thuscomeone

Ok, as long as we have an understanding.

We do.

Ok. So we have it down to the basic disagreement. I'm fine with leaving this discussion here. Anything more, it will have to be self-recognized.

 

I know what you mean. I'm glad we've gotten down to the essential disagreement.

We've spent weeks debating now. I think that's enough. I need a long break

That aliveness is mind. Awareness. Emptiness is its function.

 

And that aliveness is infinite potential for manifestation.

No, I see what the problem is. You have it backwards.

That aliveness is emptiness. Mind is its function.

Emptiness comes first, not mind.

I don't know about that quote. I would trust that namdrol knows a bit more than either of us. And if you look at my earlier quote from him, you'll see that he states that Longchenpa rejects the mind-only view.

But I don't want to turn this into a battle of quotes.

You know, forget the word mind, or consciousness, or thoughts, or whatever. Just forget everything and see that you are alive. Just notice this aliveness.

I agree that there is this aliveness. But it is NOT a manfestation of mind/awareness.

I know what you are talking about. aliveness. True understanding of emptiness aka d.o. leads you to just that.

If there were a mind that were the whole, that aliveness would not be possible at all.

....

 

For the millionth time. Mind is not a substance. It's not some agent that creates things.

 

Try to see it as a living limitless potential actualized. You just need to see that you are...alive.

No, you are clearly saying that mind is the creator. You said that mind is the whole and mind manifests d.o.

How can you be attached to limitless potentiality? It's ungraspable.

Sorry, I'm talking to you in two different threads. Anyway, what you're talking about isn't limitless potential. You're saying there is a substantial mind which is manifesting d.o. That's the very opposite of limitless potential.

Limitless potential is emptiness aka the absence of that substantial mind.

Uh, no. Mind is limitless. How does one know "whole"? You can't "see" the whole or find it if you are the whole. Like space.

 

It's contents are dependently arisen because mind's nature is manifestation through d.o.

Ok, you say mind is the whole. If mind is the whole, it can't manifest things through d.o.

For mind to create, manifest or even influence, it must change in some way. If it changes, it is not independent. If it is not independent, it is not the whole.

The nature of mind is emptiness.

Right. Since the nature of mind is emptiness, mind is not the whole. Mind is dependently arisen.

which means its baseless. Emptiness is not some ground of being. As this article have pointed out:

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Didn't say it was. It's infinite potential. Potential isn't a thing.

The mind is limitless. I think we are coming to an agreement.

Maybe. I just don't prefer to refer to emptiness as "mind."It seems to make mind as in cognizance the whole. When it is just one part.

Yes and emptiness is alive. So I call it awareness.

Right, it's an aliveness which is not the same as just the knowingness/cognizant aspect of mind. Not some super cognizance which gives birth to everything. I think herein lies most of our difficulties -- in defining terms.

None of Vimalamitra or Namdrol's clarifications clash with what me or gold have been saying.

 

If all-creating-kind is mind that does not recognize its nature. Than mind that recognizes its nature of emptiness is rigpa.

I don't think "all creating king" means what you think it means. Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is.

Yeah, that might be your mind.

Or it might be Buddha-nature aka emptiness which includes and is beyond mind.

So when someone commits a crime, we should put universe in jail, right?

 

You're blaming the universe for the way you live your life?

Nope. We should put the person in jail because the person is accountable for their actions. You don't get it. Try again.

"That's ok, you will someday" - Kevin Spacey, American Beauty

Do you decide to spend time on this forum? Or is it something beyond your control?

I do decide to spend time on this forum. But the universe decides if I decide to spend time on this forum. In other words, the universe is expressing itself through a being that can make choices. So it's both ultimately.

I understand this cop out. It's like saying I have free will because I am fated to have free will. It's a rhetorical trick that fails to reflect the reality of life.

 

Buddha had the same flaw as me. He too rejected fatalism because he failed to see how it reaches and embraces everything.

It's not a cop out at all. And it's not fatalism. You're limiting it. Like I said, it embraces everything. Everything includes non-fatalism.

It doesn't change anything at all.

You can have all the intent you want. It contains all that.

GIH, you are just like the monk at the end of the genjokoan. "Although you understand the nature of the wind is permanent, you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere." The way reaches and embraces everything -- including personal choice, will and practice.

In fact, one's will can be stronger than ever after realizing anatta. Then will is actually free, whereas it was bound before realization.

@ Thuscomeone

 

I didn't know you would take this so personally. I just wanted to point out that your view leads to a deterministic lifestyle that attributes everything to the d.o. process.

I took it personally because of the way it is worded, the dismissive tone, and the icon. And please don't tell me to "lighten up." Men say that all time to take the blame off of themselves.

Anyway, is it determinism? As in, do we really have control of anything? Nope. Not at all. Zip. Zero. It's all out of our hands. But this is the greatest freedom of all. Freedom from trying to manipulate and control. Freedom to just be. That said, we do still continue to live our lives under the illusion of control. Our thoughts naturally grant us those illusions. But even these illusions of control are simply just happening.

But most are too scared to take the plunge and just let go. Not knowing that heaven awaits on the other side.

This is getting personal. This is about truth, not me. Further, you continue to twist my words to try and make your points. I won't bite anymore. Let's get back to the topic or call it quits.

Debating can help one gain certainty in just about any view except solipsism.

 

As for being a control freak, how about attempting to completely forbid people from using insults?

Anyone who has a position, including a solipsist, is going to try to gain certainty in and justify their position.

Are you talking about me? I'm a control freak because I don't enjoy being insulted? People can use insults all they want but that doesn't mean I have to like them or promote them. I understand people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean I promote insults.

I think every person on Earth should claim to be realized. I see no possible drawbacks. Everyone is perfect in their imperfection. You agree, right?

 

 

 

I suggest we should allow some insults, but not too many.

I should have said "promoting." Not "allowing."

What do you mean by this? I am saying things like chairs and tables and so on are dependenly arisen. My mind's contents are dependently arisen. I say the same thing about your mind's contents.

 

 

 

Why would that be bad? Is it because this doesn't leave breathing room for your own ego?

 

 

 

That's funny. Why would someone who believes oneself to be the sole living being waste energy debating, trying to spread the view to others, and so on? Doesn't this sound strange? I mean, if I think I am the only one who exists, why do I want to share my view? Why do I care about justice and skillful means? How do you explain all this?

Such a person probably wouldn't care about others. For there would be no others. They would most likely be a control freak. They would probably debate it just to continue solidifying their deluded view and gaining certainty in it.

Further, they would probably spread this view to others, poisoning their minds as well.

You don't see any problem with ignorance itself? There's nothing inherently wrong with lying to yourself? If this is so, please don't claim to know what the Buddha taught.

There is no way to become enlightened without ever discussing topics considered controversial by ordinary beings. There is no way for ordinary beings to discuss a controversial topic and remain completely unmoved. So I would say some amount of insults and personal attacks are necessary on the way to enlightenment.

 

 

 

Why are you not immune?

Because I am not perfect . Even if I claim to be realized, that doesn't make me perfect. It's perfection in imperfection.

I didn't say that insults won't happen. But allowing them as some sort of means to awakening? No.

Why is solipsism an ignorant view? Why does ignorance scare you?

Solipsism is a view which completely ignores dependent arising. And it is possibly the most selfish view one could have. The world is ME. It is the ultimate triumph of the ego.

Because it leads to suffering, energy draining debates like this one, dick measuring contests, anger, arrogance and extreme pride (you), hatred and many other things.