thuscomeone

I don't condescend to you. I am explaining to you the reasons for leniency. Enjoy forgiveness yourself and then extend forgiveness to others in turn. How is that a bad deal?

 

 

 

Why not? Aren't you beyond ego fixations, thuscomeone? Hasn't your sublime view freed you from emotional disturbances? I suppose you don't want this discussion to be personal, but you want your enlightenment to be personal. Well, it doesn't work that way. You have to get wet and dirty to become enlightened.

No, insults and personal attacks do not lead to enlightenment. I am not immune to becoming angry, but I attempt to avoid it. You don't have to get angry. That is a poisonous view.

If I truly held to a solipsist view, then on the basis of what would I abandon it, considering I wouldn't experience anything as external to myself?

 

Is solipsism what scares you in my view?

Solipsism is an ignorant, deluded view. Ignorance scares me.

No. Even if I gave you 500 lines of criticism you shouldn't abandon your false views. You should only abandon your false views when you become personally convinced they are false through your own personal investigation. Whatever anyone says at best should serve as inspiration to investigate.

 

So what I am saying is basically a suggestion that, hey, there is something wrong with this view. Why not check it out?

Well, see, you haven't really done anything at all to prove that my view are false. If you did, then I would reconsider them. I haven't really seen a strong argument from you yet. For your own views or against my views.

You are speaking of objects held to be existing within space?

 

I am inclined to investigate the essence which separate objects, the 'apart' aspect, or The spaceness aspect, if you will.

 

(sincere question, btw. Not debating with you, just picking at what you care to share)

I think we can put it like this. Things appear to be separate. So there appears to be space between them. Now, when we realize non-duality, we see say that there is actually no separation between mind and matter. So, in that non separation, where is space?

thuscomeone, please understand that even if people generally regard you with warmth, unless the people are Buddhas, they are bound to get upset at this or that thing you are saying. Once people are upset, it's only natural to throw in an insult, or to use curt language. If we take a hard and unforgiving line toward this behavior, we'll have to limit our conversation only to noncontroversial topics. This means we'll destroy every useful and significant conversation.

 

So when I say it's OK to get heated up, I am not saying let's just insult each other with abandon. I am not normalizing limitless amounts of insults. I am normalizing some amount of insult for the reason I described above. Plus, beings have to practice tolerance and if everyone is sweet to you, why do you need tolerance for? The whole point of tolerance is so that you can allow people to treat you harshly from time to time, up to a certain reasonable limit.

Please don't lecture me on right and wrong. I know for myself. And don't condescend to me. I know what you're doing. Let's just stick to the debate. I don't want this to be personal.

No, I shouldn't abandon it until you actually give me a more than one line criticism.

Your view is basically solipsism. You should abandon it.

NSEW are designations of directions, no?

 

How do objects 'create' space?

 

Care to elaborate, Thuscomeone?

Find me space apart from things in space. Mind and matter make up space.

When we say space, we're referring to an expanse or an area. Does that area have parts? Of course. The directions are the parts. There is left side, right side and up and down

Relax thuscomeone. I hope no one takes the nanny approach with this. It's OK for people to get a little heated. We are all relatively mature and we know that if we can't stand the heat, we don't belong in the kitchen.

No. Don't give me that. When someone gets angry at me for insulting them, then I apologize to them and they turn around and start insulting me? You just don't do that. If you think that's ok, you and lucky belong together.

It has no parts. A ray of sunlight has no parts. And yet it is shiny and bright. It is directional. Etc... in other words, qualities do not require parts.

 

Another example, space. Space has qualities but no parts. And these are merely mundane examples.

 

 

 

Because I am not convinced by superficial bursts of Madhyamaka rhetoric. I dig deeper to see what's up really. People learn to repeat all the cool words while in the hearts of hearts continuing with the old limited beliefs. This happens all the time. All the time.

Of course space has parts. North, south, east, and west.

Further, there really isn't space apart from objects that make up space.

Qualities are parts. A book has several qualities that make it a book. It has pages, a front cover and back cover, it has words, it has a spine, it has an author, etc.

All these qualities (aka parts) have to come together to make a "book."

I know you are going to say the mind is not an object so this doesn't apply. That's crap. This mind you speak of must be some thing. It must either have parts that make it what it is or it must be independent. You've now contradicted yourself because you've first said that it is independent. Now you've said it has qualities. Which is it?

...

If mind or Buddha nature, according to Shentong and GIH, has qualities, qualities plural, it has parts. If it has parts, it is empty.

GIH, no one is arguing for physicalism, why do you keep going on and on about it? I wonder if you are familiar with the Buddha's teaching of the middle way? I don't think you are.

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

"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.

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

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 in anything. Matter plus Mind changing mind is a change.

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

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. A self existent, independent mind would not be able to do anything or interact with anything. There would be nothing for it to interact with. Nothing outside of it. However, if it did interact (with something else), it would have to change. Changing would mean that it is dependent on something else for what it is. Which would mean that it is not all there is.

How do you know these things exist outside your mind?

 

 

 

Just like mind. Mind is not a thing.

I just told you. My mind changes. I experience change. If there were only mind, it would never change. Change only takes place because of dependent arising/multiplicity. Outside influences.

If mind is not a thing, why do you assert that it is independent? Unless you are using "mind" and "emptiness" as synonyms.

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.

 

 

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

 

 

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

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. My mind's changing proves there are things outside of my mind. If my mind were all there was, if it were independent or self existent, it would never change or need to change.

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

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?

 

 

 

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?

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.

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

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. That change in imagination would not be able to take place if some outside influence did not come in. Dependent arising IS change. It also resulted from the apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, the person that picked the apple from the tree, etc.

Define mind more precisely.

Awareness, knowing, intelligence.

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

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.

Change would only be possible if there is something which is not mind which is changing mind. For example, a thought changes because there is something which is not thought which has made it change. It only changes if there is something outside of it which it is dependent on. For change to take place at all, there must be something outside of mind. There must be multiplicity.

Congratulations. You've just posited something independent.

 

 

 

Is mind a thing?

Nope. Dependent arising as an infinite chain is neither independent or dependent. What arises dependently is not something and not nothing. Relatively, we say dependent. Ultimately, we say neither dependent or independent.

Anyway, like I put in bold for you, dependent arising is NOT "some-thing." It is a process. Like impermanence.

Mind is not a thing or a non-thing.

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.

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.

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?

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

I am saying the conventional definition of mind is wrong.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

No, it's impossible to point out something which is independent because there is nothing! The "pointing out" is itself dependent! That's what I'm showing you. Your logic is absurd. It's logically impossible. Anytime you point out "this", you must do it in the context of "not this."

Nope, if mind is all there is, as you say it is, it must be a creator. There is no way out of that. The only way is to say that things are also dependent on something other than mind. And thus to admit you are wrong.

No, you are completely wrong. Things only have relational identities. But relational identities are not real identities. An identity is specific. "This" is not "that." But if "this" comes from "that", "this" has no real (specific) identity or own being.

You don't understand dependent arising. That is the source of all your logical faults. If you were humble enough to admit you don't get it, you could learn a lot.

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.

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. 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.

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. If it is independent, it must have a very precise, specific identity. And you should be able to clearly point that out to me. Otherwise, what is it?

The only reason dependently arisen objects can interact and influence each other is because they are dependently arisen. Something which is independent is incapable of being anything but an unmoving, static entity.

The bottom line is, as long as you assert that mind is all that exists and is therefore independent, you are just talking nonsense and logical absurdities. as I have shown you. Unless you can object to those absurd consequences, not much else matters.

Your inquiry starts with duality. Duality is already assumed between mind and matter.

Every inquiry starts with duality. Logic is duality. Strangely, true non-duality lies in seeing duality/multiplicity. In seeing that matter can't exist without mind and vice versa. That neither mind or matter have primacy over the other.