goldisheavy

Wrong. Causes and conditions do not need to literally "bounce into each other" to manifest effect. They can be ten million miles apart and still an effect takes place. This is why psychic powers and buddha's omniscience is possible. Read aspect's discovery. http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

 

Secondly, anatta and dependent origination is precisely what breaks down the view that consciousness reflects a material world.

 

Why? Consciousness does not reflect external. Consciousness dependently originates. With the condition of eye and visual object, visual consciousness manifest. Consciousness is a unique and complete manifestation, not a thing/non-thing that 'reflects' other things. Of course this is still speaking relatively, and what is relative is ultimate empty of inherent existence and thus non-arising.

This is still an incorrect view because in this view intentionality is not in a position to affect things outside consciousness and consciousness plays the role of being a victim to various processes outside of itself.

Do you believe laws of physics are inherently real? If not, on what do laws of physics depend?

You definitely suffer from a physicalist hangover yourself. So obviously dependent arising doctrine was not good enough to clear you up either. Your delusion is a subtler one than thuscomeone's though. I bet you believe the brain activity gives rise to consciousness and upon death consciousness simply terminates.

Hi fellow Tibetan Buddhist Bums, {and you lurking Taoists too lol}

 

I have been reading Nargajuna and Longchenpa. I personally really love them both and am getting lots out of my study.

To me It seems they are speaking the same language, but I hear they are considered to be belonging to two different schools of thought, Shen Tong and Rang Tong.

 

These two schools have had epic debates over the centuries.

I have tried finding some easy to understand descriptions of the differences in thought of these schools, but so far only found heavy schollarly readings.

 

Can someone describe the schools and the differences in thought, and what they took Issue with, an fairly plane english.

 

I find it easier to deal with heavy schollar lingo when somone has given me a good simple explanation first.

 

So, Hit me!

Forget about this. The main debate right now is between physicalism and everything else. No Buddhist school of thought embraces physicalism to my knowledge. Both tongs reject physicalist explanations because physicalism is precisely the idea that substance, something inherent, exists. Substance is considered inherently existent. That's kind of what the law of the conservation of energy is all about. It says that there is an eternally fixed amount of stuff and this stuff transforms itself according to laws of physics and mind is simply brain activity. This is the view of physicalism.

This is the view that gets heavy representation at this time.

I'm thinking that dependent origination is a poisonous teaching because when physicalists hear of it, instead of uprooting physicalist ideas, it simply entrenches and legitimizes physicalism.

thuscomeone is completely lost right now. He thinks that objects exist outside mind, bouncing around like a bunch of billiard balls, and then eventually some of the balls bounce up against the mind, which is kind of like a ball with the distinction that the mind ball can feel, whereas other non-mind balls don't feel anything. So dependent arising is seen as these little balls of matter bouncing around according to rules of physics. With this kind of view a rebirth in a physical realm full of suffering (struggle for limited resources, status posturing, etc.) is absolutely guaranteed.

Physicalism is an incorrect description of reality. There is nothing whatsoever outside mind simply because each object does not know itself, rather, there is one knowledge that knows all the diverse objects. There is one knowledge and one intent. Knowledge has many aspects, it's not flat, it has character and it changes, but it's still one unbroken state of knowledge. It's the mind's function to discern. When the mind discerns something to be outside of itself, it's purely imaginary. There is no basis for the mind to believe something exists outside itself. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the state of knowledge is influenced by something unknown outside knowledge. If such things exist, they have to be taken on blind faith. There is no way to know that which is beyond knowledge.

It's like in a math formula (y = x*x + xb + 3 + g + ab) there can be many elements, but only one relation is described by the formula. In fact, if there were not one relation in a math formula, the formula would have no meaning at all.

"Internal"? As in like inherent characteristics? Well mind appears to be an inherent, continuous "knowing." So, yes, at one level, it is valid to say it has something internal. On another level, we can't find anything at all that is independent and individual called "Mind." These two levels are not divided. One leads to two. And two leads to one.

 

And with that, I'm going to have to call it a night. Off to bed with me.

I was asking if any experiences are internal to the mind. You said the apple, the apple store, the apple tree, all these are external "things." I was asking if some similar "things" are internal to the mind.

It's never a simple as "mind altering its own state." It takes a bunch of things which aren't a mind to alter a mind state.

 

You're basically saying, "why can't mind change itself?" Because all change occurs because of dependent arising. Mind only changes because it is dependent on a bunch of things which aren't mind.

 

"Mind changing Mind" is not really a change.

Is there anything internal to the mind? If yes, what?

I've explained this to you about six times now. Guess you didn't read it.

 

If mind is all that exists, there is nothing outside of it. It is independent. Being independent, there is nothing outside of it which can influence it or alter its state.

Why can't mind alter its own state via intent?

I just told you. My mind changes. I experience change. If there were only mind, it would never change.

How do you know that if your mind was all that existed, it would never change?

Of course they exist outside of my mind. My mind state only changes because it is dependent on all these factors which are outside of it. All these things which are not my mind are coming in and influencing my mind.

How do you know these things exist outside your mind?

Infinite potential is not a "thing." It's a potential. A potential which is beyond extremes.

Just like mind. Mind is not a thing.

I understand infinite potential. But as emptiness. Not as a self existent mind. Proposing a self existent mind is the very negation of infinite potential.

Infinite potential is self-existent though. It doesn't depend on anything. And whatever shows up in our conscious awareness only has meaning in relation to this infinite potential of whatever else there could be showing up but is not showing now. In this sense the mind is indeed primordial. It doesn't depend on anything to exist and there is nothing beyond mind.

I'm not lying. I'm using a little thing called logic.

Don't flatter yourself.

When you go from a state of not imagining an apple in your mind to imagining an apple in your mind, that change in imagination has resulted from not only your consciousness. But also the apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, the person that picked the apple from the tree, etc.

You're saying that apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, all these exist outside your mind?

Ok. The state of mind changes. And nothing else changes. But every transformation or change is still of the same mind, according to you. Because mind is all there is. Now we have the states of mind which change and the mind itself which never changes. Even in this formulation, nothing can change. The states of mind and the mind are both the same mind.

The mind is ultimately the same mind. To understand why so, you have to understand the role of infinite potential.

Do you agree that infinite potential is one and the same potential for every conceivable mind?

Change would only be possible if there is something which is not mind which is changing mind.

You're lying. When I imagine an apple in my mind, what is it that's not my mind that's causing the transformation in appearance?

Mind is not a thing or a non-thing.

Define mind more precisely.

I wouldn't even being saying the word "non-sequitor" if I were you.

 

Nope. Stil not it. You say mind is all that exists. Fact is, if you state this, everything must be mind. Transformation or not, it's all still mind according to you. Things never really change because there all just mind. Just admit that you think mind is the creator. Or take back your statement where you said that it is all that exists.

To say that mind is all that exists means to say that beyond the state of mind changing nothing else changes.

Dependent arising is an infinite chain. It is dependence itself. It doesn't have to arise dependent on anything.

Congratulations. You've just posited something independent.

It is a process of phenomena which aren't existent or non existent, etc. etc.

 

Notice how I say process. To keep you asserting that I am reifying "dependent arising" into a thing.

Is mind a thing?

Going further, if mind is only able to transform appearances, then it is not all that exists. It does not have complete control. It is then limited by something else. It is therefore dependent on something else. So, the implications of this are that there must be something other than mind as well.

When I imagine an apple and then imagine a pear instead, that's a transformation and not creation. At the same time, an imaginary apple is not "something else" and neither is an imaginary pear "something else".

You're indulging in a non-sequitor.

No, it's impossible to point out something which is independent because there is nothing!

That's wrong. You are saying only that which is dependently arisen exists. In that case, in dependence on what does dependent arising arise? On what does dependent arising depend? Is there a situation when dependent arising does not take place?

Nope, you haven't answered my objection at all. You're trying to weasel your way out of it by skating around the definition of mind.

I am saying the conventional definition of mind is wrong.

But the fact of the matter is, you obviously believe there is something called mind. And you have a very precise idea of what it is. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim that it is all that exists. If it is all there is, it must be a creator. Not an "orchestrator." A creator.

Creation implies producing something out of nothing. Mind is able to transform appearances. That's why mind is an orchestrator and not a creator.

Next, you have asserted that this mind is completely independent. And you continue to ignore the absurdities of this.

 

Now, if this mind is completely independent as you say it is, you should have no problem pointing it out.

Wrong. It's easy to point out things that are dependent but hard to point out something that's independent. That's the reason why teaching Dharma is hard.

If it is independent, it must have a very precise, specific identity. [so it should be trivial to identify]

It's just the other way around. All identities make sense only in relation to other identities. This is why something that is not dependent is very very hard to identify. It's precisely on account of mind's independence that it resists attempts at identification.

Then there is no mind either. Period.

There is mind because there is knowing. Knowing doesn't require matter or other objects of knowing because knowing is imaginary. Knowing is conditioned by beliefs and habit, so because of this we find our life experience to be structured, steady, predictable, and easily changeable only along the habituated paths of change.

You've just said that you can only have one half of a duality; without the other half. That makes absolutely no sense.

Mind and matter do not form a duality. Color and red are not a duality either. Are you familiar with the idea of a categorical mistake? The idea is that you list things that rightly belong to a category and then you list the name of the category as if it were one of the things. Examples:

1. Red, blue, green, orange, color. (Color is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

2. Apple, banana, orange, kiwi, fruit. (Fruit is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

3. Appearances suggestive of water, appearances suggestive of immaterial thoughts, appearances suggestive of wood, appearances suggestive of air, appearances suggestive of distance, mind. (Mind is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

So when you say that mind is a logical complement of matter, you are making a mistake. You're mentally making a list of examples of matter such as, brass, wood, glass, and then adding mind to this list as if it belongs there. The reason you make this mistake is because you are deceived by suggestive appearances. In other words, wood is just an appearance of wood and not actual wood. Brass is not backed up by some brassy matter, it is simply a suggestive habituated appearance and so on. All these appearances are a result of mind's functioning. That's why you can't really put mind on that list. Mind is not something you observe on par with other appearances. Thoughts are not mind. Imagination is not mind. And so on. You don't actually observe mind. But you know mind is real because you know anything at all! The fact that you know anything whatsoever is the truth of the mind's reality.

And therefore you are asserting that this mind is completely self existent and independent and unchanging. Here come all sorts of logical absurdities. This mind therefore can have no influence over anything.

If you consider an object we both agree is dependently arisen, such as a table, is it right to say that the table influences something?

Dependently arisen appearances of objects influence nothing at all, not even each other. Do you understand this?

IMO, It's not really a stream as if this knowing goes from A to B and so on, it just appears to be a stream due to change. So mind should not be seen as something that goes from body to the next body and so on. It only dreams that there is a continuation from birth to death and birth to death in a habitual loop. So it's not like there is an entity being reborn. It just appears that way.

Exactly right. The streamness of mind is an appearance. There are problems with viewing the mind as an actual stream, like an actual river say.

mind is not a subjective perceiver. Mind is knowing. Knowing is an everchanging stream, and this change goes on infinitely therefore it may be called eternal but not unchanging. Mind is empty of inherent existence or self

Mind always exists. There is no condition which makes mind non-existent. In other words, the stream of knowing cannot be made to vanish.

Further, mind is intentional and intentionality provides a single focal point for each mind, so minds are indeed subjective, deeply so. The idea of a point is not to be taken literally. It doesn't mean an actual point. It just means orchestration.

So the 5 radiance's of the element's arise from a singular all existing mind? Thus 1 awareness, and monistic idealists say it takes two to conceive of one, is the only true existent?

5 radiances are one single radiance of mind.

Counting minds is a difficult problem. There are realms where only one mind appears. In other realms multiple minds appear. Neither condition is inherently more or less true. In our specific realm we can say that you have a mind and I have a mind. It doesn't mean there are two permanent minds, one permanently labeled 'goldisheavy', and another permanently labeled 'Vajrahridaya'. For example my single mind can transform into 4 new minds, or 10 minds can come together to become one mind. But there is at least one mind at all times. You can never get into a situation with zero mind. Also, when one mind splits to become multiple minds, that is an intentional event. When multiple minds merge to become one mind, that is also an intentional event. These kinds of shenanigans cannot really happen to you against your truest and deepest will. So there should be no fear regarding this possibility.

You don't believe that there is matter at all, do you?

Absolutely correct. There is no matter at all. Not even an iota worth of matter can be found anywhere.

The problem with your approach is that it far too complicated and it avoids common sense.

It's not too complicated, but it is complicated and it does contradict common sense. Common sense is Samsara. Nirvana is not common sense at all.

You can't have one half of a duality. You cannot say there is mind without matter. You just can't do it, unless you force out logic and common sense.

I understand your difficulty. There are other ways to honor the apparent solidity of appearances without granting them true physicality.

The only way you could make mind-only valid would be if you said that all discriminations come from the mind. That is, all concepts come from the mind. Not phenomena themselves.

Phenomena have no selves, that's right. Phenomena are meaningless in and of themselves.

All discriminations of "is" and "is not" arise from mind. And these discriminations ultimately don't apply. This isn't the same as what you are talking about -- mind being some sort of creator of everything.

Mind is not a creator of anything, it is an orchestrator of appearances. There is a difference.

Discriminations don't apply because there both are and aren't phenomena -- mental and material.

That's confusion. Discriminations are fully immaterial.

That is not even close to liberation. That is an extreme view which is built on a duality between a permanent and unchanging mind and this mind's changing appearances.

The mind is not separate from appearances that arise in it, but it's not identical to the conspicuous appearances, it is more than just those.

I don't believe you. If it were only one option among many, you wouldn't argue so much for the truth of it.

That's not true. My view is dramatically more skillful than your view. In your view you still think there is some materiality that has to be dealt with. You're trying to reconcile matter with mind. The problem with your approach is that the mind is real and matter is not. When you try to reconcile something real with something imaginary you get impotent mishmash.

Talking about mind the way I do has benefits and drawbacks. The benefit is that it makes the deathless realm instantly intimate and accessible to anyone who believes me. The drawback is that people customarily have a thousand and one misconceptions regarding their own minds. So when I talk about mind I am constantly hampered by all the misconceptions people cherish regarding their own minds. That's the drawback.

Prasanga approach has benefits and drawbacks as well. The benefit of prasanga is that you don't come out with a bunch of positive assertions like I do. Because of that, ordinary beings find that it's hard to criticize someone engaged in the prasanga approach. So that's the benefit. It's an approach that melts false views while not presenting any obviously new views to grasp. Of course it is deceptive, because prasanga approach does lead toward a view rather than toward a non-view, so it is pretentious. Prasanga approach also lacks compassion because it doesn't offer an instant relief to beings. Beings must engage in prasanga analysis for a very long time to feel relief because prasanga doesn't give beings something wondrously intimate right from the start, such as a deathless mind which is the same as the day to day mind.

You wouldn't try to prove it to anyone. You would just say "believe whatever makes you happy!" Which you don't do.

Actually I do do that often enough.

Furthermore, if you are trying to say that we can just choose to see reality however we want, you are promoting lies and ignorance. That is far from "skillful means."

When I say that you can view reality however you like, I am stating a fact. I am not lying. People constantly see whatever they want to see. That's a fact. So when I say these things, I am not being theoretical.

I also say that not all views are equally skillful. Some views are clumsy and lead to a lot of needless suffering. So I don't suggest that every view is equally wholesome.

I don't reject intentionality.

You do.

I see that intentionality is just an appearance.

Intentionality is not its own appearance at all. Instead intentionality is an aspect of every appearance.

Thought creates the illusion of the one who is intending and controlling, when actually there is no intender or controller. But those thoughts which create that illusion continue to arise spontaneously.

 

No, it just tries to find a Middle Way. That's all.

Thought doesn't create anything because thoughts themselves are created by intentional transformations of the state of mind.

You confuse thoughts with beliefs, but even then, beliefs don't create anything, they only condition appearances (very different from creating).

While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent).

 

In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless.

Mind doesn't have primacy over matter. Instead mind has primacy over appearances. What you call "matter" are appearances suggestive of matter. Naive beings upon viewing suggestive appearances construe the suggestions to be ultimately true. That's the mistake. You have to realize that the suggestions inherent in appearances are baseless. An appearance suggesting matter is not actually backed up by some real matter "out there." It's purely a mental, nonphysical phenomenon from top to bottom.

Realizing this is liberation.