padma norbu wrote:• The mind is not existent since even the victorious ones do not see it
• The mind is not nonexistent since it is the basis of samsara and nirvana
• This is not a contradiction, but the middle way of unity. May we realize the nature of mind, free from extremes.
Agree/disagree? Elaborate, clarify?
It's perfect, as it is. No elaboration or clarification needed.
Yes, these 3 points you've quoted are easiest to grasp even just intellectually. I thought everything prior was more more interesting to think about and dissect, however. I think I have witnessed many discussions and disagreement centered around these issues. Part of the problem is vocabulary, of course. But, I have read this whole thing at least 6 times since I copied it into my iPhone:
appearance is mind and understand that your mind is the root of all phenomena. In this context, you must distinguish between appearance (nangwa) and the perceived object (nang-yal).
The mere presence of visible forms, sounds, and so forth, that are the objects of the six types of consciousness is called "perceived objects." Thoughts of attachment, anger, or delusion based on the "perceived objects" are "appearances," for example, the feeling of attachment to a pleasant object, the feeling of anger toward an unpleasant one and the indifferent feeling toward something neutral. You must understand that such appearances are the functions of your own mind.
Perceived objects, such as form, sound, and so forth, have appeared due to mind, but they are not mind--they are the shared appearances of sentient beings and do not possess any true existence, besides being phenomena of dependent origination.
Here it distinguishes between "appearances" and "perceived objects" but then turns around and calls the perceived objects as "shared appearances of sentient beings." Bad choice of words in double-using "appearances" two different ways or...?
Apparently, "appearances" are here described as personal feelings regarding perceived objects and perceived objects are "shared appearances" (whatever that is*) of sentient beings which do not possess any true existence, besides being phenomena of dependent origination.
Well, sentient beings fit that description as well; they are dependently originated and do not possess any true existence beyond being phenomena of dependent origination. So, dependently originated beings are dependently originating perceived objects (which are not mind) and then appearances (which ARE mind) arise in relation to these perceived objects.
*Where does all the sentient beings and perceived objects dependently originate from if not ultimately mind?
Is there not a semantic distinction between Mind and mind, one referring to dharmakaya and one referring to conceptual mind?
I don't mean to get all nitpicky about it, but it seems that the Great Omniscient One was kind of getting all nitpicky about it when he said:
"ignorant people claim that everything is mind.
They are deluded about the three types of appearance,
Have many shortcomings, mix things up and overexaggerate.
Meditators, give up such unwholesome ways!"
While specifics are important for understanding, at times I am inclined to agree with a poster here who recently said that it is difficult to determine one's level of understanding as they might just be expressing themselves poorly. Yeah, or just with different words that seem
What are these perceived objects and appearances if not ultimately some type of mind stuff? They arise and are perceived entirely by the mind, the minds of sentient beings which are ultimately all one thing, dharmakaya, at the root, which is called Absolute Mind (sems nyid).
Perhaps part of my problem is also a western way of quantifying things and not being familiar enough with the kayas to accept these classifications as explanation enough. It seems like the distinction between dharmakaya and the other kayas is practically the same as subject and object except that within the dharmakaya there is no distinction. I was just reading earlier that in dharmakaya there is no separation of anything, but in the rupakaya there is and this is where the Buddhas form (comparison was made to multiple rainbows). I think of the sambogakaya as like the energy being "thrown off" from the dharmakaya, so I think of it as "mind-stuff" or something. When you really think about it, it doesn't seem to explain what the stuff really is, but I suppose that could be because it doesn't have an essence. Seems funny, though, to think about all the minutiae science has discovered in the physical realm and then boil it down to the three kayas... it is almost like going back to a primitive kind of thought, if you try to stretch your brain to see it that way (I know you are used to seeing it as the most high knowledge).
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron