Rebirth and endless time

[Jnana]

There is no such interest. But when there is the arising of insistence on "this is that" and "that is this" then there arises the showing of lack of any support.

Ah. Anyhoo, in a Mahāyāna context there is no innocence of "appearances that happen to the perceiver." This is why the differentiation is made between consciousness and gnosis. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

"vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga" or any other method or buddhist teachings in suttas, sutras or tantras certainly can be of great help to for the arising of acceptance that there is no support at all. However these cannot be a support for "this is that" or "that is this".

Kind regards

[Jnana]

However these cannot be a support for "this is that" or "that is this".

Your proposition that "conceptually and retrospectively referring to experience ... to say that all of this that happens is dependent on mind or independent of mind is speculation," is incorrect. Everything which happens for a perceiver is dependent upon either consciousness or gnosis. Without cognition there is no experience.

Moreover, your proposition that this issue is about "the first cause of perception" is also incorrect. This has nothing to do with a "first cause." This is about the differentiation between deluded cognition and awakened gnosis. All mundane cognitions are conditioned by ignorance (i.e. pratītyasamutpāda: conditioned arising). Buddhas aren't deluded.

All the best,

Geoff

[Rael]

Without cognition there is no experience.

All the best,

Geoff

When the blow out happens and all that is experienced tis without cognition for there is no mind to cognate anymore..

the skandas are of this world...devoid of skandas cognition is a thing of the past...

your cognated yourself into a samsaric corner....your in the burning house of cognition...you think you can think yourself out of it....

your thinking is the trap...coganted constipated and trapped forever....

[ground]

However these cannot be a support for "this is that" or "that is this".

Your proposition that "conceptually and retrospectively referring to experience ... to say that all of this that happens is dependent on mind or independent of mind is speculation," is incorrect. Everything which happens for a perceiver is dependent upon either consciousness or gnosis. Without cognition there is no experience.

Neither cognition nor consciousness can be shown to be an end in themselves.

Moreover, your proposition that this issue is about "the first cause of perception" is also incorrect. This has nothing to do with a "first cause." This is about the differentiation between deluded cognition and awakened gnosis. All mundane cognitions are conditioned by ignorance (i.e. pratītyasamutpāda: conditioned arising). Buddhas aren't deluded.

If you abandon the thought "first cause" then you have to abandon each and every "dependent on mind" and "independent of mind." due to negligence.
And if you do not abandon the thought "first cause" the result is the same, since you cannot find any support.

Kind regards

[Aemilius]

To Rael

The reason is that a Buddha is aware of the three times (past, future and present), and sees them clearly when he is teaching. This is the cause why Lankavatara sutra and several other teachings in Sutras and in Abhidharma are valid for today's world.
There is no danger in that, other than that you would really understand the Dharma.
You don't have to read between the lines, you just have to read them.

If you make samsara a true and absolute reality there is no way of being liberated from it, even for a Buddha. Who was, before enlightenment, an ordinary being, we must remember.

kindly
Aemilius

[Jnana]

If you abandon the thought "first cause" then you have to abandon each and every "dependent on mind" and "independent of mind." due to negligence.

Not so. That appearances are dependent upon mind and concomitant mental factors is conventionally established without any recourse to notions of a "first cause." For example: a hungry ghost sees the appearance of puss, a human sees the appearance of water, and a god sees nectar. Or an even more prosaic example: where a human sees the appearance of a bloated, decaying carcass of a dead rodent to be discarded, a fly sees the appearance of food and a suitable location for laying eggs. In each case the appearance is dependent upon the mind, concomitant mental factors, and habitual tendencies of a particular mental continuum where no "first cause" is established.

All the best,

Geoff

[Rael]

To Rael

The reason is that a Buddha is aware of the three times (past, future and present), and sees them clearly when he is teaching. This is the cause why Lankavatara sutra and several other teachings in Sutras and in Abhidharma are valid for today's world.
There is no danger in that, other than that you would really understand the Dharma.
You don't have to read between the lines, you just have to read them.

If you make samsara a true and absolute reality there is no way of being liberated from it, even for a Buddha. Who was, before enlightenment, an ordinary being, we must remember.

kindly
Aemilius

thanks for reminded me about the Buddha...

I don't dispute that the teachings are timeless in the sense of validity...and that no matter how "Modern" the world becomes..lol...they still hold the key to liberation...

I might have read something more in your statement , and was trying to convey something from a past convo years back elsewhere...sorry if i jumped all over your eloquence...

I think it is a false and misleading tendency in modern Dharma to separate and categorize "dharma" and "science" into two isolated and divorced entities . They both describe the same reality, the same world of existence. It is certainly wrong to claim that Dharma has never said anything about the material universe

People try to interpret the Buddha's words and impose scientific modern theories on them...i just did in another thread
viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3156&p=25574#p25574

The Buddha chose that time and place to plant the seeds of His Medicine...It was a time when science did not exist...there must be a reason ...and why the need do people find to interpret modern day science into it....

thats the essence of my intent...and yet i did it in the thread mentioned...

cheers and sorry if i come across as an arrogant ass at times....and jump on people's eloquence..

[ground]

If you abandon the thought "first cause" then you have to abandon each and every "dependent on mind" and "independent of mind." due to negligence.

Not so. That appearances are dependent upon mind and concomitant mental factors is conventionally established without any recourse to notions of a "first cause." For example: a hungry ghost sees the appearance of puss, a human sees the appearance of water, and a god sees nectar. Or an even more prosaic example: where a human sees the appearance of a bloated, decaying carcass of a dead rodent to be discarded, a fly sees the appearance of food and a suitable location for laying eggs. In each case the appearance is dependent upon the mind, concomitant mental factors, and habitual tendencies of a particular mental continuum where no "first cause" is established.

No first cause is established, yes this is exactly what I said before. But the same holds true for "dependence on mind" which is what you do not accept because there is clinging to an aggregate.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

No first cause is established, yes this is exactly what I said before. But the same holds true for "dependence on mind" which is what you do not accept

You're conflating conventional and ultimate. It is conventionally established that all appearances which arise for an ordinary mental continuum arise in dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors occurring as that very mental continuum. This basis of delusion is designated as the impure dependent nature. No "first cause" is even conventionally established.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

No first cause is established, yes this is exactly what I said before. But the same holds true for "dependence on mind" which is what you do not accept

You're conflating conventional and ultimate.

No. I am not referring to the two truths theory which is just thought. Appearances that happen to the perceiver can be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"). "dependence on mind" cannot be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"), it can only be thought.

It is conventionally established that all appearances which arise for an ordinary mental continuum arise in dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors occurring as that very mental continuum. This basis of delusion is designated as the impure dependent nature.

This is only thought. If thought has the power to establish conventionally then even "first cause" is established. Why? Because it can be thought.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Appearances that happen to the perceiver can be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"). "dependence on mind" cannot be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"), it can only be thought.

Inferential valid cognition establishes that appearances are dependent upon mind and mental factors, etc. Conventional yogic valid cognition establishes it via direct perception.

If thought has the power to establish conventionally then even "first cause" is established. Why? Because it can be thought.

Fallacious conclusion. Pink unicorns can be thought of but cannot be conventionally established. Likewise, a "first cause" cannot be conventionally established.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Appearances that happen to the perceiver can be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"). "dependence on mind" cannot be directly "perceived" (or "experienced"), it can only be thought.

Inferential valid cognition establishes that appearances are dependent upon mind and mental factors, etc. Conventional yogic valid cognition establishes it via direct perception.

There is no validity if the inferred is generally inaccessible to direct perception.

If thought has the power to establish conventionally then even "first cause" is established. Why? Because it can be thought.

Fallacious conclusion. Pink unicorns can be thought of but cannot be conventionally established. Likewise, a "first cause" cannot be conventionally established.

Likewise it cannot be established that "all appearances which arise for an ordinary mental continuum arise in dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors occurring as that very mental continuum."
Why?
Because "dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors" is generally inaccessible to direct perception like "pink unicorns" are generally inaccessible to direct perception.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Likewise it cannot be established that "all appearances which arise for an ordinary mental continuum arise in dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors occurring as that very mental continuum."
Why?
Because "dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors" is generally inaccessible to direct perception like "pink unicorns" are generally inaccessible to direct perception.

Not so. It is impossible for matter to directly cognize appearances. And so conventionally, there is no possibility of common visible appearances being perceived in the absence of eye-consciousness. It is completely untenable and contrary to correct worldly convention to maintain that common visible appearances are perceived in the absence of visual consciousness. Moreover, eye-consciousness is conventional non-conceptual direct perception. Therefore it is conventionally established by inference and concordant with direct perception that visible appearances which arise for an ordinary continuum are dependent upon the occurrence of eye-consciousness and the always active concomitant mental factors such as apperception and attention. This is also the case for the perception of audial objects and so on.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Likewise it cannot be established that "all appearances which arise for an ordinary mental continuum arise in dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors occurring as that very mental continuum."
Why?
Because "dependence upon the momentary consciousnesses and mental factors" is generally inaccessible to direct perception like "pink unicorns" are generally inaccessible to direct perception.

Not so. It is impossible for matter to directly cognize appearances.

The thought "matter" arises since there is the thought "mind" or "other than matter". The thought "is impossible for XY to cognize" arises since there is the thought that there is something or somone that does the cognizing. But all there is is just "cognition" which is an appearance due to the thought "this is that". But without all this thinking there is just appearance that happens as direct experience.

And so conventionally, there is no possibility of common visible appearances being perceived in the absence of eye-consciousness. It is completely untenable and contrary to correct worldly convention to maintain that common visible appearances are perceived in the absence of visual consciousness.

Yes it is contrary to worldly convention to follow the advice of the Buddha given to Bahiya. But it is compliant with worldly convention to delude direct perception/experience through proliferation.
Eye-consciousness cannot be directly perceived. "First cause of perception" cannot be directly perceived either. So eye-consciousness is not established as is "First cause of perception".
Putting this aside, and following worldly convention for the time being if there is dependence on eye-consciousness for vision to arise that does not exclude dependence on something other than eye-consciousness for that vision to arise. This "something other" and all further condition for perception being present it is that vision that happens due to this "something other than eye-consciousness". And this "something other than eye-consciousness" may be posited as first cause because without it eye-consciousness does not produce vision.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

But without all this thinking there is just appearance that happens as direct experience.

If you're suggesting that this mode of apperception is sufficient for enlightenment then the consequences of such an assertion would be that there is no need for developing vipaśyanā, no need for eliminating habitual tendencies, no need for engaging in the complete and unerring causes and conditions which result in enlightenment, and that the direct perception of a worldling is equivalent to the gnosis of a buddha. This is untenable.

Eye-consciousness cannot be directly perceived. "First cause of perception" cannot be directly perceived either. So eye-consciousness is not established as is "First cause of perception".

Another fallacious conclusion. What has been conventionally established is that common visible appearances which arise for an ordinary continuum are dependent upon the occurrence of eye-consciousness and the always active concomitant mental factors such as apperception and attention. No Buddhist exegetical system posits a "first cause."

Putting this aside, and following worldly convention for the time being if there is dependence on eye-consciousness for vision to arise that does not exclude dependence on something other than eye-consciousness for that vision to arise. This "something other" and all further condition for perception being present it is that vision that happens due to this "something other than eye-consciousness". And this "something other than eye-consciousness" may be posited as first cause because without it eye-consciousness does not produce vision.

Again, no Buddhist exegetical system posits any "first cause." But it's good to see that you have accepted that common visible appearances which arise for an ordinary continuum are dependent upon the occurrence of eye-consciousness. Dharma and scientific materialism are not compatible.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

But without all this thinking there is just appearance that happens as direct experience.

If you're suggesting that this mode of apperception is sufficient for enlightenment

Why not simply say "perception" or "experience"?
Why ask what one has to think/believe so that one's thinking/believing is allegedly compliant with a purpose that again is just thought? Is this the rationale for all those views? Views that generate a multitude of "enlightenments" and a multitude of ways to "get it"?

then the consequences of such an assertion would be that there is no need for developing vipaśyanā, no need for eliminating habitual tendencies, no need for engaging in the complete and unerring causes and conditions which result in enlightenment, and that the direct perception of a worldling is equivalent to the gnosis of a buddha. This is untenable.

What if all this is just the way to attain acceptance of what actually "is" ("is" meant metaphorically) and abandon speculative views that go beyond what actually "is" ?

No Buddhist exegetical system posits a "first cause."

I don't either. But to merely posit "dependence on mind" is equivalent in terms of validity.
So your arguments are based on commentaries and philosophical views that emerged in the context of buddhism.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

But to posit "dependence on mind" is equivalent in terms of validity.

Not so. It has already been conventionally established, whereas "first cause" cannot be conventionally established.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

But to posit "dependence on mind" is equivalent in terms of validity.

Not so. It has already been conventionally established, whereas "first cause" cannot be conventionally established.

For you it has been "conventionally established" in the context of what you consider to be "conventionally established".
However in the context of direct "perception"/"experience" it is not established at all.

Why?

Because there should be directly perceptible evidence as to how and what extent there is "dependence on mind".

But how should this be feasible "dependence" not being directly perceptible?

Kind regards

[Jnana]

However in the context of direct "perception"/"experience" it is not established at all.

Not so. There is no possibility of mundane sensory direct perception without consciousness. This has already been conventionally established whether you comprehend it or not. Moreover, the untenable consequences of your assertions have also been given.

All the best,

Geoff