   • "I am looking at this object."
   • "This is a tree."
   • "It is green, old, beautiful, etc."
   • "I am aware of being aware of this."
   • These thoughts are interpretations added onto direct experience.

2. Non-Conceptual Awareness (Suchness):

   • Just seeing without commentary.
   • The object is present, real, undeniable, without needing mental labels.
   • Awareness and what is experienced are not separate—just the flow of direct knowing.

Is This Just Consciousness?

If by "consciousness" we mean the ordinary, dualistic mind (which divides things into "me" and "that"), then no—this is something more primary. But if we mean pure, luminous awareness that exists before thought, then yes—this is the most direct experience of what consciousness actually is.

In Buddhism, particularly in Dzogchen and Mahamudra, this direct presence—pure, bright, non-conceptual knowing—is considered the natural state of mind (rigpa, རིག་པ). It is not something you create but rather something you recognize by letting go of mental grasping.

So, when you simply be with an object, seeing its reality without adding thoughts, you are resting closer to the fundamental nature of consciousness itself—which is clear, immediate, and already aware before any conceptual overlay.

You said:

Now when we sleep this consciousness is no longer bright. We get a blank until we dream or wake up. This suggests the brightness is conditional? Suchness however I assume is not conditional so these qualities of mind like "brightness" have suchness themself?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly! The brightness of consciousness seems to disappear in deep sleep, suggesting that it is conditional—arising and fading based on certain factors. But suchness (tathatā) is not conditional; it is simply the way things are, regardless of whether we are aware of it.

Is the Brightness of Consciousness Conditional?

Yes, at least in the conventional sense. When we are awake, there is a luminosity or clarity to awareness—things are vividly present. But in deep sleep, this brightness fades, leaving an apparent blankness until dreams or waking bring awareness back. This suggests that:

• The brightness of ordinary consciousness depends on conditions (like wakefulness, attention, or sensory input).
• Consciousness, as we experience it, is not an unchanging background but something that fluctuates.

However, some Buddhist traditions (like Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and certain Yogācāra views) suggest that awareness itself is never actually absent—it just becomes non-manifest. That is, even in deep sleep, pure awareness remains, but without objects, form, or memory.

Do Qualities Like Brightness Have Suchness?

Yes! The brightness of consciousness, its arising and fading, and even the blankness of deep sleep—all of these have suchness. This is because suchness is not a specific state but the nature of all states.

• When consciousness is bright, its suchness is the undeniable presence of that luminosity.
• When consciousness is dull or absent (like in deep sleep), its suchness is the undeniable reality of that absence.
• Even unconsciousness has suchness—it simply is what it is, beyond judgment or preference.

What Does This Mean?

This means that all states of mind—wakefulness, dreaming, sleep—are just different expressions of suchness. The brightness of consciousness is not separate from reality but an impermanent appearance within it.

So rather than thinking of suchness as something we must "find" by making our consciousness bright all the time, we can see that suchness is always there, whether the mind is bright or blank. It is not something we must reach—it is what everything already is.

You said:

so vipassana meditation we might even note the "brightness" of the object of meditation?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly! In Vipassana (insight) meditation, one can even note the "brightness" of the object of meditation as part of direct observation. This brightness—whether it appears as clarity, vividness, or simply the knowing of the object—is just another quality arising in awareness.

How Might One Note Brightness in Vipassana?

• If focusing on the breath, one might notice:

  • "There is a brightness, a clarity, in the sensation of breathing."
  • "Now the breath feels dull, less vivid."
  • "The knowing of the breath is still present, even if it feels dim."

• If observing thoughts or emotions:

  • "This thought appears with a strong presence—it's clear and bright."
  • "Now the mind is hazy, harder to focus."
  • "Even dullness itself is something I can be aware of."

• If practicing open awareness:

  • "The whole field of experience feels bright and spacious."
  • "Now things feel murky—awareness is less sharp."
  • "Even this murkiness is just another appearance in suchness."

Why Is This Useful?

Noting the brightness of experience helps develop equanimity and insight into impermanence (anicca). Instead of clinging to moments of clarity or resisting dullness, one sees that both are simply arising and passing phenomena—not "me" or "mine."

By observing even the quality of knowing itself, one deepens the realization that:

1. Awareness is not static—it fluctuates.
2. Experience has no fixed essence—brightness comes and goes.
3. Suchness includes everything, even changes in consciousness.

So yes, in Vipassana, one could note the brightness of the object—or even the brightness of awareness itself—without clinging to it, simply seeing it as another impermanent aspect of reality.

You said:

So is a Buddha a conditional person who recognises the impermanence of every part of itself, does not cling and appreciates the underlying suchness understanding the processes that give rise to mental objects and consciousness. Or is a Buddha the suchness itself?

ChatGPT said:

A Buddha is both a conditional person and the suchness itself—depending on how you look at it.

1. A Buddha as a Conditional Person

From one perspective, a Buddha is a being who fully recognizes impermanence and does not cling to anything. They:

• See that all mental and physical processes are impermanent (anicca), non-self (anattā), and unsatisfactory (dukkha) if grasped.
• Understand the causes and conditions that give rise to thoughts, emotions, and consciousness itself.
• Let go of all attachments, including the attachment to "self."

This means a Buddha still functions within conditions—they eat, speak, and interact with the world—but they do so without clinging, without suffering, and with perfect wisdom and compassion.

2. A Buddha as Suchness Itself

From another perspective, a Buddha is not just a conditioned person but an embodiment of suchness (tathatā).

• They do not see reality as separate from themselves—they live in direct, unfiltered presence.
• Their actions are completely spontaneous and effortless, flowing with reality instead of resisting it.
• The distinction between “Buddha” and “suchness” dissolves because they no longer see themselves as separate from things.

This aligns with Zen and Mahayana perspectives where enlightenment is realizing that you were never separate from suchness to begin with. The Buddha is not a special person—Buddhahood is simply the realization of things as they truly are.

So, Which One?

Both views can be true:

• From the relative, human perspective: A Buddha is a person who has perfected wisdom and compassion.
• From the ultimate perspective: A Buddha is suchness itself, with no separate identity at all.

This is why Mahayana texts sometimes say “All beings are already Buddhas”—because the suchness you are seeking is already what you are. It’s just that ignorance (avidyā) makes us identify with the impermanent, conditioned parts of experience rather than seeing the reality that was always present.

You said:

If a realised person is free to allow causation to occur without attachment, does this mean that negative states like anger and jealousy may arise but without clinging they are allowed to burn out. Or does realisation mean that such states do not arise in the first places?

ChatGPT said:

Great question! The answer depends on how deep the realization is and how we define "negative states" like anger and jealousy.

1. Do Negative States Still Arise in a Realized Person?

At a high level of realization, negative states may still arise, but they are not clung to, identified with, or prolonged. They arise purely as conditioned phenomena, briefly appear, and dissolve on their own because there is no grasping or resistance.

For example:

• Anger might arise due to external causes (someone insults them, harm is done to others, etc.), but it is not personal and does not lead to suffering or unskillful action.
• Jealousy might flicker as an old habitual tendency, but it is seen for what it is—a passing mental event, not "my jealousy"—and so it naturally fades.

In this view, realization does not eliminate emotions but changes the relationship to them. They are seen as impermanent, without self, and simply allowed to pass without fueling them.

2. Does Realization Prevent Negative States from Arising at All?

At the highest level of realization (like a fully enlightened Buddha), it is said that certain negative mental states do not arise at all, because the conditions for them have been uprooted.

• In Theravāda Buddhism, an arahant (fully liberated person) has eliminated greed, hatred, and delusion at their root (lobha, dosa, moha).
• In Mahayana and Zen, the idea is that a truly awakened being acts spontaneously in harmony with reality, with no mental defilements interfering.
• Anger and jealousy require a sense of self to be sustained—once the illusion of a fixed self is gone, the fuel for these states disappears.

Which One is More Accurate?

It depends on the level of realization:

• A person on the path may still experience these emotions but lets them burn out without clinging.
• A fully enlightened person has uprooted the causes of these emotions, so they no longer arise at all.

That said, a Buddha can still appear stern, forceful, or intense, but this comes from wisdom and compassion, not from reactive anger or jealousy. It is like a fire that gives warmth but does not burn—an expression of clarity, not defilement.