Appearances and mind

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I think the problem is "of him or herself". The essence is emptiness the nature is luminosity - no him or herself there hence neither any solipsism nor pluralism.

[Acchantika]

The difference between the Dzogchen view(s) and solipsism is something I'm very interested in understanding.

I second this.

[Malcolm]

The difference between the Dzogchen view(s) and solipsism is something I'm very interested in understanding.

I second this.

Dzogchen does not suggest a) that external objects do not conventionally exist b) that external minds do not conventionally exist. All that it suggests is that appearances are mind.

[Acchantika]

The difference between the Dzogchen view(s) and solipsism is something I'm very interested in understanding.

I second this.

Dzogchen does not suggest a) that external objects do not conventionally exist b) that external minds do not conventionally exist. All that it suggests is that appearances are mind.

Then the premise of Dzogchen is just the observation that all you ever 'know' is a projection of your mind. But everyone knows this, no? Its perceptual theory. It's called the "epistemological problem" in Western philosophy, i.e, its a problem, not a solution. And conceding as a result of this that nothing can be known beyond the originator of this internal structure (the mind) is called 'solipsism'. Conceding instead that things can be known beyond the mind is called realism, and the only thing I understand about Dzogchen is that it is neither. So what am I missing?

I want to know how the mountain got there. The texts say, "the mountain originates from the mind". Either I read this as a kind of idealist idea, or I read it as a merely perceptual idea. Apparently neither is correct.

[Pero]

Then the premise of Dzogchen is just the observation that all you ever 'know' is a projection of your mind. But everyone knows this, no? Its perceptual theory. It's called the "epistemological problem" in Western philosophy, i.e, its a problem, not a solution. And conceding as a result of this that nothing can be known beyond the originator of this internal structure (the mind) is called 'solipsism'. Conceding instead that things can be known beyond the mind is called realism, and the only thing I understand about Dzogchen is that it is neither. So what am I missing?

I want to know how the mountain got there. The texts say, "the mountain originates from the mind". Either I read this as a kind of idealist idea, or I read it as a merely perceptual idea. Apparently neither is correct.

In solipsism mind is the only real thing. In Dzogchen, mind does not exist. You see the mountain as a mountain because of your karma.

[deepbluehum]

This is a very important discussion. Khenpo Gangshar does not say that objects are mind. He explains appearance to be the judging mind that has dualistic thought about objects, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc. The dualism is appearance and that appearance is mind. The object being judged is an object, not an appearance. This is a very important distinction that must be understood. Once you realize that this dualism is mind, then you can give up this activity and see the unification.

[padma norbu]

Anyone who wants to get a better understanding should buy The Supreme Source and read page 95 (of course, reading everything before that would be a good idea, too, as well as everything after it).

[Acchantika]

In solipsism mind is the only real thing. In Dzogchen, mind does not exist. You see the mountain as a mountain because of your karma.

If the mind doesn't exist what is luminous?

[Acchantika]

Anyone who wants to get a better understanding should buy The Supreme Source and read page 95 (of course, reading everything before that would be a good idea, too, as well as everything after it).

Partly what I am trying to understand is how to read that book as not positing that there is an ineffable, non-graspable primordial basis of all existence that is spontaneously self-luminous and the source of dharmakaya, inlcuding the mountain and the mind, not simply as concepts, but in the literal sense of sourcing and pervading the entire dimension of reality, hence "The Supreme Source".

Can you suggest anything that would help me put that book in context?

[deepbluehum]

In solipsism mind is the only real thing. In Dzogchen, mind does not exist. You see the mountain as a mountain because of your karma.

If the mind doesn't exist what is luminous?

The nonexistence. Weird but true.

[Malcolm]

Then the premise of Dzogchen is just the observation that all you ever 'know' is a projection of your mind. But everyone knows this, no? Its perceptual theory. It's called the "epistemological problem" in Western philosophy, i.e, its a problem, not a solution. And conceding as a result of this that nothing can be known beyond the originator of this internal structure (the mind) is called 'solipsism'. Conceding instead that things can be known beyond the mind is called realism, and the only thing I understand about Dzogchen is that it is neither. So what am I missing?

I want to know how the mountain got there. The texts say, "the mountain originates from the mind". Either I read this as a kind of idealist idea, or I read it as a merely perceptual idea. Apparently neither is correct.

There are two answers to this question in Dzogchen.

a) external phenomena are projections of minds. A mind is capable of projecting an appearance for another mind: classical example, the woman who meditates on herself as a tigresss and terrifies her village.

b) external phenomena are a result of causes and conditions; their appearance is a result of traces -- for example, the liquid that has six different appearances according to how it is perceived by beings of the six realms.

As far as the latter is concerned, Longchenpa observes that phenomena are not mental factors, as in yogacara.

[Pero]

There are two answers to this question in Dzogchen.

a) external phenomena are projections of minds. A mind is capable of projecting an appearance for another mind: classical example, the woman who meditates on herself as a tigresss and terrifies her village.

b) external phenomena are a result of causes and conditions; their appearance is a result of traces -- for example, the liquid that has six different appearances according to how it is perceived by beings of the six realms.

Are these two not connected?

[padma norbu]

Anyone who wants to get a better understanding should buy The Supreme Source and read page 95 (of course, reading everything before that would be a good idea, too, as well as everything after it).

Partly what I am trying to understand is how to read that book as not positing that there is an ineffable, non-graspable primordial basis of all existence that is spontaneously self-luminous and the source of dharmakaya, inlcuding the mountain and the mind, not simply as concepts, but in the literal sense of sourcing and pervading the entire dimension of reality, hence "The Supreme Source".

Can you suggest anything that would help me put that book in context?

Because it's not nothing and it's not something. Isn't that pretty much what Mahayana says about bodhicitta?

I don't know if I should say more than this. I feel like I could answer this question pretty satisfactorily, but I'm going to let a more experienced person decide what is appropriate to say here. Check out the index and Chapter 1 here of Gampopa's "Jewel Ornament of Liberation"... it gets right into it, comparing to ideas you are more familiar with, I think: http://www.snowlionpub.com/chapters/jeorli.htm

[Malcolm]

There are two answers to this question in Dzogchen.

a) external phenomena are projections of minds. A mind is capable of projecting an appearance for another mind: classical example, the woman who meditates on herself as a tigresss and terrifies her village.

b) external phenomena are a result of causes and conditions; their appearance is a result of traces -- for example, the liquid that has six different appearances according to how it is perceived by beings of the six realms.

Are these two not connected?

Not necessarily. Actually Dzogchen does not really provide an answer for this question that is not found also in Madhyamaka. The first example is a Yogacara Madhyamaka response. The second is a Sautrantilka Madhyamaka type response.

[Malcolm]

Anyone who wants to get a better understanding should buy The Supreme Source and read page 95 (of course, reading everything before that would be a good idea, too, as well as everything after it).

Partly what I am trying to understand is how to read that book as not positing that there is an ineffable, non-graspable primordial basis of all existence that is spontaneously self-luminous and the source of dharmakaya, inlcuding the mountain and the mind, not simply as concepts, but in the literal sense of sourcing and pervading the entire dimension of reality, hence "The Supreme Source".

Can you suggest anything that would help me put that book in context?

First of all "mind" here is short for "awakened mind" i.e. bodhicitta or the nature of the mind. It does pervade all of your own appearances. It is an all=creating king because all appearances are constructed by your mind and come from your mind, thus it is a king since it is the dominates all of this constructive activity. It's nature is inexpressible since it is empty from the very beginning and not established as something ultimately real in its own right.

Also this book is sems sde class, which means it is commentary on the completion stage of Mahāyoga and does not really stand as an independent tradition. No one attains rainbow body through sems sde alone.

N

[Acchantika]

First of all "mind" here is short for "awakened mind" i.e. bodhicitta or the nature of the mind. It does pervade all of your own appearances. It is an all=creating king because all appearances are constructed by your mind and come from your mind, thus it is a king since it is the dominates all of this constructive activity. It's nature is inexpressible since it is empty from the very beginning and not established as something ultimately real in its own right.

What I am asking is: Is this conclusion a phenomenological or ontological one? Does it concern the plethora of reality as it appears, or "as it is" in non-apparent reality and apparent reality alike?

Because in both cases, the above statement would be true, but mean entirely different things. You seem to express the former, while others express the latter.

It's difficult to express myself without the trappings of dualistic language.

[Malcolm]

First of all "mind" here is short for "awakened mind" i.e. bodhicitta or the nature of the mind. It does pervade all of your own appearances. It is an all=creating king because all appearances are constructed by your mind and come from your mind, thus it is a king since it is the dominates all of this constructive activity. It's nature is inexpressible since it is empty from the very beginning and not established as something ultimately real in its own right.

What I am asking is: Is this conclusion a phenomenological or ontological one? Does it concern the plethora of reality as it appears, or "as it is" in non-apparent reality and apparent reality alike?

Because in both cases, the above statement would be true, but mean entirely different things. You seem to express the former, while others express the latter.

It's difficult to express myself without the trappings of dualistic language.

It is both.

[alpha]

the conclusion is epistemological.

[Pero]

There are two answers to this question in Dzogchen.

a) external phenomena are projections of minds. A mind is capable of projecting an appearance for another mind: classical example, the woman who meditates on herself as a tigresss and terrifies her village.

b) external phenomena are a result of causes and conditions; their appearance is a result of traces -- for example, the liquid that has six different appearances according to how it is perceived by beings of the six realms.

Are these two not connected?

Not necessarily. ...

Could you elaborate a bit more?

[Acchantika]

What I am asking is: Is this conclusion a phenomenological or ontological one?

It is both.

Ok, thanks.

the conclusion is epistemological.

Hah!