Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Consciousness is dependently arising. But rigpa is not. I think rigpa is the right word. I'm studying mahamudra and in the mahamudra it is called clarity openness and sensitivity. In Dzogchen I think that is called rigpa.
For example you can see that confidence can be conditional or not. You have conditional confidence because you are speaking english and all the things you expect are happening.
But even if there were an earthquake your unconditional confidence would emerge. Which would manifest as opening to the arising (conditions). The conditions would be conditional but your opening to whatever arises is unconditional. The clarity is the how when you open your experience is distinct and clear. The sensitivity is the response you have from the experience.
Clarity openness and sensitivity are always present. For Sadam Hussein and also for Buddha.
Familiar with Rigpa, have not practiced Dzogchen but know people who do. Rigpa seems to be the same as "True mind" with a similar correlate of the world as self luminous, unobstructed and spontaneously perfect. 'True Mind" is often spoken of as Pure Unchanging Awareness, but in practice this "Conciousness" or "awareness" pure or otherwise is the shaggy dog of Buddha Dharma. There is actually no such thing. true mind is a reference without a referent. I dont no if it is understood that way in Vajrayana.
One interesting point is that you can never know exactly what clarity openness and sensitivity are. Because they are ungraspable. So we get no prize (or cookbook) for doing it right. The ego doesn't like that :mad:
So we have an intuition about our experience. We have a sense of the unobstructed (spacious), luminous (clear), and pure (sensitive) reality. But you cannot using the scientific method define what rigpa is. And then measure my rigpa to see if I have it. If it is true. How much do I have?
It sounds like similar approach to Zen. Perhaps this groundlessness is why the presence of a teacher is so important in both traditions. The teacher in Zen is always pointing, and jolting, while giving nothing to hold.
I'm confused. Palzang said the big band was not the start of the universe. I elaborated on that showing how the "start" cannot be found (like what you said about god). A buddhist way of looking at it is causes and conditions, dependant origination etc.
No one said that there was no big bang
You're right. Palzang never said there was no big bang, he just said the universe didn't start with a big bang. I misread it (perhaps because of my preconceptions?)
Premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived
Premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist
No that is not my argument:)
My "argument" is simply the observation that if one thinks that there is only conciousness then one has lots of macro and micro explaining to do because the reprocussions are kookie.
For example, it may mean, that the keys I am sure are in my draw are not "really" in there because I am not percieving them. It would also mean that the expansion of the universe must have suddenly started at about the time the universe was capable of supporting conciosunesses, which seems impossible. Etc etc
Q: Does a tree fall down in a forest of no one sees or hears it fall?
A: Er ... yes???? Hello?
Now, don't you see how that is an unsound argument?
As said, it was an observation not an argument. I could maybe make it into an argument (raa) , but that seems a bit argumentative!:p
If you agree with the Buddha (and I get the sense that you do), how can you also hold the idea that some object (on the other side of the universe that has never and will never be seen) exists?
Because I dont belive the Buddha was a kookie idealist!:) He mentions scince and wisdom many times, he knew his palce his history etc... morevover he calls Dharma things like "universal law" and "eternal truths" which suggest to me that he means litteraly that:) And I think they are too!:)
If you belive you are now in a part of the universe you must belive tehre are other parts of the universe. Whats the problem with that?:) (Its a facinating topic I think)
If the Buddha says that objects do not exists, how could the unicorn statue exist?
Well be careful here that you dont confuse the short hand "object" for the ontological sense its used in expression of anataman.
The unicorn statur may be an object in the label sense but in the anataman sense it has no essence or intrinsic statueness etc.
I completely agree with Buddha's idea that "there are no objects."
Rather than saying there are no objects try thinking there are only systems. I think this is more the sense in which the Buddha meant anataman:)
Philosophcially "there are no objects" leaves one nowhere, whereas the systems view of dharma has utility in its own right, i believe:)
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
Well I dont see it like that, I simple see there is no me or you.
If consciousness is the sole stand alone reality and the ground of all manifestation, isn't this Brahman by another name? It can make poetic sense as a turn of phrase maybe, but if people really regard consciousness as an ultimate unchanging reality isnt that the extreme of Eternalism?
Well I don't want to speak for Palzang, so I'll just say what I understand about the consciousness-only approach.
As I understand, for this theory, the objects we see everyday go through our cognitive process and become a perception. It is the perception we "see", not the real object. They don't deny the existence of external world, they just say our minds can't differentiate between what is the world we perceive and what is the real thing. Of course they have a goal in saying this and it has more implications then my limitations allow me to discuss.
I am light years from understanding Yogacara or putting it to practice, and without practice it just becomes cheap ontology, which is a distortion of what it is supposed to be.
When I first started reading Mat's posts I thought the same things you do. It took me a while to figure out that he's more of an instigator than a divisive force. It seems to me that he likes to create really lively discussion and often uses a bit of rigid language to perhaps either state his points or get things stirred up. Or both, maybe. I'm not sure.
I like to make people think, challenge their ideas etc Is that bad? I don't do it for any malicious reasons, quote the contrary. Generally I only respond to those who respond to me. Some people love it, the debate, others think its evil dharma for some reason. meh.
Thanks for your "support though:)
But that doesn't mean I actually contribute to Mat's threads or anything......
You might in a Zen way? I Zen contribute to many threads on this forum. In fact I think they are some of my best posts. Its a shame they cant be read, only experienced by the poster.
As I understand, for this theory, the objects we see everyday go through our cognitive process and become a perception. It is the perception we "see", not the real object. They don't deny the existence of external world, they just say our minds can't differentiate between what is the world we perceive and what is the real thing. Of course they have a goal in saying this and it has more implications then my limitations allow me to discuss.
See, you kind of make that make sense there NR. So, it's not so much an ontological position about the external world but more about the fact the experience is simply part of the external world and cannot be distinguished?
(Note this cant be the same view as people who deny the existance of the big bang etc)
Mat
I am light years from understanding Yogacara or putting it to practice, and without practice it just becomes cheap ontology, which is a distortion of what it is supposed to be.[/QUOTE]
So, it's not so much an ontological position about the external world but more about the fact the experience is simply part of the external world and cannot be distinguished?
I would say it worries more about cognition than with existence.
As I understand, for this theory, the objects we see everyday go through our cognitive process and become a perception. It is the perception we "see", not the real object.
Perception is a thought, like a 'small thought'.
We do not 'see' a perception. We think or project a perception.
Seeing is consciousness.
Perception is a label.
There is a vast difference between seeing & labelling.
This is a very basic practise we should try to develop.
Mere sense contact vs labelled sense contact.
Look at a computer, look at the label 'computer' in the mind until the looking at the mind & the object makes the label dissolve.
I am light years from understanding Yogacara or putting it to practice, and without practice it just becomes cheap ontology, which is a distortion of what it is supposed to be.
Words such as "ontology" are for the internet Buddhist philosophers. It does not help others and merely exalts oneself. The Buddha advised to communicate Dhamma in common language.
I might check the difference between perception and consciousness later. Thanks for pointing that out.
Look at a computer, look at the label 'computer' in the mind until the looking at the mind & the object makes the label dissolve.
For the Yogacara the computer you see would come from your mind, much like the 'label' computer. Hence it is called Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only. That doesn't mean they say there is not an external computer. They question if the process of acquiring knowledge of our surroundings is trustworthy, and not how things exist. That is what I was trying to point out.
Words such as "ontology" are for the internet Buddhist philosophers.
I guess that makes me an internet Buddhist philosopher, then.
My "argument" is simply the observation that if one thinks that there is only conciousness then one has lots of macro and micro explaining to do because the reprocussions are kookie.
For example, it may mean, that the keys I am sure are in my draw are not "really" in there because I am not percieving them.
Well they are not "keys" unless we assign them that meaning. There is no quality of "keyness" that makes them keys except for the projections that we make onto them. If all conscious beings ceased to exist, so would "keys" as we know them. The hunk of matter that we call keys would no longer be any different than the matter surrounding them (air, wood, etc.). It is all just the void.
I deal with normal every day things just as everyone else does. I leave my keys somewhere and expect them to be in the same place when I go to get them. It's just that it is meaningless to say that objects exist without an observer projecting meaning onto them.
It would also mean that the expansion of the universe must have suddenly started at about the time the universe was capable of supporting conciosunesses, which seems impossible. Etc etc
I have not made any claims about the beginning of the universe, big bang, etc. No matter how we look at it, the universe was born out of an impossible situation. Neither I nor anyone else understands how the universe started, but I know that it exists. If objects (i.e. atoms, matter, planets, suns) existed at the time of the big bang and before consciousness was around, then where did THAT come from? I'm not going to get into an argument about how or when the universe started. It is not constructive.
Q: Does a tree fall down in a forest of no one sees or hears it fall?
A: Er ... yes???? Hello?
"err, yes...hello?" is not a valid conclusion. It is simply an assumption.
For example, a man goes for a walk in the woods. He sees his favorite tree. Oh it is lovely. Then he goes home. The next day he goes for another walk and, *gasp,* the tree is laying on its side. Now, from a logical and communicative standpoint, it makes sense that when he returned home, he told his wife "the tree fell down." If I were that man I would say the same thing. But my point is that he perceived the tree standing up and then later he perceived it lying down. He did not witness the tree falling. If there were no animals around, they didn't witness the tree falling either. There never was an experience of the tree falling. I am saying that it is the experience of the tree falling that is the reality.
As said, it was an observation not an argument. I could maybe make it into an argument (raa) , but that seems a bit argumentative!:p
ar·gu·ment - n -
1. a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. 2. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood. 2. b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason. 2. c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
^This is what I meant by argument. You mentioned that you have a master's degree in philosophy. I figured you would know what an argument is. I don't mean it in an aggressive, "argumentative" sense.
I don't see how (I am refuting myself), can you try to explain to me where? Ideally using something structured?:) Lets be constructive!:)
Then, I made a structured response, laying out the claims that you made and showing you that they were contradictory. I will mention them again.
premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived.
-I think it's pretty obvious that you are making this claim. Are you NOT making this claim?
premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist.
-You mentioned this in an earlier post.
Because I dont belive the Buddha was a kookie idealist!:) He mentions scince and wisdom many times, he knew his palce his history etc... morevover he calls Dharma things like "universal law" and "eternal truths" which suggest to me that he means litteraly that:) And I think they are too!:)
So you believe that what the Buddha said is literal truth.
Well I dont see it like that, I simple see there is no me or you.
It is not that we are one, but that we are none:)
We are none? I would say that there is an existence, and weare that existence. To say that "we are none" implies that there is no existence. Even if I am living in a complete illusion, that illusion exists. If the void is all there is, then we are the void.
We are none? I would say that there is an existence, and weare that existence. To say that "we are none" implies that there is no existence. Even if I am living in a complete illusion, that illusion exists. If the void is all there is, then we are the void.
You are starting from wrong assumptions. The universe is made of consciousness, or started out from consciousness is not a buddhist thing. Neither is the idea that "void" is all there is. Emptiness is not related to the way things exist, but how we perceive them to exist.
You are starting from wrong assumptions. The universe is made of consciousness, or started out from consciousness is not a buddhist thing. Neither is the idea that "void" is all there is. Emptiness is not related to the way things exist, but how we perceive them to exist.
What do you mean exactly?
I would say that we perceive things to exist as full, not as empty, but this perception of full objects is an illusion.
As a side note, I am not a well studied buddhist. When I make a claim I am not saying "This is buddhism." I have found the buddhist teachings that I have read to have much wisdom in them, but I am not necessarily trying to claim that what I am saying lines up with buddhist thought.
Well they are not "keys" unless we assign them that meaning. There is no quality of "keyness" that makes them keys except for the projections that we make onto them.
I disagree. The key structure that the word refers to that has a mechanical counterpart in my lock that is refered to as "my keys" is distinct from that labeling.
If all conscious beings ceased to exist, so would "keys" as we know them.
Do you see the profound logical differnce between:
"keys"
And
"keys as we know them."
?
It is all just the void.
No, it is clearly not void to me. It has properties and contingency, it is certainly more than void:)
It's just that it is meaningless to say that objects exist without an observer projecting meaning onto them
I disagree.
If objects (i.e. atoms, matter, planets, suns) existed at the time of the big bang and before consciousness was around, then where did THAT come from?
We are not discussing where THAT came from but rather there is anything independent of experience. Do you see that?
You cant say one question is unanswerable just because another is.
I'm not going to get into an argument about how or when the universe started. It is not constructive.
I agree, btw that was a reftrence to somone else who said there was no big bang.
"err, yes...hello?" is not a valid conclusion. It is simply an assumption.
Lighhten up!:) That was clearly a comical retsatement of the previous point:) OK, not comical, attempted comical;)
There never was an experience of the tree falling. I am saying that it is the experience of the tree falling that is the reality.
I disagree profoundly. Trees were falling before humans were crawlin':)
This is what I meant by argument. You mentioned that you have a master's degree in philosophy.
Again, please have a sense of humor! Of course i know what an argumeht is, and one doesnt need a degree in philosophy to know that:) Really, lighten up! Its not a contest:)
premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived.
-I think it's pretty obvious that you are making this claim. Are you NOT making this claim?
No, not quite. I dont see objects, i see systems. So : Systems exists whether or not they are perceived.
premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist.
-You mentioned this in an earlier post.
Yes.
So you believe that what the Buddha said is literal truth.
So now you are saying that what the Buddha said is NOT literal truth. Which is it?
Neither is relevant. There are two issues:
Are there things which are discrete objects.
Are there things which are independent of their being perceived.
I think the answers are No and Yes. What do you think?
To say that "we are none" implies that there is no existence.
Ummm... I don't see it like that. if there is no self, no "me" then surely en mass there is no We?
Even if I am living in a complete illusion, that illusion exists.
I guess Descarts would say yes, i am really not sure what the Buddha would say? I have thought a fair bit about Dharma and the cogito, its pretty messy where they meet I reckon.
If the void is all there is, then we are the void.
That means nothing to me, seriously, I am not sure what it could mean??
You cant say one question is unanswerable just because another is.
Well what I am saying is that the question of "How did the universe begin?" is unanswerable from every possible angle. You are telling me that my view makes for a problematic beginning-of-the-universe. I am saying that the beginning of the universe is a problem no matter what your view is. You can't explain it. I can't explain it. No one can explain it.
Ummm... I don't see it like that. if there is no self, no "me" then surely en mass there is no We?
Well whatever word you choose to use, I am pretty confident that it/the universe/consciousness/we/whatever exists. And like you mention, this is part of the whole DesCartes thing. The only thing he said he could be sure of existing was himself. "I am" he said. He had already made a baseless assumption that his "self" existed and he went on to make many more baseless assumptions about the existence of an outside world/God/etc. All I am saying is that there is an existence. "Dharma exists" is another way of saying this. The universal law. Whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. It exists. I used the term "The void." You don't seem to like that term. All I meant by that is as a synonym for all these ways of expressing existence.
That is why I am not a big fan of discussions on emptiness. It always ends up being cryptic.
Simply put, the Buddha taught about the existence of suffering and the way to get rid of suffering. All buddhist philosophy has to fall within this.
He doesn't try to explain how or why the universe came into being or the underlying properties of reality.
The problem is that emptiness gives the rise to all sorts of crazy ideas and makes people get lost in theories.
Let's say I see a rope and think it is a snake, and then I get scared. The point of emptiness is not to say there is no rope, but to correct my wrong idea that the rope is a snake, so I can be liberated from fear.
There are many ways to deal with suffering. Sometimes you need to understand emptiness. Sometimes you need to take an aspirin. Trying to force yourself into understanding emptiness when you don't need it gives rise to a lot of confusion.
Simply put, the Buddha taught about the existence of suffering and the way to get rid of suffering. All buddhist philosophy has to fall within this.
Hmmmm...
I think I disgaree with you here NM. I think he taught stuff that wants about suffering but which determined this, eg the first two marks. They are not about suffering, but they lead to suffering.
See what i mean?
He doesn't try to explain how or why the universe came into being or the underlying properties of reality.
Agree on the first disagree on that latter. What are the three marks if not underlaying properties of all realities?
The problem is that emptiness gives the rise to all sorts of crazy ideas and makes people get lost in theories.
I agree. I have longtime thought that anataman was a negative doctrine, its positive version, interconectibvity is the same, but well, more positive.
We are none? I would say that there is an existence, and weare that existence. To say that "we are none" implies that there is no existence. Even if I am living in a complete illusion, that illusion exists. If the void is all there is, then we are the void.
Remember, emptiness and existence are concerned with very different things.
If we say things like: "there is no self", we are not questioning the existence of a person in any way.
As is thinking, hoping, listening, wishing.... and any of the aggrigate components of mind.
Thinking is an object of consciousness. It is not consciousness.
Buddha taught sense organ, sense object & sense consciousness.
Regarding the mind, its the mind, thought & mind-consciousness.
Regarding the eye, its is the eye, sights and eye-consciousness.
Seeing is consciousness whereas thinking is thinking about was/is seen.
There is a difference.
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.
Thinking is an object of consciousness. It is not consciousness.
Buddha taught sense organ, sense object & sense consciousness.
Regarding the mind, its the mind, thought & mind-consciousness.
Regarding the eye, its is the eye, sights and eye-consciousness.
Seeing is consciousness whereas thinking is thinking about was/is seen.
There is a difference.
Yes, my point was that they are all mental phenomena, you seemed to be distinguishing thought whereas within the skandas and sciences there is no such distinguishing.
What you mention are all knots in the same net of mind, as I think you agree.
Yes, my point was that they are all mental phenomena, you seemed to be distinguishing thought whereas within the skandas and sciences there is no such distinguishing.
What you mention are all knots in the same net of mind, as I think you agree.
The are five khandas clearly distinguished.
There is form, comprised of earth, wind, fire & water.
There is feeling (not thought).
There is perception (short thoughts, labels).
There is formations (long thoughts, sentences, stories, emotions, images, dreams, defilements).
There is consciousness (knowing, awareness).
All aggregates are objects of consciousness (knowing), including consciousness itself and including non-aggregates, namely, Nibbana.
These things are not knots in the same net but distinct phenomena.
Personally I don't think they are clearly distinguished and I see no reason why there may not be more, for example spiritual experiences (I see these as not necessarily msytcial)
There is form, comprised of earth, wind, fire & water.
That means nothing to me:) It sounds like what the Greeks thought of the world. Form, to me, is the brain, its neurochemical structure and its emmegent phenomenon and the external world that integrates with the brain. Form is substrata in my view of the Buddhist mind:)
There is feeling (not thought).
Well do you mean sentential thought, like "That is a beautiful sunrise on that horizon" or do you mean the experience of the moment, just to experience the sunrise? This is not a petty distinction:)
There is perception (short thoughts, labels).
There is formations (long thoughts, sentences, stories, emotions, images, dreams, defilements).
I dont really understand your taxonomy here to be honest. How is say, Greed a perception??
There is consciousness (knowing, awareness).
Knowing and awareness are two different things to me. One is about the criterion for knowledge and the other is about experience, I think the Buddha thinks this to. Also I think its pretty clear in Dharma what conciousness is???
All aggregates are objects of consciousness (knowing), including consciousness itself and including non-aggregates, namely, Nibbana.
I dont know what you mean here. All aggregates are objects? Conciousness is an object? I though the Buddha thought conciousness was the experience of the other aggregates as they flowed?
What is a non aggregate? Is that something empty or something which has no parts? Is it contingent? If it is then how can it be not an aggregate? Isn't this why the Buddha sees there are no objects? And even so, how is this Nibbana?
I am intrigued by your radically different take on this!:)
There is form, comprised of earth, wind, fire & water.
There is feeling (not thought).
There is perception (short thoughts, labels).
There is formations (long thoughts, sentences, stories, emotions, images, dreams, defilements).
There is consciousness (knowing, awareness).
All aggregates are objects of consciousness (knowing), including consciousness itself and including non-aggregates, namely, Nibbana.
These things are not knots in the same net but distinct phenomena.
This is why the Buddha taught satipatthana.
This post will be off topic but I had to respond when I read this.
I have been searching and searching for a clear explanation of the khandas, something I could really understand instead of just getting some vague idea of it. For example, the aggregate of mental formations. What does that mean? I could never really understand it. But now I do.
There is formations (long thoughts, sentences, stories, emotions, images, dreams, defilements).
Why can't Buddhist teachers/writers just come out and say it that way? So frustrating.
I'm still a bit iffy when it comes to consciousness but I'm sure that will come with more study and actual practice.
So a big thank you, DD, for helping me get a good understanding of the khandas.
You are starting from wrong assumptions. The universe is made of consciousness, or started out from consciousness is not a buddhist thing. Neither is the idea that "void" is all there is. Emptiness is not related to the way things exist, but how we perceive them to exist.
This is very true, in Buddha Dharma, there is no such things as the consciousness come first or cosmic consciousness.
In fact, Buddha Dharma only based on the principle of interpendence co-arising , both the subjective mind and the objective phenomena arised at the same moment.
when there is a moment of a mind in the universe - all the phenomena will manifested . when there is no single mind in the universe - that is the end of everything
This is supported by the principle of sunyata, emptiness or non-duality , for both subject and object are fundamentally non-dual , empty in nature
This is very true, in Buddha Dharma, there is no such things as the consciousness come first or cosmic consciousness.
In fact, Buddha Dharma only based on the principle of interpendence co-arising , both the subjective mind and the objective phenomena arised at the same moment.
Yes, I agree. Do you see arrises as the same as emmerges? I think I do:)
When there is no single mind in the universe - that is the end of everything
Why is this so, though? Assume life ended, there would still be "the principle of interpendence co-arising" and annica and annataman and dukka would still be universal?
emptiness or non-duality , for both subject and object are fundamentally non-dual , empty in nature
I haven't thought of it like that before, equating emptiness with "non-duality" (which is distinct from a monistic view?). I will think some more on that!:)
Actually there is a school of Buddhist thought, called Cittamatra or Mind-Only School, that teaches that consciousness is the only reality. The Buddha himself said, "Oh Bodhisattvas, the three realms are nothing other than mind." For a further, very in-depth, discussion of this topic, I would suggest Jeffrey Hopkins' book Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, available on Amazon, among other places. Not for the faint-hearted though! Gets pretty deep.
People still don't get emptiness. Emptiness just means devoid of solid existence basically. Things only have existence relative to other things, not independently. That's all it is.
This post will be off topic but I had to respond when I read this.
I have been searching and searching for a clear explanation of the khandas, something I could really understand instead of just getting some vague idea of it. For example, the aggregate of mental formations. What does that mean? I could never really understand it. But now I do. Why can't Buddhist teachers/writers just come out and say it that way? So frustrating.
I'm still a bit iffy when it comes to consciousness but I'm sure that will come with more study and actual practice.
So a big thank you, DD, for helping me get a good understanding of the khandas.
Got to say I agree with you Boo. I am also learning a lot from DD's posts. Many thanks DD. I hope you will stick in the forums for long
M: Why is this so, though? Assume life ended, there would still be "the principle of interpendence co-arising" and annica and annataman and dukka would still be universal?
the logically question would then be who to appreciate it ? who to experience the suffering and impermanent? if none - then it is the same as no thing.
from the buddhist perspective , the mind and the phenomena co-arise at the same moment , the mind is the skill painter to the phenomena
Comments
For example you can see that confidence can be conditional or not. You have conditional confidence because you are speaking english and all the things you expect are happening.
But even if there were an earthquake your unconditional confidence would emerge. Which would manifest as opening to the arising (conditions). The conditions would be conditional but your opening to whatever arises is unconditional. The clarity is the how when you open your experience is distinct and clear. The sensitivity is the response you have from the experience.
Clarity openness and sensitivity are always present. For Sadam Hussein and also for Buddha.
So we have an intuition about our experience. We have a sense of the unobstructed (spacious), luminous (clear), and pure (sensitive) reality. But you cannot using the scientific method define what rigpa is. And then measure my rigpa to see if I have it. If it is true. How much do I have?
You're right. Palzang never said there was no big bang, he just said the universe didn't start with a big bang. I misread it (perhaps because of my preconceptions?)
No that is not my argument:)
My "argument" is simply the observation that if one thinks that there is only conciousness then one has lots of macro and micro explaining to do because the reprocussions are kookie.
For example, it may mean, that the keys I am sure are in my draw are not "really" in there because I am not percieving them. It would also mean that the expansion of the universe must have suddenly started at about the time the universe was capable of supporting conciosunesses, which seems impossible. Etc etc
Q: Does a tree fall down in a forest of no one sees or hears it fall?
A: Er ... yes???? Hello?
As said, it was an observation not an argument. I could maybe make it into an argument (raa) , but that seems a bit argumentative!:p
Because I dont belive the Buddha was a kookie idealist!:) He mentions scince and wisdom many times, he knew his palce his history etc... morevover he calls Dharma things like "universal law" and "eternal truths" which suggest to me that he means litteraly that:) And I think they are too!:)
If you belive you are now in a part of the universe you must belive tehre are other parts of the universe. Whats the problem with that?:) (Its a facinating topic I think)
Well be careful here that you dont confuse the short hand "object" for the ontological sense its used in expression of anataman.
The unicorn statur may be an object in the label sense but in the anataman sense it has no essence or intrinsic statueness etc.
Rather than saying there are no objects try thinking there are only systems. I think this is more the sense in which the Buddha meant anataman:)
Philosophcially "there are no objects" leaves one nowhere, whereas the systems view of dharma has utility in its own right, i believe:)
Well I dont see it like that, I simple see there is no me or you.
It is not that we are one, but that we are none:)
Mat
Well I don't want to speak for Palzang, so I'll just say what I understand about the consciousness-only approach.
As I understand, for this theory, the objects we see everyday go through our cognitive process and become a perception. It is the perception we "see", not the real object. They don't deny the existence of external world, they just say our minds can't differentiate between what is the world we perceive and what is the real thing. Of course they have a goal in saying this and it has more implications then my limitations allow me to discuss.
I am light years from understanding Yogacara or putting it to practice, and without practice it just becomes cheap ontology, which is a distortion of what it is supposed to be.
You might in a Zen way? I Zen contribute to many threads on this forum. In fact I think they are some of my best posts. Its a shame they cant be read, only experienced by the poster.
Ohm Shanti,
Mat
See, you kind of make that make sense there NR. So, it's not so much an ontological position about the external world but more about the fact the experience is simply part of the external world and cannot be distinguished?
(Note this cant be the same view as people who deny the existance of the big bang etc)
Mat
I am light years from understanding Yogacara or putting it to practice, and without practice it just becomes cheap ontology, which is a distortion of what it is supposed to be.[/QUOTE]
I would say it worries more about cognition than with existence.
We do not 'see' a perception. We think or project a perception.
Seeing is consciousness.
Perception is a label.
There is a vast difference between seeing & labelling.
This is a very basic practise we should try to develop.
Mere sense contact vs labelled sense contact.
Look at a computer, look at the label 'computer' in the mind until the looking at the mind & the object makes the label dissolve. Words such as "ontology" are for the internet Buddhist philosophers. It does not help others and merely exalts oneself. The Buddha advised to communicate Dhamma in common language.
:buck:
As is thinking, hoping, listening, wishing.... and any of the aggrigate components of mind.
I think philosophers in general, not just on the internet and not just Buddhists.
What are the Three marks if not Ontological statements? "All things are...."
He also said he had nothing up his sleeve.
I might check the difference between perception and consciousness later. Thanks for pointing that out.
For the Yogacara the computer you see would come from your mind, much like the 'label' computer. Hence it is called Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only. That doesn't mean they say there is not an external computer. They question if the process of acquiring knowledge of our surroundings is trustworthy, and not how things exist. That is what I was trying to point out.
I guess that makes me an internet Buddhist philosopher, then.
Well they are not "keys" unless we assign them that meaning. There is no quality of "keyness" that makes them keys except for the projections that we make onto them. If all conscious beings ceased to exist, so would "keys" as we know them. The hunk of matter that we call keys would no longer be any different than the matter surrounding them (air, wood, etc.). It is all just the void.
I deal with normal every day things just as everyone else does. I leave my keys somewhere and expect them to be in the same place when I go to get them. It's just that it is meaningless to say that objects exist without an observer projecting meaning onto them.
I have not made any claims about the beginning of the universe, big bang, etc. No matter how we look at it, the universe was born out of an impossible situation. Neither I nor anyone else understands how the universe started, but I know that it exists. If objects (i.e. atoms, matter, planets, suns) existed at the time of the big bang and before consciousness was around, then where did THAT come from? I'm not going to get into an argument about how or when the universe started. It is not constructive.
"err, yes...hello?" is not a valid conclusion. It is simply an assumption.
For example, a man goes for a walk in the woods. He sees his favorite tree. Oh it is lovely. Then he goes home. The next day he goes for another walk and, *gasp,* the tree is laying on its side. Now, from a logical and communicative standpoint, it makes sense that when he returned home, he told his wife "the tree fell down." If I were that man I would say the same thing. But my point is that he perceived the tree standing up and then later he perceived it lying down. He did not witness the tree falling. If there were no animals around, they didn't witness the tree falling either. There never was an experience of the tree falling. I am saying that it is the experience of the tree falling that is the reality.
ar·gu·ment - n -
1. a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
2. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.
2. b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason.
2. c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
^This is what I meant by argument. You mentioned that you have a master's degree in philosophy. I figured you would know what an argument is. I don't mean it in an aggressive, "argumentative" sense.
in an earlier post, you said this:
Then, I made a structured response, laying out the claims that you made and showing you that they were contradictory. I will mention them again.
premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived.
-I think it's pretty obvious that you are making this claim. Are you NOT making this claim?
premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist.
-You mentioned this in an earlier post.
You then go on to say:
So you believe that what the Buddha said is literal truth.
Then you go on to say:
So now you are saying that what the Buddha said is NOT literal truth. Which is it?
"Leaves us nowhere?" So are things only true if they have an applicable function in every day life?
Then your response to my claim that we are all one:
We are none? I would say that there is an existence, and we are that existence. To say that "we are none" implies that there is no existence. Even if I am living in a complete illusion, that illusion exists. If the void is all there is, then we are the void.
You are starting from wrong assumptions. The universe is made of consciousness, or started out from consciousness is not a buddhist thing. Neither is the idea that "void" is all there is. Emptiness is not related to the way things exist, but how we perceive them to exist.
What do you mean exactly?
I would say that we perceive things to exist as full, not as empty, but this perception of full objects is an illusion.
As a side note, I am not a well studied buddhist. When I make a claim I am not saying "This is buddhism." I have found the buddhist teachings that I have read to have much wisdom in them, but I am not necessarily trying to claim that what I am saying lines up with buddhist thought.
I disagree. The key structure that the word refers to that has a mechanical counterpart in my lock that is refered to as "my keys" is distinct from that labeling.
Do you see the profound logical differnce between:
"keys"
And
"keys as we know them."
?
No, it is clearly not void to me. It has properties and contingency, it is certainly more than void:)
I disagree.
We are not discussing where THAT came from but rather there is anything independent of experience. Do you see that?
You cant say one question is unanswerable just because another is.
I agree, btw that was a reftrence to somone else who said there was no big bang.
No, that's exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is no difference between those two things. Keys = "Keys as we know them."
I am aware of what we are discussing. You brought up the whole beginning of the universe thing.
Well what I am saying is that the question of "How did the universe begin?" is unanswerable from every possible angle. You are telling me that my view makes for a problematic beginning-of-the-universe. I am saying that the beginning of the universe is a problem no matter what your view is. You can't explain it. I can't explain it. No one can explain it.
What is the difference? All of my points remain. The key-lock-door-hinge-wall system still relies on an observer to have any meaning
I would say no and no. But I think you already knew that.
Well whatever word you choose to use, I am pretty confident that it/the universe/consciousness/we/whatever exists. And like you mention, this is part of the whole DesCartes thing. The only thing he said he could be sure of existing was himself. "I am" he said. He had already made a baseless assumption that his "self" existed and he went on to make many more baseless assumptions about the existence of an outside world/God/etc. All I am saying is that there is an existence. "Dharma exists" is another way of saying this. The universal law. Whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. It exists. I used the term "The void." You don't seem to like that term. All I meant by that is as a synonym for all these ways of expressing existence.
Yeah, we're not getting anywhere. We obviously disagree. I don't think there's anywhere to go from here.
Be well.
Simply put, the Buddha taught about the existence of suffering and the way to get rid of suffering. All buddhist philosophy has to fall within this.
He doesn't try to explain how or why the universe came into being or the underlying properties of reality.
The problem is that emptiness gives the rise to all sorts of crazy ideas and makes people get lost in theories.
Let's say I see a rope and think it is a snake, and then I get scared. The point of emptiness is not to say there is no rope, but to correct my wrong idea that the rope is a snake, so I can be liberated from fear.
There are many ways to deal with suffering. Sometimes you need to understand emptiness. Sometimes you need to take an aspirin. Trying to force yourself into understanding emptiness when you don't need it gives rise to a lot of confusion.
Hmmmm...
I think I disgaree with you here NM. I think he taught stuff that wants about suffering but which determined this, eg the first two marks. They are not about suffering, but they lead to suffering.
See what i mean?
Agree on the first disagree on that latter. What are the three marks if not underlaying properties of all realities?
I agree. I have longtime thought that anataman was a negative doctrine, its positive version, interconectibvity is the same, but well, more positive.
How seldom is Sukka mentioned?
Or the priceless and new now?
Mat
Remember, emptiness and existence are concerned with very different things.
If we say things like: "there is no self", we are not questioning the existence of a person in any way.
Yep, agree. We still exists as these rolling bundles of experiences, with individuality, rights and obligations etc
Even the Buddha might say "I am happy" without committing to an "I":)
Mat
Buddha taught sense organ, sense object & sense consciousness.
Regarding the mind, its the mind, thought & mind-consciousness.
Regarding the eye, its is the eye, sights and eye-consciousness.
Seeing is consciousness whereas thinking is thinking about was/is seen.
There is a difference.
Yes, my point was that they are all mental phenomena, you seemed to be distinguishing thought whereas within the skandas and sciences there is no such distinguishing.
What you mention are all knots in the same net of mind, as I think you agree.
There is form, comprised of earth, wind, fire & water.
There is feeling (not thought).
There is perception (short thoughts, labels).
There is formations (long thoughts, sentences, stories, emotions, images, dreams, defilements).
There is consciousness (knowing, awareness).
All aggregates are objects of consciousness (knowing), including consciousness itself and including non-aggregates, namely, Nibbana.
These things are not knots in the same net but distinct phenomena.
This is why the Buddha taught satipatthana.
Personally I don't think they are clearly distinguished and I see no reason why there may not be more, for example spiritual experiences (I see these as not necessarily msytcial)
That means nothing to me:) It sounds like what the Greeks thought of the world. Form, to me, is the brain, its neurochemical structure and its emmegent phenomenon and the external world that integrates with the brain. Form is substrata in my view of the Buddhist mind:)
Well do you mean sentential thought, like "That is a beautiful sunrise on that horizon" or do you mean the experience of the moment, just to experience the sunrise? This is not a petty distinction:)
I dont really understand your taxonomy here to be honest. How is say, Greed a perception??
Knowing and awareness are two different things to me. One is about the criterion for knowledge and the other is about experience, I think the Buddha thinks this to. Also I think its pretty clear in Dharma what conciousness is???
I dont know what you mean here. All aggregates are objects? Conciousness is an object? I though the Buddha thought conciousness was the experience of the other aggregates as they flowed?
What is a non aggregate? Is that something empty or something which has no parts? Is it contingent? If it is then how can it be not an aggregate? Isn't this why the Buddha sees there are no objects? And even so, how is this Nibbana?
I am intrigued by your radically different take on this!:)
Mat
I have often wondered about this. Does this mean this is the only way to enlightenment?
If it doesn't then what other ways might there be?
If it does then why should that be so? What is preventing other paths?
They are tools. :P
I have been searching and searching for a clear explanation of the khandas, something I could really understand instead of just getting some vague idea of it. For example, the aggregate of mental formations. What does that mean? I could never really understand it. But now I do. Why can't Buddhist teachers/writers just come out and say it that way? So frustrating.
I'm still a bit iffy when it comes to consciousness but I'm sure that will come with more study and actual practice.
So a big thank you, DD, for helping me get a good understanding of the khandas.
This is very true, in Buddha Dharma, there is no such things as the consciousness come first or cosmic consciousness.
In fact, Buddha Dharma only based on the principle of interpendence co-arising , both the subjective mind and the objective phenomena arised at the same moment.
when there is a moment of a mind in the universe - all the phenomena will manifested . when there is no single mind in the universe - that is the end of everything
This is supported by the principle of sunyata, emptiness or non-duality , for both subject and object are fundamentally non-dual , empty in nature
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Yes, I agree. Do you see arrises as the same as emmerges? I think I do:)
Why is this so, though? Assume life ended, there would still be "the principle of interpendence co-arising" and annica and annataman and dukka would still be universal?
I haven't thought of it like that before, equating emptiness with "non-duality" (which is distinct from a monistic view?). I will think some more on that!:)
Mat
People still don't get emptiness. Emptiness just means devoid of solid existence basically. Things only have existence relative to other things, not independently. That's all it is.
Palzang
Got to say I agree with you Boo. I am also learning a lot from DD's posts. Many thanks DD. I hope you will stick in the forums for long
How comes I don't get a fan club! Is it because I said the O Word? (Ontology)
I like you just as much as I like DD. It's just that I don't understand a thing you say....:p
from the buddhist perspective , the mind and the phenomena co-arise at the same moment , the mind is the skill painter to the phenomena