Can we ever really understand consciousness?

[padma norbu]

Well, I guess this is all too abstract for me. I bow out of another thread I started. Don't care anymore.

[adinatha]

I skimmed that Tulku Urgyen passage:

Development stage means to mentally create or imagine the form of the buddhas. Even though visualization is at this point an artificial construct, a mentally fabricated act, still it is an imitation that resembles what is already present in ourselves. Until we are able to practice the ultimate development stage, we need to visualize or mentally create pure images in order to approach that absolute state.

We are not saying different things. Somehow you are understanding it to mean the buddhas travel from their pure lands to inhabit your body. I dunno

Again: nope. Remember what I said about Urgyen's use of the term "carbon copies?" Well, yeah, you might want to re-read that. He also said the Buddhas are enlightened beings, empty cognizance infused with awareness, compassionate beings committed to helping deluded beings and that the difference between a Buddha and a deluded being is knowing his real nature. So, plenty of things that are different from what you've said and somehow you are not understanding that.

That's all Intro to Vajrayana: 101. That's not upper-division let alone graduate school dharma. We're not talking on the same wave length brotherman. Okay, everything you said is right. I'm wrong. All the best...

[padma norbu]

Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see where you've given erroneous advice until someone points it out and then you stick to your guns and disagree with, for example, the great Dzogchen master Namkhai Norbu... or explain it away casually like in the case with the 5 lights.

However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate. Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.

[adinatha]

Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see or admit when you've given erroneous advice.

I haven't said anything wrong yet.

However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate.

You haven't picked anything apart yet.

Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.

Boring.

[Vajrahridaya]

At some level, these "lights" are not light. They are appearances with a basis in the physical body.

They are the radiance's of elements, they are the elements on formless levels. They arise at the same time as the formless levels of consciousness. They are not the same things you see when you push your eyes, that's physical stuff. The pure lights are on a less gross dimension of awareness.

I realize that is the explanation. I was just using a convenient example

Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.

[adinatha]

They are the radiance's of elements, they are the elements on formless levels. They arise at the same time as the formless levels of consciousness. They are not the same things you see when you push your eyes, that's physical stuff. The pure lights are on a less gross dimension of awareness.

I realize that is the explanation. I was just using a convenient example

Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.

There is a more fundamental explanation about them too related to wisdom winds in the physical heart. I can't remember if that's a secret or not.

[padma norbu]

Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see or admit when you've given erroneous advice.

I haven't said anything wrong yet.

There was some disagreement on that.

However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate.

You haven't picked anything apart yet.

Others have. I haven't bothered.

Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.

Boring.

This is why I haven't bothered.

[padma norbu]

BTW, is this a bad translation? People seem to say his is the definitive translation and that he is a great translator.

"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten kinds of Wisdom produced single thought by single thought. What are these ten? All Buddhas can, in a single thought, appear to descend from heaven in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest birth as Bodhisattvas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest renunciation of the mundane and study of the Way to liberation in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest attainment of the Perfect Correct Awakening under Bodhi-trees in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest turning wonderful Dharma- wheels in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest education of sentient beings and service of the Buddhas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest untold variety of Buddha-bodies in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest all kinds of sublimes in infinite worlds, innumerable sublimes, the freedoms of the Thus Come Ones, and the treasury of omniscience. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest countless pure beings in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest the Buddhas of past, present, and future in infinite worlds, with various faculties and characters, various diligences, and various practices and understandings, attaining the Perfect Correct Awakening in the past, present and future. These are the ten."

— Avatamsaka Sutra Translated into English by Thomas Cleary

BTW, if the Buddha couldn't think, how do you suppose he decided to produce Siddhartha Gautoma as a nirmanakaya emanation as a display in order to teach sentient beings?

PS - yes, I really am done with this thread. I have no desire to engage in any more discussion about this, these are just parting thoughts.

[Vajrahridaya]

Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.

There is a more fundamental explanation about them too related to wisdom winds in the physical heart. I can't remember if that's a secret or not.

I don't know, I've heard about that, read about that, felt some things about that... but, I don't know specifics. I wouldn't mind hearing more about it though!

[adinatha]

BTW, is this a bad translation? People seem to say his is the definitive translation and that he is a great translator.

"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten kinds of Wisdom produced single thought by single thought. What are these ten? All Buddhas can, in a single thought, appear to descend from heaven in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest birth as Bodhisattvas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest renunciation of the mundane and study of the Way to liberation in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest attainment of the Perfect Correct Awakening under Bodhi-trees in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest turning wonderful Dharma- wheels in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest education of sentient beings and service of the Buddhas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest untold variety of Buddha-bodies in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest all kinds of sublimes in infinite worlds, innumerable sublimes, the freedoms of the Thus Come Ones, and the treasury of omniscience. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest countless pure beings in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest the Buddhas of past, present, and future in infinite worlds, with various faculties and characters, various diligences, and various practices and understandings, attaining the Perfect Correct Awakening in the past, present and future. These are the ten."

— Avatamsaka Sutra Translated into English by Thomas Cleary

BTW, if the Buddha couldn't think, how do you suppose he decided to produce Siddhartha Gautoma as a nirmanakaya emanation as a display in order to teach sentient beings?

PS - yes, I really am done with this thread. I have no desire to engage in any more discussion about this, these are just parting thoughts.

A nirmanakaya is a result of the aspirations and good karma of the beings to be trained. There's no decision to emanate. It's natural. You can't read "thought" literally. A buddha has realized nonself, there's no one thinking a thought.

[5heaps]

I'm not saying it is unchanging at all.

sure you are..just like "the illusion of spac" is unchanging so is the illusion of the mind..it doesnt function under its own cause and effect, it merely emerges when its parts come together

An apple is not an emergent property of a certain location. An apple is an evolved living organism.

i didnt say it was an emergent property of a certain location, i said it is an emergent property of physical parts in a certain location. you cant cut such an apple, you can only cut the physical parts and bring about 2 emergent halves of an apple.

you cant actually cut the apple, the apple is just an illusion it cannot act under its own causes and conditions, it depends on that from which it emerged (the physical parts)

[PadmaVonSamba]

"The difference between buddhas and sentient beings is the difference between knowing or not knowing our innate nature."

That is my understanding.

It also, by the way, reminds me of a very funny quote attributed to Salvador Dali:
"The only difference between a madman and myself, it that I am not mad"

[adinatha]

I'm not saying it is unchanging at all.

sure you are..just like "the illusion of spac" is unchanging so is the illusion of the mind..it doesnt function under its own cause and effect, it merely emerges when its parts come together

What did I say was changing? Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence, causality, nidanas, etc. The dharmadhatu is unchanging.

An apple is not an emergent property of a certain location. An apple is an evolved living organism.

i didnt say it was an emergent property of a certain location, i said it is an emergent property of physical parts in a certain location. you cant cut such an apple, you can only cut the physical parts and bring about 2 emergent halves of an apple. [/quote]

This sort of metaphysical speculation is just semantics.

you cant actually cut the apple, the apple is just an illusion it cannot act under its own causes and conditions, it depends on that from which it emerged (the physical parts)

I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.

[gnegirl]

[5heaps]

I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.

emergent property is an actual philosophy, unlike your "pentagon mirror room" and "illusion of space" example. if mind is like those then mind is unchanging, for the reasons ive explained

Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence

how is it produced if its like "the illusion of space"? space is unchanging. an illusion of space is a nonexistent. how can those be like mind, which is a changing thing?

mind is changing because its momentary..is space momentary? is a nonexistent momentary?

[LastLegend]

Consciousnesses (8 of them) are the effects of mind now. These are what we have now. When we become enlightenment, the effects of mind will be greater.

[adinatha]

I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.

emergent property is an actual philosophy, unlike your "pentagon mirror room" and "illusion of space" example. if mind is like those then mind is unchanging, for the reasons ive explained

The mirror example comes from some monk (I forget who) who actually built one of these mirror rooms to illustrate an example from the Avatamsaka Sutra. I didn't make it up.

You have not established your point. You need to do that. All you've done is throw out some jargon.

Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence

how is it produced if its like "the illusion of space"? space is unchanging. an illusion of space is a nonexistent. how can those be like mind, which is a changing thing?

mind is changing because its momentary..is space momentary? is a nonexistent momentary?

If you have an idea that there is space, then yes. How do you separate space from your awareness? Impossible. These two are co-emergent.

[username]

One can take many teachers of opposing views and then contemplate for oneself and possibly change one's views through the years too. Also in any advanced level within any subject or discipline discussed by many, no teacher means mass diversions based on what's important to different people currently and mass confusion.

[padma norbu]

Offered without comment...

http://www.lamrimnotes.webs.com/dzogchen.html

[5heaps]

If you have an idea that there is space, then yes. How do you separate space from your awareness? Impossible. These two are co-emergent.

they are different things, they exist as separate things by definition. perhaps what youre trying to say is that in order for mind to arise it needs an object to engage with (ie. cognition is not possible without cognition of something). but this still doesnt explain how mind is like "the illusion of space", which is an ontological statement, rather than a statement about its production