goldisheavy

It's far from junk. It's the language that was used to elaborate upon various forms of insight into nature through the Buddhist tradition that is far more nuanced than English.

 

English can be hobbling, unless it's reworked. This is what scholars of Sanskrit have a tendency to do, rework English words to more closely reflect a more nuanced language such as Sanskrit for the sake of transmitting the meaning of various spiritual insights into the nature of consciousness and matter. Sanskrit is not perfect, but is a far better language to utilize than English for this, honestly. So, if one can utilize English in a way that more closely reflects Sanskrit, that's a plus.

Sanskrit is not more nuanced than English. It's just the opposite. Sanskrit is a worse language to use because we don't have a strong intuitive connection to its terms. Sanskrit is not our cultural heritage, but English is. For us real English is 1000 times more powerful than twisted English, even if those twists come from Sanskrit jargon.

Oh ok... never mind then. Your view is not Shentong.

 

My bad.

Your position seems Shentong to me. You seem to consider awareness to be a transcendent ultimate.

You compare my position to some position that's been outlined to you before. One of these days you should stop comparing, and simply listen to what I am saying, then if you disagree, simply disagree without involving pattern matching against "known bad" positions.

Also, I am using English words, I was just showing you where I got my definition of awareness from, which is just good scholarship.

Right, and I am rejecting your definition. I am saying let's use ordinary meanings. Your meaning is not an ordinary one. You admit this yourself. Let's use meanings everyone understands.

It isn't necessarily your awareness, and anything that you are aware of, has risen within awareness, therefore is not awareness. The power of deduction

Apparent objects are not in and of themselves awareness. If that's what you are saying, then I agree. To cognize the apparent objects we need to have knowledge of other objects that are not currently apparent. That's why awareness can't simply be identical with whatever momentarily appears to arise.

Of course if you get into Vedanta, Chit means cosmic consciousness. Chitta is individuated consciousness, but that psychology doesn't give credence to pratityasamutpada and see's chit as self arising into chitta. It seems that this is what you guys are saying.

Nope. That's what you wish we would be saying, since you know how to attack such a position already. But you don't have a ready made way to handle my position.

I think it works better for translating Buddhist terminology. It's actually not my personal definition. It's more in line with the original sanskrit and pali.

 

There's vijnana which means consciousness.

 

There's chitta, which means mind.

 

There's smrti, which means mindfullness or also translated as awareness.

 

Mindfulness (Pali: sati, Sanskrit: smṛti; also translated as awareness) is a spiritual faculty (indriya) that is considered to be of great importance in the path to enlightenment according to the teaching of the Buddha. It is one of the seven factors of enlightenment. "Correct" or "right" mindfulness (Pali: sammā-sati, Sanskrit samyak-smṛti) is the seventh element of the noble eightfold path.

 

Just because you have chitta and vijnana, doesn't mean you have smrti.

 

Of course if you get into Vedanta, Chit means cosmic consciousness. Chitta is individuated consciousness, but that psychology doesn't give credence to pratityasamutpada and see's chit as self arising into chitta. It seems that this is what you guys are saying.

Forget all this junk. Use the words with their English meanings. We have our own convention. We have conscious awareness or mind and subconscious mind. Mind is the fact of knowing something, and awareness is the fact of being aware. That's plenty good enough. Use it. Conscious mind is closer to the foreground and more obvious in its activities, and subconscious mind is in the background, less obvious, but can be understood through observing the effectiveness of hypnotic suggestions, insight, introspection, etc.

Awareness seems like a primordial dimension of existence. And this dimension seems to be alive and creative.

Well said. And that dimension is at the core of our being.

Or if we want to get technical, our being has no core because there is no outside or inside. There is only awareness and endless transformations of states of awareness.

We can say awareness is our core for the sake of skillful means, because most people can't understand how awareness is all there is, so they think in terms of other-than-awareness objects, and from this POV being appears to have depth, and then core is a relevant concept. Also from this POV awareness appears to be an object in its own right, as if on par with other objects.

Yes, awareness is consciousness' substance of insight. Dependently originated, but empty of inherent existence.

That's your own private definition. It's good if you want to have a chat with yourself.

Awareness is the fact of being aware. That's all it is.

If awareness does not originate dependently, then it's independent and self arisen,

Nope, the second does not follow from the first. (everything after "then" is wrong)

EDIT2: Actually the first part is wrong too. It hints awareness originates, so that's wrong too. Awareness does not originate.

You can experience what is not awareness through awareness

Nonsense. Awareness experiences empty objects of awareness. No exception. Just because some objects look nothing like conventional or customary objects doesn't mean much, other than aesthetics.

I mean you cannot find where experience and mind is located. This much you should know if you read Shurangama Sutra.

Right. Location is itself an experience. You still didn't deal with the fact that I can clearly see myself typing. You're dismissive. You don't really understand the reason for the doctrine. In other words, you've learned to say certain bits of doctrine at almost the right time, but you didn't really appreciate what it means and why it's there.

What's wrong with me seeing myself type? Obviously something is... but can you explain it in your own words? Do you know this for yourself? Close all the books and bookmarks. Think! Saying I am not actually typing is a cop out. Saying typing can't be found when I can clearly see myself type, typing is not at all lost that it needs to be found somewhere... obviously you are lying to yourself and others.

I will also appreciate it if you get around to answering my previous question: Describe the dependent and independent aspect of intent.

This debate is very much like a debate between shentong and prasangika madhyamika, with lucky7strikes and goldisheavy representing the shentong view of emptiness

Don't flatter yourself.

You can look at your mom, and know that you are not your mom, but you did come from your mom.

This is not 100% true though. There is an element of truth to what you're saying.

Just want to clarify because I get a hunch my statements will be completely misconstrued.

 

No mind does not deny mind but denies any inherency about mind.

No awareness does not deny awareness but denies any inherency about awareness.

Just like no weather does not deny weather but denies anything inherent about weather.

This is not how the English language works. You're making up your own private linguistic conventions.

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

On many issues we can agree to disagree. But there are some issues where it is impossible, for example, if my doctrine tells me people like you should be killed, I doubt you'll be willing to respect that.

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

Imagine if my doctrine told me to kill people like you because you don't believe the same things as me? And imagine if my doctrine told me that if I stopped believing in my own doctrine, I were to be killed? What kind of relationship would I have with you? I'll tell you from my own knowledge of this: at best, a pretentious one, where I pretend to be your friend while in my hearts of hearts I believe your kind needs to be converted or killed off in the long term.

Until this issue is addressed head on we can't make any lasting progress toward peace.

Maybe one of the impressive things about Taoism and Buddhism is that in China they managed to co-exist and inspire each other.

Although from what I read there was also a lot of rivalry and it wasn't always the friendly kind. I agree that generally all these diverse (or really not all that diverse perhaps) views coexist in modern China, perhaps because nobody takes any of them very seriously. Materialism is huge in China right now. Again that's based on the news reports I watch and read. If someone in China wants to contradict me, please do. I'd love to hear various different opinions.

One man's poison is another man's cure.

There's a very good talk about anatta and no mind recently uploaded by Kenneth Folk: http://kennethfolkdharma.com/2011/06/journalistic-self-enquiry-the-who-what-when-where-why-and-how-of-selfing/

Call in the Dharma cavalry, Xabir! Quotations and external authorities to the rescue.

Typing cannot be found. There is just appearance, which is not denied, but nothing can be asserted: including laptop, including typing. Everything is like an illusion, like a dream. Like a dream of typing, conventionally said to be so... yet it isn't really real.

Find out where does the thought come from, where the thought is, where the thought goes to. Find the core or essence of that thought. You will see that it is magical appearance, like a magic show - appearing, yet not truly there or anywhere, without a place of origin, abidance, and subsidance. You will realize that there is no essence or substance or thingness of that appearance, that there is no-thing coming into being and no-thing to cease.

There is nothing locatable about fire. It is utterly unlocatable and ungraspable. There is no fireness of a fire... therefore there is nothing undergoing arising, abiding and disappearance... just self-releasing traceless appearance.

Weasel words. I am typing right now. To say that I can't find myself typing is a cop out.

We can lose any of our limbs and live. Any of our organs can be swapped (like in a transplant).

 

There are even cases of people surviving on only half a brain.

 

Who are we? Our left hemispheres or our right hemispheres?

 

In the body we can't find a real us that remains us.

 

Someone with only the left hemisphere:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/cameron-mott.html

 

Someone with only the right hemisphere:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-12/health/woman.brain_1_brain-language-abilities-rewired?_s=PM:HEALTH

Excellent! This post is brilliant.

What is relative, is not true, i.e. not inherently so. This is ultimate truth.

What is relative is true. For example, I am typing on a laptop right now. This is true. How do you deal with that? Are you claiming I am not actually typing right now? What's your answer?

I never said relative realm 'looks different' from ultimate truth... There is only one truth, non-arising. Since what dependently originates cannot be found to have an essence anywhere, whatever appears is an empty-appearance without arising and ceasing.

How can something appear to arise without arising? For example, I light a match and a fire appears on the match. A while ago there was no fire and now there is. Clearly the fire arose. But you're saying the fire did not arise. Something is fishy here. How do you explain this?

Well when you get to talking about possibilities, it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. In that sense I agree. It's a permanent potential. But a potential isn't a thing or object.

And as I said, the mind is not a thing or an object. Hmm... Do you think that's a coincidence?

But you then start talking about mind as if it were the source of this potential and I'm not sure how that fits in.

You're not really paying attention to what I am saying.

Emptiness includes and is beyond mind.

Emptiness is not beyond mind. There is nothing beyond mind. Mind's contents are empty. That's it. That's the entire meaning of "emptiness."

Hmm please spell this out further..

 

If it has no experiential level to it, how can it be cognized, seen, or in any way understood?

 

And if It can be known in some way or other, what effect would that knowing have on you?

I think when it comes to experience we find some experience to be more skillful and some less. Some is more painful and some is less. And then there are mental habits. Some habits lead toward more painful experiences, and some toward less. Some habits work in a skillful way in only a few situations, and some habits work in a skillful way in a wide variety of situations.

When we see that all experiences are equally relative and equally partial, then that in itself is a recognition of a bigger truth. To recognize this kind of truth you need to have either a wide variety of experiences, or you need an exceptionally attentive mind which can glean from a relatively more narrow selection of experiences that same truth. So when we recognize a more overriding kind of truth, this truth is not this or that experience. There is a kind of truth that is true about all experience. The value of that truth is that it allows us to shift our habits with more ease, because it gives us an idea that all kinds of things we used to think are impossible, are in fact possible.

That's how I see it.

Yes, maybe not consciously. But in terms of endless contextualization. I wouldn't say you "know" them all, but the potential is acknowledged.

I agree.

According to what you've been saying, I'm not sure under that paradigm it's possible to fully consciously know all the possibilities behind a meaning.

I agree. But you can know something that's almost as good: you can know that in principle anything is possible. That's usually good enough. So even though you don't always end up knowing all the infinite particular specifics, you know in a general sense that the sky is the limit, as they say.