asunthatneversets wrote:There is no content of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a container. There is nothing beyond the
appearances.
Contents here refer to the phenomena (dharma) in that stream of consciousness.
What is it that you consider the absolute to be? And how are you defining 'emptiness'? Where are
you finding permanence and true existence?
The side of the body is the absolute.
'Emptiness' is another term for the absolute (body).
On the side of the body, one finds permanence and true existence.
The sense faculties are imputed notions of ignorance. As are both internal and external.
No, the sense faculties are neutral of any imputed notions of ignorance, the same for the all (internal
and external.
Consciousness doesn't perceive any objects of form, being that objects of form are also products of
imputation and ignorance.
Consciousness is that which perceived in two divisions (subject and object), these two divisions
(including the various forms) of perception are the inherent aspect of consciousness which are not
cause by imputation and ignorance. Therefore, in the absence of imputation and ignorance, the two
divisions remained as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness.
However you are correct in stating that a subject must be present in order for objects to be seemingly
perceived. Dzogchen's dividing line isn't clear because there's no such thing as a dividing line outside
of imputed ignorance, and being that no dividing line is truly established within imputed ignorance,
there is no dividing line. Truly, in dzogchen there isn't even 'no dividing line', because such a
conclusion would require the initial presence of a dividing line to negate in the first place.
The dzogchen system does not build outside consciousness, therefore it is subject to the same principle
of consciousness, i.e. subject to its two-fold divisions, even though it is not clearly stated, the
distinction exist.
You may need to study Mipham's The Lion’s Roar Proclaiming Extrinsic Emptiness:
"the ultimate has both a nondeluded subject and a nondelusory object, because what exists there
cannot be invalidated (gnod pa) by a valid cognition that proves otherwise, because it is what is
proven after the reasoning establishing emptiness has already been applied, and because in
establishing it according to conventional validating cognition, no one in this world, including the
gods, can dispute it in accordance with the Dharma. "
How can a notion be neutral? A notion needs to be "about" something. One can only have a notion
in relation to a person, place, thing, idea etc.
Notion itself is neutral, but when it is derived from the basis of delusion or intellect, then it is of
delusion or intellect.
and I suppose one could argue that conceptualization is itself a mere appearance if it's left in it's
suchness
Thought or conceptualization is not the dependent arisen nature, if a mental image is maintained by
thought, it is of the imaginary nature, hence does not inherently exist. Though thusness exists in both
natures.
Define 'means', I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term 'means'?
In the definitive dharma and yogacara of the chinese buddhism, the means refer to the function of the body. It is not skillful means, provisional meaning, gradual means and so on, rather it is the capacity that is inherent, in the same way as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness is inherent.
I take it by 'essence' you mean svabhāva? I define thusness/suchness the same as mere appearance.
Essence here refered to the body (thusness), mere appearance (dependent arisen nature) is the means of the body, not the body itself.
Jyoti
