Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 I have direct experience. Don't pretend to know me through reading stuff here, or whatever you think you intuit through that. I've seen directly the big bang, and I've been a Brahma in the higher realms directly. I am still afflicted here through this physical peanut butter incarnation due to various subtle habit patterns, but I do know better. Regardless of whether you see that or not. How is this anyway helpful in a discussion? I can hear this type of "I experienced it, you didn't" type of stuff in church. Â Like I said, if there was a monistic essence, you'd be able to be absolutely omniscient about absolutely everything that ever was and ever will be as all things are this one awareness according to you. If the Buddha didn't even have this level of omniscience? Anyway... that's enough. That's not what I'm suggesting. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 20, 2011 Omniscient about the nature of things, not omniscient about every nuance of everything and anything that ever was. I've stated this repeatedly over the entire time I've been here and you've argued with me many times about it and I've corrected your assumptions many times. I often wonder if you have the ability to learn anything new anymore? You seem quite rigid in your understanding, of course you probably think that of me... oh well. Â The term omniscience is an English term, so you keep wanting to project this English term over what the Buddha stated in Pali, and this won't work. It has to be contextualized. They don't mean the same thing. Be a little more flexible ralis, it will help your understanding of the flexible nature of all phenomena in general. Â We speak English here in case you didn't notice and not Pali. I just don't have the Sanskrit fetish as you do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 Yeah, that might be your mind. Or it might be Buddha-nature aka emptiness which includes and is beyond mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 Or it might be Buddha-nature aka emptiness which includes and is beyond mind. The mind is limitless. I think we are coming to an agreement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) 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. The nature of mind is emptiness. How's that? Â Instead of seeing that each moment is d.o.ed I see that in each moment, and through one's continuum of experience, the entire potential of mind is acknowledged. No universe. Just independent minds. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 The nature of mind is emptiness. Right. Since the nature of mind is emptiness, mind is not the whole. Mind is dependently arisen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Right. Since the nature of mind is emptiness, mind is not the whole. Mind is dependently arisen. Uh, no. Mind is limitless. How does one know "whole"? You can't "see" the whole or find it if you are the limitless whole. Like space. Like trying to see your eyes with your eyes. Â Its contents are dependently arisen because mind's nature is manifestation through d.o. Â The sentence "the nature of mind is emptiness" should be understood in the usage of "the nature of ball is sphereness, or to bounce." Emptiness is its character. Â So it is living emptiness potential. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) 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. Â 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. Â 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. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, you say mind is the whole. If mind is the whole, it can't manifest things through d.o. Â 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. I edited my post above for clarification. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 Right. Since the nature of mind is emptiness, mind is not the whole. Mind is dependently arisen. Â If mind is dependently arisen, there should be a condition for its cessation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Ok, you say mind is the whole. If mind is the whole, it can't manifest things through d.o. Â It's the other way around. Whatever is dependently originated has no power to manifest anything. For example, what does water manifest? Nothing. What does computer manifest? Nothing again. What do clouds manifest? Nothing. Whatever is dependent is helpless and impotent. Â Mind can manifest arbitrary appearances precisely because it's not itself anything like its vividly apparent suggestive manifestations. This is exactly why it's so hard to realize what mind is and why it is so easy to have false conceptions regarding mind too. Â Ordinary beings are lead astray by taking the suggestions inherent in the suggestive appearances literally. So when they see a water mirage, they think there is literally actual water there. When they see an appearance suggestive of a computer, they think there is real computer behind that appearance, backing up the appearance. Edited July 20, 2011 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) If mind is dependently arisen, there should be a condition for its cessation. Uh-uh. Since mind is dependently arisen, it is not a real thing. But it is not a non-thing either. As I've repeated more times than I can count. The best word to use for mind is "unborn." Since it has never been born (truly existed), it can never cease.  When emptiness is talked about as having power to manifest, it is because emptiness is lack of inherent existence. Because of this lack of inherent existence, anything can happen.  Proposing a self-existent mind negates any possibility for manifestation.  But as I said to Lucky, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think this debate has gone on too long and has taken up too much of my time and energy. Thank you for the discussion  By the way, Deci Belle, thank you for the compliment Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 Uh-uh. Since mind is dependently arisen, it is not a real thing. But it is not a non-thing either. As I've repeated more times than I can count. The best word to use for mind is "unborn." Since it has never been born (truly existed), it can never cease.  When emptiness is talked about as having power to manifest, it is because emptiness is lack of inherent existence. Because of this lack of inherent existence, anything can happen.  Proposing a self-existent mind negates any possibility for manifestation.  But as I said to Lucky, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think this debate has gone on too long and has taken up too much of my time and energy. Thank you for the discussion  By the way, Deci Belle, thank you for the compliment  Alright. Nice talking to you. After you get some rest we'll do it again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 Alright. Nice talking to you. After you get some rest we'll do it again. Ok. Be ready Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 Ok. Be ready  I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything because I am not a robot. I too need rest sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything because I am not a robot. I too need rest sometimes. We all do. And we all need a break from the computer as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 20, 2011 The nature of mind is emptiness. How's that? Â Instead of seeing that each moment is d.o.ed I see that in each moment, and through one's continuum of experience, the entire potential of mind is acknowledged. No universe. Just independent minds. Â Emptiness is without attachments. no belonging or owning, wanting or desiring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 20, 2011 emptiness =/= nothingness necessarily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth Ananda Posted July 20, 2011 Lol, start a thread, go away for two days, come back and Wow! Well I am wading through it... Not sure where to start. Â Thanks Cow Tao for the links But a question. Your zhentong thread: Â http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/zhentong-other-emptiness/ Â lead me to this: Â http://www.nirvanasutra.net/ Â What!? [explanations anyone?] {possibly a dangerous question, lol} Â Ill get the rest of my other questions straightened out soon... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted July 20, 2011 Â lead me to this: ... Â Haha... i know what you are thinking, Seth. Did the same thing myself. No comments as yet. Its apparent this guy had done some serious homework, but that does not mean he is right. Its just the way he has assimilated the teachings according to his own understanding and intent, i think. Would be nice to have him come debate with our brilliant buddhist scholars here, dont you think so? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth Ananda Posted July 20, 2011 Would be nice to have him come debate with our brilliant buddhist scholars here, dont you think so? Hehe absolutely! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth Ananda Posted July 20, 2011 In fact I will contact him and Invite him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 20, 2011 "But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation, there is one danger against which they must be on their guard. Disciples may not appreciate that the mind-system, because of its accumulated habit-energy, goes on functioning, more or less unconsciously, as long as they live. They may sometimes think that they can expedite the attainment of their goal of tranquillisation by entirely suppressing the activities of the mind-system. This is a mistake, for even if the activities of the mind are suppressed, the mind will still go on functioning because the seeds of habit-energy will still remain in it. What they think is extinction of mind, is really the non-functioning of the mind's external world to which they are no longer attached. That is, the goal of tranquillisation is to be reached not by suppressing all mind activity but by getting rid of discriminations and attachments."  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb15.htm  have you checked out these texts at all Seth? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 20, 2011 Kinda like emptiness vs nothingness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
