Mahamudra meditation problem: locating the mind

[krodha]

I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. I'll write some more latter this evening. There is a thread on psychotherapy and Dharma. In that thread Jeeprs posted that he saw realization and realized individuals as 'supernormal'. I would agree with this. That these individuals are highly integrated. One wonders how some one who constantly reified a subjective experience could be integrated at all?

Because again these conclusions of yours are product of your view. You are taking certain notions and attempting to place them into your own conceptual model, in hopes of creating (what you consider to be) a logical explanation. And the only way they are going to fit with your model is if you peg them as "subjective experiences" in an inherent sense (such a notion has no basis in the teachings, only the mind of Andrew). However in the actual context of the system there is no conflict. In the true view of the system there is no need to relegate these occurrences to inherently existent subjective experiences, no need to scratch one's head wondering how these individuals can be integrated, these are the residual conflicts of your own ideas, not the system. Why is that? Because the system can allow for conventional and ultimate standpoints and so on. Aspects of the teaching that your materialist view utterly lacks, and so you face contradictions and conflicts within your view, yet you act as if you're encountering conflicts apart from your own projections.

To repeat what I wrote in my last post; your contention that these systems are reifying subjective experiences in the way you are suggesting is pure delusion.

[Andrew108]

It is a convention used to describe the aggregate of similar karmas belonging to individual beings. It is only in this sense that the term "collective" is used. It does not mean there is a collective consciousness, because of course, there is not.

It's a recent convention. Tell me what the Pali or Sanskirt word for collective karma is.

Of course, when people do not take the time to study the fundamentals of Buddhadharma as presented in Abhidharma and so on, it is very likely they will misunderstand terms like "collective karma" to refer to karma generated by a collective consciousness.

It is not that I haven't studied the Abhidharma. It's that I can't find this notion of collective karma in the Abhidharma. Not in the way that you talk about it.

Karma is said to reside in the mindstream of a being. The collective mindstreams of individual beings are not connected. So where then is collective karma? If you say that it is a shared tendency then you need to explain how a shared tendency can be the cause of the Universe. What shared tendency in particular (and don't say ignorance)?

You have said again and again that the universe arises from collective karma. There is no difference between that assumption and the assumption that the Tibetans suffered the loss of their country due to their collective karma. You know where that assumption leads.

[Andrew108]

The universe was formed by the multitude of consciousnessess in the following manner — to put it in more modern terms, it is the affliction in the consciousness of sentient beings that caused the instability in the proposed singularity at the observable beginning of this universe.

Until physics can model the general role of consciousness in the formation of the universe mathematically, its explanation of cosmology will always be incomplete and there will always be unanswered questions.

So now you start to use the term multitude of consciousnessess. What multitude? How many? The way karma works is that there has to be a volition. In the example you posted there would have to be a simultaneous volition in a particular direction by all beings at the same moment. You couldn't have some beings being indifferent about a big bang whilst others were enthusiastic. So you would need to identify the exact karmic imprint responsible for cosmic inflation and say why it was that beings at that time acted as one. In your previous posts you did much to champion the idea of collective karma acting as a singular force and you continue to hold that view. You need to explain how the multitude of consciousnessess can be unidirectional or be directed towards the same outcome.

[Andrew108]

I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. I'll write some more latter this evening. There is a thread on psychotherapy and Dharma. In that thread Jeeprs posted that he saw realization and realized individuals as 'supernormal'. I would agree with this. That these individuals are highly integrated. One wonders how some one who constantly reified a subjective experience could be integrated at all?

Because again these conclusions of yours are product of your view. You are taking certain notions and attempting to place them into your own conceptual model, in hopes of creating (what you consider to be) a logical explanation. And the only way they are going to fit with your model is if you peg them as "subjective experiences" in an inherent sense (such a notion has no basis in the teachings, only the mind of Andrew). However in the actual context of the system there is no conflict. In the true view of the system there is no need to relegate these occurrences to inherently existent subjective experiences, no need to scratch one's head wondering how these individuals can be integrated, these are the residual conflicts of your own ideas, not the system. Why is that? Because the system can allow for conventional and ultimate standpoints and so on. Aspects of the teaching that your materialist view utterly lacks, and so you face contradictions and conflicts within your view, yet you act as if you're encountering conflicts apart from your own projections.

To repeat what I wrote in my last post; your contention that these systems are reifying subjective experiences in the way you are suggesting is pure delusion.

The point that I have made again and again is that you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective. There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them. This is not just a conceptual idea. It is a scientific fact. It is a truth that is as 'normal' as you can get. Accepting that fact is the start of genuine integration. In terms of how to integrate I would say that whilst reality has characteristics it does not have a theory about itself. So why have a theory about it? Why not just be what it is? This is effortless integration.

What you are saying is that you should develop a view based on centuries old reasoning and then apply that to your experience in order to liberate yourself from the 'normal'. I think that is going about things the wrong way. I think that is deluded.

I am a Buddhist.

[PadmaVonSamba]

To repeat what I wrote in my last post; your contention that these systems are reifying subjective experiences in the way you are suggesting is pure delusion.

Of course, when people do not take the time to study the fundamentals of Buddhadharma as presented in Abhidharma and so on, it is very likely they will misunderstand terms like "collective karma" to refer to karma generated by a collective consciousness.

If one asserts that
what appears (to the materialist) to be some sort of objective reality
is instead merely a product of consciousness (whether individual or collective)
and that outside of the subjective experience no other 'reality' can be found,
then any claims of a teaching being "authentic Dharma",
or assertions that another person's understanding of the way things are is 'pure delusion',
likewise, these refutations too have no solid basis,
and must be regarded as mere projections of the imagination.
Since absolute subjectivity cannot be established objectively,
any argument against contrary theories (assertions of total subjectivity) are self-negating.

You can't say, "everything is subjective (created by consciousness) ...here is objective proof"
. . .

[PadmaVonSamba]

...you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective. There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them. This is not just a conceptual idea. It is a scientific fact.

Some people refuse to believe that there is anything that exists independent of the subject who observes them, except, quite conveniently, the "truth" that everything is subjective. To them, this is an objective fact.

. . .

[Andrew108]

...you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective. There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them. This is not just a conceptual idea. It is a scientific fact.

Some people refuse to believe that there is anything that exists independent of the subject who observes them, except, quite conveniently, the "truth" that everything is subjective. To them, this is an objective fact.

. . .

Right. And that is a reification of subjective experience. Quiet the opposite of what is necessary.

[krodha]

The point that I have made again and again is that you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective.

No one has claimed that there is a reality which is only subjective. The idea that anyone has suggested that any sort of reality is solely subjective is your own notion. A strawman through and through.

There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them.

Conventionally, sure.

This is not just a conceptual idea.

Fortunately, it is just a concept, though it undoubtably appears as much more than a mere concept to those entrenched in confusion.

It is a scientific fact.

You're reaching with that one.

It is a truth that is as 'normal' as you can get.

According to you.

Accepting that fact is the start of genuine integration.

Far from it. Though perhaps it is the start of further integration, or more accurately; "entrenchment" in delusion.

In terms of how to integrate I would say that whilst reality has characteristics it does not have a theory about itself. So why have a theory about it? Why not just be what it is? This is effortless integration.

Yes, well, in the throes of ignorance theory becomes mistaken for "how it is". Your alleged "how it is" is pure theory, pure concept.

What you are saying is that you should develop a view based on centuries old reasoning and then apply that to your experience in order to liberate yourself from the 'normal'. I think that is going about things the wrong way. I think that is deluded.

If you do not have the wherewithal to see how these principles apply to your direct experience precisely in this immediacy, then that is your own limitation to work through. There is nothing archaic about it, the only "centuries old" decrepit reasoning being displayed here is the material physicalism you champion.

I am a Buddhist.

[Andrew108]

The point that I have made again and again is that you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective.

No one has claimed that there is a reality which is only subjective. The idea that anyone has suggested that any sort of reality is solely subjective is your own notion. A strawman through and through.

You have claimed that. I will tell you how. You have said that if we see a mountain then there are two aspects. The internal perception of the mountain and the external manifestation. In your view, both the internal perception and the external manifestation are linked to karmic traces. In the first instance the perception of the mountain is linked to the karmic traces inherent in the mind stream of the individual and in second instance the manifestation of the mountain externally, is linked to the karmic traces inherent in the mindstreams of many individual streams of consciousness. So in both cases the mountain is a subjective creation. The only difference being the difference between one subjectivity and many subjectivities.

[Sönam]

Do you have a reference for that?

Just to observe than some are scotched to references ... what more can a reference bring? What would it changes with or without?

Sönam

Sorry Sönam, I don't understand what you mean.

not surprized ... words are clear.

Sönam

[Grigoris]

Have you any way of showing me this entity that you call the mountain? Do I have any means of perceiving it outside of my subjective mechanism of perception?

So how do you know that there is a objectively existent phenomenon known as "mountain"?

Quite simply, you cannot.

Now this does not necessarily mean that there is not an objectively existent phenomenon known as "mountain", but it makes it impossible to prove it.

[Andrew108]

Have you any way of showing me this subjective entity that you call the mountain? Do I have any means of perceiving it outside of my subjective mechanism of perception?

So how do you know that there is a objectively existent phenomenon known as "mountain"?

Quite simply, you cannot.

Now this does not necessarily mean that there is not an objectively existent phenomenon known as "mountain", but it makes it impossible to prove it.

Actually no. If we used a non-sentient device to measure and map the mountain then we would know that whilst it is true that our sentience is perceiving the representation 'mountain', the mountain itself is not appearing only because of our sentience / perception.

[conebeckham]

...you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective. There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them. This is not just a conceptual idea. It is a scientific fact.

Some people refuse to believe that there is anything that exists independent of the subject who observes them, except, quite conveniently, the "truth" that everything is subjective. To them, this is an objective fact.

. . .

This may be true for some people, but it's not really Buddhist thinking.

Subjective observation, as well as objective observed, alone, are not "reality" in either a Buddhist sense or a scientific sense. Quantum theory, and Schrodinger, tell you that. And there's the "Observer Effect" regarding light, and the wave/particle "dichotomy." Subjective observation has only recently been factored in to scientific models of the "real," or the "objective."

In general, science is concerned with the objective condition, while Buddhism may be said to be concerned with the contents of mind, what most would call the subjective condition of sentient beings. But it's really not that simple--Buddhism has much to say about the "objective condition" --but it is talked about mainly in terms of lack of ignorance, removal of obscurations, and transcendence of concept, or conceptual apparatus. Even those Buddhist "views" which posit an existing Absolute take care to note that it is beyond conceptual grasp.

[PadmaVonSamba]

No one has claimed that there is a reality which is only subjective. The idea that anyone has suggested that any sort of reality is solely subjective is your own notion. A strawman through and through.

It has been suggested by Malcolm that the universe is created by consciousness.
Since consciousness is individual (another point made by Malcolm)
Consciousness is therefore subjective.
. . .

[Sönam]

The point that I have made again and again is that you can't tell reality how it should be. Whilst reality has characteristics it would be wrong to say that these characteristics are only subjective. There are characteristics that are also objective - that exist independent of the subject who observes them. This is not just a conceptual idea. It is a scientific fact. It is a truth that is as 'normal' as you can get. Accepting that fact is the start of genuine integration. In terms of how to integrate I would say that whilst reality has characteristics it does not have a theory about itself. So why have a theory about it? Why not just be what it is? This is effortless integration.

What you are saying is that you should develop a view based on centuries old reasoning and then apply that to your experience in order to liberate yourself from the 'normal'. I think that is going about things the wrong way. I think that is deluded.

I am a Buddhist.

Reality? which one? the one now or the one few seconds before? ... and no, you just play with the idea of being a buddhist, would it be part of your materialistic reality?
You start from the standpoint that what your senses feel is the reality, that reality is what you see and so on ...

This discussion goes nowhere, and there is no chance it can change ...

Sönam

[Grigoris]

Actually no. If we used a non-sentient device to measure and map the mountain then we would know that whilst it is true that our sentience is perceiving the representation 'mountain', the mountain itself is not appearing only because of our sentience / perception.

A non sentient device requires a sentient being to construct it and thus will only be able to map characteristics observable to the specific type of sentient being. A camera, for example, is a non sentient device that takes photos of characteristics that are discernible to human eyes, but not necessarily discernible to other beings. Unfortunately what you are proposing is impossible.

[Andrew108]

Subjective observation, as well as objective observed, alone, are not "reality" in either a Buddhist sense or a scientific sense. Quantum theory, and Schrodinger, tell you that. And there's the "Observer Effect" regarding light, and the wave/particle "dichotomy." Subjective observation has only recently been factored in to scientific models of the "real," or the "objective.".

Just to clarify a common misunderstanding about the observer effect. The observer does not have to have consciousness. A non-sentient recording device has the same effect.

In general, science is concerned with the objective condition, while Buddhism may be said to be concerned with the contents of mind, what most would call the subjective condition of sentient beings. But it's really not that simple--Buddhism has much to say about the "objective condition" --but it is talked about mainly in terms of lack of ignorance, removal of obscurations, and transcendence of concept, or conceptual apparatus. Even those Buddhist "views" which posit an existing Absolute take care to note that it is beyond conceptual grasp.

I agree with this. As a descriptor of the natural landscape of wisdom, Buddhism is powerful indeed.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Have you any way of showing me this subjective entity that you call the mountain? Do I have any means of perceiving it outside of my subjective mechanism of perception? .

The appearance of whatever one defines as "mountain" (a very good example, by the way) is subjective.
One person's mountain is another person's mole hill,
but even further than that, whatever constitutes the mountain is constantly changing. Mountains, in fact, are constantly in a state of gradual erosion. The mountain you see today is just a teensy bit smaller than it was yesterday, and, because it is made of components, none of which individually can be called "mountain" or can be said to contain any 'essence of mountain-ness", it can be stated that
There is nothing which exists which can be called a mountain.
The appearance of a mountain is entirely subjective.

...and from this it can be suggested that without subjective observation, no arising of the appearance of a mountain would occur, and this is correct.

However

This does not mean that the ever-changing, dependently arising multitude of components which are subjectively perceived and labeled as "mountain" are merely the product of consciousness, or that the various atomic particles and so forth that make up the components of the mountain do not occur outside of consciousness, or that they were not arranged that way before we perceived them.

To say that nothing occurs until you know about it...that the hole wasn't there until you fell into it...is nonsense,
and in being so, to say that the universe is created by the mind is no different whatsoever than saying it was created by a God. Well, "consciousness" is substituted for "God", but that's really the only major difference.

And it can easily be proved that conditions arise even when there is no awareness of them...and everyone does this all the time all day long: a disease in the body that is not yet detected; a newly discovered star or dinosaur fossil. You check to see if the milk has gone bad, if the water in the shower is warm enough, how many minutes have gone by during meditation, and so on. We are constantly checking on the already occurring conditions of phenomena.

There is stuff happening that we don't know about.
Why is this such a mystery to people?
. . .

[Andrew108]

Actually no. If we used a non-sentient device to measure and map the mountain then we would know that whilst it is true that our sentience is perceiving the representation 'mountain', the mountain itself is not appearing only because of our sentience / perception.

A non sentient device requires a sentient being to construct it and thus will only be able to map characteristics observable to the specific type of sentient being. A camera, for example, is a non sentient device that takes photos of characteristics that are discernible to human eyes, but not necessarily discernible to other beings. Unfortunately what you are proposing is impossible.

All we need to prove is that the mountain has an existence outside of sentience. So the fact that it can be measured by a non-sentient device and has a series of values (height, mass, dimension and so on) mean that it has an existence outside of sentience. Another example would be using a non-sentient device to measure phenomena that don't appear to the senses. I am not denying subjective experience. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to say that 'there is only the subjective since any objective condition is merely an imputed condition that doesn't exist from it's own side'.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Actually no. If we used a non-sentient device to measure and map the mountain then we would know that whilst it is true that our sentience is perceiving the representation 'mountain', the mountain itself is not appearing only because of our sentience / perception.

A non sentient device requires a sentient being to construct it and thus will only be able to map characteristics observable to the specific type of sentient being. A camera, for example, is a non sentient device that takes photos of characteristics that are discernible to human eyes, but not necessarily discernible to other beings. Unfortunately what you are proposing is impossible.

Totally beside the point. It doesn't mean that what the device measures wasn't that way before a being perceived it. In fact, many devices are designed to detect things that otherwise are impossible to observe, and that there would be no awareness of if those devices had not been used.

Many devices prove that specific conditions have been occurring prior to any awareness of them.
. . .