Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 36  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2190
Quote:
The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)?

Short answer: no. But there is a scenario where the coverings are removed which allows for it to express itself, like the clouds burning off and revealing the sun.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
anjali wrote:
Astus wrote:
So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.


The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)? To hijack a zen phrase, is it possible to "turn the light and illuminate back?" From the perspective of self-reflexive knowing, this can be interpreted as taking the light of one's awareness and turning it back on itself. There are folks who say this can be done, and describe it as a singular experience.



The omniscience of the a buddha is self-knowing, as I mentioned before.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.


Trivial and untrue.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am
Posts: 116
Malcolm wrote:
When you have relinquished all traces for rebirth, automatically the twelve āyatanas will cease at the break up of the body. This is classic "hināyāna" nirvana. Peter Harvey's books suggests that after the eradication of affliction there is a tiny shred of evidence in the Nikayas that Buddha suggests that there is a which vinnana/vijñāna survives in a now unconditioned state (i.e. a state unconditioned by affliction) and that this is nirvana intended by the Buddha. He nevertheless insists that this continuum is not to be referred to as a self, and that Buddha would find it inappropriate to do so.


There is also that odd ayantana:

Quote:
There is, monks, that ayantana wherein there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air ... and so on. (Udana VIII, i).


And speaking of Peter and the attâ:

Quote:
"As will be shown below, though, the early sources used by the Theravâda are bereft of any such explicit denial. The idea that Buddhism, 'denies the self', though, has become a commonplace of Religious Studies” (Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind, p. 7).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
oushi wrote:
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.


Trivial and untrue.

I thought you can do better than that. It is very simple, thus difficult to refute. Probably that's why you went straight to trivializing it. Knowing cannot be ultimate simply because it can be unknown.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Koji wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
When you have relinquished all traces for rebirth, automatically the twelve āyatanas will cease at the break up of the body. This is classic "hināyāna" nirvana. Peter Harvey's books suggests that after the eradication of affliction there is a tiny shred of evidence in the Nikayas that Buddha suggests that there is a which vinnana/vijñāna survives in a now unconditioned state (i.e. a state unconditioned by affliction) and that this is nirvana intended by the Buddha. He nevertheless insists that this continuum is not to be referred to as a self, and that Buddha would find it inappropriate to do so.


There is also that odd ayantana:

Quote:
There is, monks, that ayantana wherein there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air ... and so on. (Udana VIII, i).


And speaking of Peter and the attâ:

Quote:
"As will be shown below, though, the early sources used by the Theravâda are bereft of any such explicit denial. The idea that Buddhism, 'denies the self', though, has become a commonplace of Religious Studies” (Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind, p. 7).


Correct, but you have to read the last chapter, where he gives his conclusion. It all basically boils down to what Nāgārjuna says, sometimes Buddha said self, sometimes he said not self, and one needs to understand the context. When the self is used a prajñāpti, a designation, then this is acceptable. When trying to discern the nature of things, it is not acceptable.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
oushi wrote:
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.


Trivial and untrue.

I thought you can do better than that. It is very simple, thus difficult to refute. Probably that's why you went straight to trivializing it. Knowing cannot be ultimate simply because it can be unknown.


Omniscience is irreversible, that is why your statement is trivial and untrue.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is irreversible, that is why your statement is trivial and untrue.

All-knowing is always available since it is present through unknowability of all dharmas. Because dharmas are imperceptible, omniscience is free from knowing.
Simply speaking, there is nothing that can be known.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is irreversible, that is why your statement is trivial and untrue.

All-knowing is always available since it is present through unknowability of all dharmas. Because dharmas are imperceptible, omniscience is free from knowing.
Simply speaking, there is nothing that can be known.



Umm, that is really not how omniscience is described, you are entitled to whatever you like to think.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
you are entitled to whatever you like to think

That's given for all of us.
Malcolm wrote:
Umm, that is really not how omniscience is described

This is precisely how it is described in prajnaparamita for example. You may disagree, and try to know what's in my pocket, but you will have a hard time succeeding. Same goes for all past, present, and future Buddhas.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 407
Malcolm wrote:
anjali wrote:
Astus wrote:
So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.


The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)? To hijack a zen phrase, is it possible to "turn the light and illuminate back?" From the perspective of self-reflexive knowing, this can be interpreted as taking the light of one's awareness and turning it back on itself. There are folks who say this can be done, and describe it as a singular experience.



The omniscience of the a buddha is self-knowing, as I mentioned before.

I'm in the "self-knowing" camp as well. It's somewhat of a mystery to me why people out-right reject such an experience is possible when we have the testimony of those who say it is. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with entertaining such a possibility because it seems to hint at a self. Which of course it doesn't at all.

_________________
All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Buddha
If there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 407
smcj wrote:
Quote:
The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)?

Short answer: no. But there is a scenario where the coverings are removed which allows for it to express itself, like the clouds burning off and revealing the sun.


What prevents the knowing quality of the mind from turning back on itself?

_________________
All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Buddha
If there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
Malcolm wrote:
But rang bzhin gsal ba which is the sambhogakāya in Dzogchen teachings is definitely not all appearances and is not dependent origination.


I'm struggling to reconcile this comment with,

Malcolm wrote:
As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.


are you distinguishing two different systems here, or that within the twelve āyatanas there are something other than dependently originated appearances?

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
Anjali wrote:
What prevents the knowing quality of the mind from turning back on itself?


I think the answer is that 'self-knowedge' in that sense, is the process of the mind coming to realize its own true nature. There are all kinds of barriers and obstacles to that on the conscious as well as deeper levels. That is why I think that 'realizing emptiness' is a transformation in consciousness. That is the meaning of paravritti in my view. And what prevents that, are all the many hindrances, obstacles and attachments that are challenges in the practice.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2190
Quote:
What prevents the knowing quality of the mind from turning back on itself?

What prevents the seeing part of your your retina from seeing itself?

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
There's a really interesting passage in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad about this idea. Here the sage Yājñavalkya has been challenged to 'show what the Ātman is'. He responds:

Quote:
"You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the Ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the Ātman."

Nobody can know the Ātman inasmuch as the Ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the Ātman can be put, such as "What is the Ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the Ātman because the Shower is the Ātman; the Experiencer is the Ātman; the Seer is the Ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the Ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the Ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the Ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.


Source

I think the Buddhist challenge to that assertion is something like: Why do you say the Ātman is something of which nothing can be spoken, and then go on to talk incessantly about it? So I think the Buddha actually interprets this very passage more scrupulously than the Brahmins who composed it.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.

Bummer. My examples only addressed the first two form of nonduality that you listed.

Let me addressed the third form of nonduality in another way to make the point of the inappropriateness of using the terms conditioned and unconditioned or any other similar pairs in such a discussion.

By definition, conditioned and unconditioned are mutually exclusive. in other words, what is in set A is not in the set of Not A. Therefore this gives rise to the problems of understanding statements like 'the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned'. The nature of A cannot be separated from A. So to say that the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned means that the conditioned has been wrongly labelled as conditioned. It should have been labelled as unconditioned. So effectively, one is forced into one of the extreme position, namely unconditioned. Taking this a step further, if something is unconditioned, it is uncaused. If it is uncaused it is permanent. If it is permanent, it is non-functional. So if the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, then by right, there should not even be appearances/illusions as there should not be anything functioning of anything.

My view is that we are all stuck in ancient way of thinking when addressing the nature of all things, and that gives rise to the inability to come to a consensus on what is the ultimate. That is why I prefer to think in terms of conservation principles. For example, energy can take many forms, yet energy as a whole is conserved. Similarly, we can think of the ultimate as that which is conserved while the relative is merely the various forms of the ultimate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 407
smcj wrote:
Quote:
What prevents the knowing quality of the mind from turning back on itself?

What prevents the seeing part of your your retina from seeing itself?

That's the apparent conundrum, isn't it. The analogy with the retina is inapplicable if one takes the view that self-reflexive knowing is direct and unmediated (no instrument of perception required).

[EDIT] In an effort to steer this back around to the OP, I've read that self-reflexive knowing was first taken and developed by the Yogacarans. I would be curious to know if this was ever mentioned explicitly in the Nikayas or Mahayana prior to Yogacara.

_________________
All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Buddha
If there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by anjali on Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
This is precisely how it is described in prajnaparamita for example.


Sorry, but no.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group