catmoon wrote:I see some reason to suppose there is an external reality, but I recognize that it is a dangerous assumption. The only thing it has going for it is that it is less dangerous than the opposite assumption, which is pure nihilism, or solipsism at best. Once things exist only in the mind, bodhicitta has lost its object - the other guy. Altruism becomes self gratification. And so on.
.That's only taking one step, in seeing that all things are empty (non-existent)
If you stop there then you don't see that all things are created by mind alone.
If there is not even mind, then it is true nihilism.
But it is also not solipsism because it is not the mind of materialists.
If there is no object then there can be no subject.
But this is at the level of study and conceptualization.
To really see emptiness is to see true mind. And to see true mind is to see emptiness.
At that time then you also see the real other guy, not just the sentient being you vow to liberate. Because that also is an illusion.
"Buddhas don't save Buddhas" as Bodhidharma said it.
catmoon wrote:.That's only taking one step, in seeing that all things are empty (non-existent)
But isn't seeing emptiness as nonexistence a complete violation of the Middle Path principle?
catmoon wrote:But it is also not solipsism because it is not the mind of materialists.
Huh? If there's nothing but my mind and the things it creates, I'm a solipsist. What does materialism have to do with it?
catmoon wrote:If there is no object then there can be no subject.
Dat seems logical. There is however, an object. Just not existing the way we think.
That is okay for a Hinayana understanding, to help lead us to detachment and less suffering. But this is not a Mahayana view.
catmoon wrote:That is okay for a Hinayana understanding, to help lead us to detachment and less suffering. But this is not a Mahayana view.
Wait but.. you're saying the whole of Mahayana holds the mind-only view??
Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous and 5 guests