goldisheavy

I agree that it is wrong to see the mind as a source in the sense that things come out of "it." That would make mind into some separate substance. I don't think Yogacara is saying that.

 

*I mean mind here as the capacity to be aware, know, cognize...not just the thinking.

Very well said.

The mind is neither an object nor a substance of any kind. And yet the mind is real. People have trouble with this formulation because usually when someone says something is real, they're talking about an object or a substance of some kind. Naturally protestations arise from this.

To say that the mind is both real and deathless is skillful means more than anything. It gives people an easy place of access into the deathless: their own day to day mind. Sure, people also have erroneous conceptions regarding the mind and praising the mind will cause some intermittent clinging to the erroneous conceptions about the mind. That's a fair price to pay for the instant intimacy that's gained in this formulation.

Agent is simply a mental conceiving of an inherent self. Such an inherent self cannot be found and is a conjured illusion, much like santa claus.

 

Santa claus, being an illusion, is not real to begin with, so it would not make sense to speak of the presence or absence of santa claus, or the presence or absence of agents.

1. You speak of the absence of agents all the time though.

2. Absence of Santa Claus is also an illusion.

An agent, perceiver, or controller of things was never real to begin with

An agent is an appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind it is illusory.

An absence of an agent is another appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind is too is illusory.

- there is simply perceiving, and doing, and it has nothing to do with the illusion of a perceiver or controller, or rather that illusion of a perceiver or controller has no relevance or control of how reality functions. An illusory seer cannot see, an illusory controller doesn't act - perceiving simply happens as a self-luminous act of cognizance, doing simply happens.

 

Do you see this?

I do. Do you see that the absence of seer, that "seeing is just the seen" is simply another appearance arisen dependently on "seer sees"? The former is the negation of the latter.

In other words, absence of seer is an exaggeration if you fixate on it as the ultimate truth.

But if you say the absence and presence of ignorance (mental conceiving of santa clauses, agents, inherent existence) dependently originates, then yes of course. But not a real self, per se.

Reality of self is an illusion.

Unreality of self is another illusion.

Try to attain this symmetry of realization. Don't lean toward the nihilistic side of the absence.

You proclaim the absence of the seer as the victory over the bondage that clinging to the perception of the seer brings. It's not really a victory though. It's just another form of bondage. Now you are clinging to absence.

Nothing at all, but I think at the same time you are very caught up in this, "thinking for myself"... I don't think you've seen how empty you are directly enough. Just my opinion. I think you'd be humbler about the whole idea if you have.

If I thought I was empty but others were full, yes, I'd be humbler. Fortunately when I've experienced my emptiness in that same moment I've experienced the emptiness of all things and all beings as well.

There is a tradition in India that say's you shouldn't follow a Guru without at least 7 years of observation, though I forget if it's 9 years or 7 years. But, you get my point. Of course you learn through those years as well about your own self and your personal opinion making machine. Anyway, just an observation.

You do offer this "observation" often. It's as if you have an axe to grind. Instead of discussing the content of my posts you prefer to discuss my personality and politics. Being against organized religion is a political decision on my part. I see the harm organized religions do in the political sense and thus I stand against them. I myself could enter organized religion and escape its harm, but if I did that, I would be validating the idea of religion in general, and then many other people would be encouraged to join organized religions. But unlike me, these people would be harmed much more than helped, since these people wouldn't have my wisdom to protect them. This is why I don't support organized religion. It's not for my own sake.

Do you see how reactive you get over the term? Just wondering, it's clear as day to me. You're so caught up in being an authority yourself, to a degree you probably aren't even aware of yet.

I have two questions for you:

1. What's wrong with thinking for yourself?

2. How do you select an authority to follow without thinking for yourself?

I get the sense that you have very strong personal views which you have developed on your own over the years.

This is correct.

You cling to these views because of your pride -- you came to them to them all on your own so you can't give them up.

Wrong. My views reflect reason. I cling to reason and not to pride.

You won't listen to xabir because you think he can't think for himself.

Wrong. First of all, I do listen to xabir. When I listen to xabir I hear ignorance and I don't take it seriously. It's not like I tune out xabir because his name is "xabir". I evaluate each of his posts on a case by case basis. If he says good things, I cheer them. If not, I poo-poo them.

Overall I claim that xabir is far from enlightened. He's quite ignorant and is not to be trusted as an authority. He can be a good Dharma friend though, but he's not a master or a Guru.

I have exactly the same opinion about Thusness. Thusness can be a good Dharma friend, but again, he's ignorant overall and not to be relied on as a Guru or a master.

But I'll go even further than that. Even if I thought that someone was worthy of the title "master" I would still urge people to think for themselves. I would not recommend that anyone start to follow the master.

But you would learn a lot if you accepted an authority other than your own.

You want me to give up critical thinking and personal experience? I'm surprised you advocate following an external authority. I thought you'd be going around urging people to think for themselves, like I do. Turns out you do just the opposite of that, what a disappointment. Who is your authority?

There is no contradiction. When you talk about mind, you are referring to a particular. When you talk about the emptiness of mind, you are not talking about a particular -- you are referring to what I called universe, or non-duality.

Is this a hypothetical "you" or are you talking about me? If you're talking about a generic hypothetical "you", then you're just ignorant when you say that the mind is something particular. If your use of "you" is meant to refer to me, then not only are you ignorant, but you impute your own ignorance on me as well and on what I say, without bothering to understand anything I say. That's much worse.

So in the second case, you aren't really speaking of mind. In that case, mind is just a convenient label.

What do you mean by "just a convenient label"? Why is it convenient?

As I have said many times in this thread, things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent.

Tell me if this description is accurate: You think that matter really exists independent of mind. In other words, if all the brains were destroyed, it is your belief that the world of matter would go on without any minds in it. Isn't that what you believe?

If my description above of your belief is an accurate one, I ask you to please stop saying "things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent" because you have no idea what that implies and you have no right to use that phrase.

Mind is not particular or non-particular. Ironically, for all your relativism, you fail to see this point.

Here's what you said just a moment ago:

Christ, get off of it. It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular. Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

Continuing...

It doesn't have to be physical to be present. A thought is clearly here, but I can't see it. For the last time, it is neither something or nothing.

 

You aren't going to tell me. I'm wasting my time. Bye.

I was going to tell you if you answered my question.

Christ, get off of it.

No.

It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular.

Most beings, including you, cherish misconceptions regarding their own minds. They conceive of mind as something particular, and this is one of the principal causes of cycling in Samsara.

Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

Matter does not exist according to "The All" Sutta.

Just tell me what you mean by mind. Quit avoiding it. You either can or can't.

If I tell you what I mean by the word "mind" will you try to look for it as some kind of object?

Universe as in, not the total universe of course, but as in non-separation between mind and matter. It's not a good word, but it's more vague than mind, so it works better here.

It works like shit and you know it. Mind is a much better word.

Read this to understand why "universe" is a shit word:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html (the commentary for this sutta is completely wrong, btw...)

"Universe" suggests something that exists beyond the sense bases. It's not "more vague." It's actually crystal clear. Universe is something Stephen Hawking would talk about.

Ok, were not going to get anywhere if you don't tell me what you mean by "mind." So tell me.

If I tell you what I mean by "mind" will you try to look for it as an object of some sort?

In that sutta, he is not referring to mind as such. He is referring to the deathless which includes mind, but is also beyond mind. The unborn.

The deathless is not beyond the mind. Buddha perceives the deathless how? Does Buddha jump outside of his mind to perceive the deathless?

"True mind" is in the same vein as tathagatagarbha. People mistakenly think it's implying a self-existent, cosmic awareness. It's referring to an unborn, infinite potential -- emptiness.

Right. And this unborn infinite potential is your own day to day mind.

Dualism and non-dualism are equally invalid. If you claim that things are all of one non-dual mind, you are still still implying dualism. Calling this non-duality "mind" is an error.

You don't really understand what I mean by mind. The mind is not non-duality.

Further, the reason I talk about mind the way I do is because of the skillful means. I am saying that the mind is deathless, and by saying that, I am suggesting that every person has access to the deathless because every person has a mind. This is skillful because it makes the whole of truth and immortality something intimate and personal right from the start. There is no need to jump into some mysterious otherworldly experience to get in touch with the deathless (although it can help to put things in perspective if you do).

Calling it anything implies dualism. So first, things are not dual. This means that there is no "something."

 

Now if there is no something, there can be anything. Anything is possible. There is no obstruction. Things can arise, change, have their own properties, function, and interact. So to not call this anything would also be wrong. So things are not non-dual either. This means there is no "nothing."

 

Things are not the same and not different, not existent and not non-existent. Not both and not neither.

 

The Buddha's entire dharma is based on dependent arising. Because a chair arises dependently, there is no chair. Because there is no chair, the chair can arise dependently.

 

To imply, as you do, that there is a self-existent, independent, unchanging awareness which is the source of everything is not only wrong, but it violates the entire dharma and reduces it to hinduism.

That's not true. Buddha himself talked about it.

Read this:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

And then tell me if Buddha has violated the entire dharma in that Sutta.

An implication such as yours, that there is such an awareness, is rife with logical inconsistencies. For instance, if there were such an awareness, how could anything arise from it? This would require it to interact in some way with its creations. It would require this awareness to change. If it could change, that means it is not independent. If it is not independent, it does not truly exist. It is empty just like everything else.

 

But please, if such an awareness exists, point me to it.

If I pointed you to it, would you be looking for it as an object of some kind?

Oh yeah, and when mind is spoken of in the context of non-duality, it is not really referring to "mind," but to the whole -- mind plus matter. It would be better just to call it "universe."

That's stupid. Universe is not the totality. A universe is equivalent to a realm in Buddhism. Realms are partial and relative arisings. In other words, there are countless universes instead of just one. Mind is greater than universe in scope. Bodhisattva's mind can go from one universe to another.

Also, most people conceive the Universe to be a collection of knowns, such as stars, nebulas, black holes and other things we can observe and interact with. The mind is infinitely vaster than any collection of knowns.

I see...and perhaps because of the unknown we cannot ever reject or affirm the existence of non-existence of other sentient beings. So this isn't straight solipsism.

 

I remember you often mention the term Mystery. How do you use that term in this sense?

I use it to mean that known is framed in terms of unknown. Because of this, the knowns have a degree of mysteriousness to them. This is exactly what I was talking about at the very start of this entire thread. I said that people have a mysterious dimension to them.

So talking about Mystery is just a way for me to honor this fact. It's a tip of the hat to the fact that unknown is important.

I get the sense that Xabir and Thusness's model pertains more to Hotei's dropping of his sack, while you are speaking more about picking it up.

I know the koan you're talking about but I can't really confirm or deny what you're saying. It all depends on how things are interpreted. For example, is the sack mind? Or is it attachment? Or is it ignorance? Or is the sack worldly life? Or all of the above? Or none of the above? I think the meaning(s) of koans like these are not always obvious.

If you drop your mind, are you mindless? If yes, how do you recognize you dropped anything? If not, what have you dropped?

This is why it's so critical to always think for oneself and to never fall prey to groupthink. No matter how wonderful or agreeable anything is, it must be questioned very vigorously and honestly. No exceptions. It's so temping to read some koan or Dharma talk and just take it for granted. But you'll never become enlightened that way. That way you can only rise to the level of the hearer.

Hearers recognize the truth when they hear it, but they are not wise enough to produce their own insight. So hearers have good taste when it comes to evaluating and appreciating the thoughts of others, but they are like zombies compared to the bodhisattvas and the buddhas. They can't think for themselves.

Yes, I've seen and experienced how one's mind and energies (if they are at all different) if stronger person can impose its will on others who are weaker. But I don't think this means that the other person consents to being imposed upon. The weaker man simply hasn't realized his potentials.

There are different levels of consent. Conventionally we will say that weaker person has been victimized by the stronger, and this is both correct and compassionate. The law should punish the stronger abuser and protect the weaker person.

However, what about a deeper spiritual truth of the situation?

Well, the weaker person did not consent to go to the gym. The weaker person consented to be a couch potato. So when later down the line someone who agreed to go to the gym beats the weaker one up, can you really say the weaker one does not consent?

Consent runs very very deep and people habitually only see a very superficial layer of it.

It's a matter of power and imo, that power can never be absolute to an individual mind, as in, you can't suddenly take a man and make him grow a third arm when he is rooted strongly in the belief of a body.

 

Perhaps in your mind you can, just as you may in your dreams. And to your experience this can be very real, but then your experiences will no longer be on par with that man's mind, that ultimately holds to his two armed body. Your mind has gone to another realm altogether.

Yes, it's possible for two people to struggle and both can win and lose. From person's A perspective person B lost. From person B's perspective A lost. Both can be correct if they enter into different realms when this happens. In other words, just because you can be the most powerful being in your own realm does not mean you are the most powerful being in every possible realm. This seems to make eminent sense to me, because anything else would restrict the possibilities, which must remain infinite according to a principle of infinite ultimate potential.

In day to day life we're not really dealing with ultimate possibilities though, but rather, we are dealing with relative probabilities and with our own deeply entrenched habits. So we still have to respect the pattern to some degree. And by respect I don't mean something sentimental, but I mean it the way a fireman respects the fire.

Which gets to another point: that we are simply our own imaginations playing with itself, compounding, separating, joining...Yet the probelm with this is:

 

are we apart from that imaginative flow? No, that would mean that it is something outside the mind. Then where does the original a-priori knowledge which drives the direction of creation originated from? As in, if our mind intends to condition itelf into provisional limitations, on what basis does it do so?

A-priori knowledge does not originate at all. It's like a stream without beginning and end. There is no originating point. At least, none that I can see or am willing to admit.

You wrote that when I typed how the leaf could become an elephant, you could see it in your mind's eye. What if instead of that elephant, I mention an animal you've never seen or heard of before?

Remember how I said our imaginations are smaller than the total sum of all possibilities/potentials? How known is contextualized by unknown? If you try to understand everything solely in terms of the known, you'll have a lot of trouble.

The difference?

It's a fucked up source with fucked up numbering.

Here's the real link: http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp

8:253.

What's the error in 8:253? The error is asserting a relative condition (plants having the same awareness as humans) as if it were ultimate. A plant may sometimes have an awareness similar to a human, in some realm, under some conditions, etc... But to assert that's how it really is, it is always like this and only like this, that's wrong.

8:253 does not contradict 1:165, does it?

Read 1:165 and get back to me. Use the link I gave you and avoid Xabir's blog next time.

Notice the link. It is the sutra.

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp

This is the link to the Sutra.

No, it's clear that you must accept dualism if you accept thoughts. You are using a red herring here by rewording me. If you say there is mind, you must accept there is something other than mind.

 

Not conceptually, not as an appearance. As a fact.

I accept appearance of dualism. I don't accept dualism as something more than an appearance, as something substantial and true in and of itself, independent of mind, etc.

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

So when I asked for a quote, it's obvious I wanted a quote from Surangama and not from Xabir.

From Xabir's blog:

 

"Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

 

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness."

Not interested in Xabir's blog. Xabir is ignorant in my view. Try Surangama Sutra next time.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

Can we have a quote?

Is there mind apart from perception, sensation, and thought? Well there is the alaya. But that's not the ultimate source. Where is a mind apart from these changing things?

When you search in this way you are searching for an object of some sort.

What I'm saying is that, if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit thoughts. Thoughts create dualism. You must accept dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm multiplicity.

Let me correct what you write:

"if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit the appearance of thoughts. Thoughts create the appearance of dualism. You must accept the apparent dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm the appearance of multiplicity."

Also you can replace "appearance of" with "experience of", which means the same thing, but might sound better for you.

Since you seem to be fond of zen, this stage is known as "no mind."

Don't take it literally. It means "no idea of mind." Not "no mind" in the literal sense. When you let go of all your conceptions of mind you are said to have no mind. In other words, your mind abides free of conception of itself.

No mind and matter do not arise together. Matter is just a perception of matter and nagarjuna and candrakirti and the shurangama sutra all speak of the illogical conseuqences of matter being something that truly exists apart from the mind. That's the basic gist of Nagarjuna, that nothing can be produced or ceased or truly existent as something apart.

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different.

 

 

As soon as you admit mind, you must admit something other than mind as well.

As soon as you admit the concept of mind, you have to admit the concept of something other than mind. If you say it this way, I will agree.

But mind is not the concept of mind.

You hold an idea of what a mind is in your mind. If you let go of that idea the mind is still there in a relaxed condition. In other words, the mind is not any idea or belief that arises in it. The mind is thus hard to describe and hard to know properly.

Provisional limitations? If you mean that emptiness has infinite potential to manifest, you're right. But it only has that infinite potential because it is limited. So I don't think that's what you mean.

 

 

There will always be limitations on the individual. Why? Because nobody exists alone. This is pretty basic. Your deal is that mind is the ultimate source of everything.

 

It's not.

Mind is the ultimate source of everything. You can say that the mind is the ultimate nature of everything. Or the nature of mind is the nature of everything. All these say the same thing.

You need to read nagarjuna.

Funny, because I often recommend Nagarjuna to physicalists. Remember, Nagarjuna is the monk who reputedly milked cow's portrait to get real milk.

Thank you. Some sense. Solipsism would mean that, since my self/mind is all there is, I should have no limitations on what I can do. I should be able to shoot a fireball out of my hand at will. I obviously can't do that. This is because I am limited -- Dependent arising.

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done.

We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important.

Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them.

Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.