'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

[Sherab]

can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.

The Yogacara Madhyamakas like Santarakshita accept that mind is self-knowing (svasaṃvedana).

N

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

[Yontan]

[also waiting for Namdrol's thoughts]
It's a simple idea that the mind only knows an objective referent from the (albeit immediate) past. We can cognize that we cognize(d), but not cognize a cognition itself. The idea that I can cognize a cognition, and cognize that one, and then that one is very troubling to epistemologists. I myself have no problem with it. My brain isn't that flexible, but I can't see why one couldn't.
Also, there are prasangikas and there are prasangikas. Tsongkhapa, et alum, certainly refute the relative existence of rangrig, but Karmapas VIII and IX, Gorampa and Mipham to name a few, considered themselves prasangika and allowed the relative existence of rangrig.

[Yontan]

Minyak Kunzang Sonam - a Geluk sometimes student of Mipham - puts it like this:
We can see blue, but to be conscious of seeing blue is actually a cognition of "seeing blue," not of actual "blue."
To be conscious that we are conscious of seeing blue is again a third objective referent, and not in itself consciousness cognizing itself. We cannot fully cross our eyes, to coin a phrase.

[Yontan]

I really enjoyed Paul WIlliam's book on the subject, Reflexive Nature of Awareness:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b742C2 ... &q&f=false

As well as Kapstein's review/critique of it:
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethi ... ein001.pdf

-and no, I did not pay $170 for it! Got it through ILL.

[muni]

Yogacara, Mahyamaka is not Dzogchen.

[Yontan]

Taroo datt.

[White Lotus]

magnus...

emptiness is the same as drinking or not drinking a glass of water,
it is different.
it is the same and yet different.
it is neither the same nor different.
it is none of these things, you cant talk about it.
it is all of these things, and in and as every normal thing, includuing all deluded concepts which are infact in their own way enlightened.

magnus, you cant get away from emptiness. every form of idea is emptiness, every view is no more substantial than clouds and yet clouds can bring flood and damage.

i guess i have tried to cover all bases magnus, just playing a game with words. words are empty. i am empty. the moment is empty. this computer is empty. rigpa is empty. non duality is emptyness. you cant get away from emptiness, but can you see it? mind seeing mind. emptiness seeing emptiness. all one and yet not one. emptiness.

the mind sees itself, when you have learnt to look within yourself and found the sensation within, and then it can be said that mind sees itself, or mind can be seen when you look at the objects around you, this normal sensation. mind is normal as a glass of water. not looking for anything that seems special.

best wishes, Tom.

[heart]

magnus...

emptiness is the same as drinking or not drinking a glass of water,
it is different.
it is the same and yet different.
it is neither the same nor different.
it is none of these things, you cant talk about it.
it is all of these things, and in and as every normal thing, includuing all deluded concepts which are infact in their own way enlightened.

magnus, you cant get away from emptiness. every form of idea is emptiness, every view is no more substantial than clouds and yet clouds can bring flood and damage.

i guess i have tried to cover all bases magnus, just playing a game with words. words are empty. i am empty. the moment is empty. this computer is empty. rigpa is empty. non duality is emptyness. you cant get away from emptiness, but can you see it? mind seeing mind. emptiness seeing emptiness. all one and yet not one. emptiness.

the mind sees itself, when you have learnt to look within yourself and found the sensation within, and then it can be said that mind sees itself, or mind can be seen when you look at the objects around you, this normal sensation. mind is normal as a glass of water. not looking for anything that seems special.

best wishes, Tom.

Tom, a lot of words indeed. I hope you enjoyed them.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.

The Yogacara Madhyamakas like Santarakshita accept that mind is self-knowing (svasaṃvedana).

N

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

recollection.

[Sherab]

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

recollection.

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

[Sönam]

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

recollection.

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

I feel the opposite, as soon as there has been an encountering between eye, ear, tongue and so on it is imprinted/registered also if it's not yet known ... knowing can happen at the time of the recollection (for any reason). Why should an experimentation disappear ... also if it has been no conscience of the knowing at the time of the sens even.
It's curious how years after I could "dream" of me walking in a street and clearely seeing an insignifiacnt object, like a bell on a door or such, that of course had no sens or interest or consequences or else, at the time of the walking ..

Sönam

[Yontan]

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.

[mindyourmind]

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.

Or we can just go and practice

[White Lotus]

magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.

[muni]

magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.

Just look into own mind! Guru Rinpoche.

Hello 'my own conceptual drawings, how are you fools? Shall I manipulate you? Shall I be kind to you? All mind. = edit for clarification: when there is fault to see, it is my own mind only. _/\_

truth= IT IS NEITHER MIND NOR ANYTHING BUT MIND. Longchenpa.

All beings have tathagatagarbha
And thus they all posses the cause for buddhahood
So, view all of them as pure
And consider their great kindness.

ps not answering for Magnus, only general.

[Sherab]

A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.

It is an infinite regression problem if you adopt the linear thinking of the Gelugpas.

For the yogacaras madhyamikas, knowing of the knowing is part and parcel of the knowing. It occurs simultaneously with knowing.

If you consider mind to be non-local, ie., there is knowing at all "possible points" "within" mind, then it makes sense for knowing of the knowing to arise at the time of the knowing. Think of a knife. Where does "cutting" occurs in a knife. Answer: at the cutting edge. At the cutting edge, the edge that is cutting is also cut. If the cutting edge is non-local i.e. all possible points of the knife is a cutting "edge", then at the time of cutting, the knife is also cut.

[heart]

magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.

Please, don't feel offended. True emptiness leaves no experience since it destroys the mind.

/magnus

[White Lotus]

not offended, just intrigued. a perfect mirror to see myself. but what puzzles me is... who or what would be offended especially since there is no i nor mine to be offended.

respects Magnus.

Tom.

[heart]

not offended, just intrigued. a perfect mirror to see myself. but what puzzles me is... who or what would be offended especially since there is no i nor mine to be offended.

respects Magnus.

Tom.

Offense is just a bunch of thoughts arising like a dark cloud from the clinging to an I, nothing else.

/magnus

[muni]

There is nothing to undo, nothing to transform in the nonseparation of samsara or nirvana; all arises, subsides in itself. There is no samsara to undo or nirvana to reach.