Re: Difference between consciousness and the mind
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:25 pm
Do elaborate, are you pulling my leg?Malcolm wrote:
If you emphasize the emptiness aspect, you will err into annihilation.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Do elaborate, are you pulling my leg?Malcolm wrote:
If you emphasize the emptiness aspect, you will err into annihilation.
odysseus wrote:Do elaborate, are you pulling my leg?Malcolm wrote:
If you emphasize the emptiness aspect, you will err into annihilation.
Are (unconditioned) children generally in the state of Buddhahood according to your outlook, Gwenn ?Gwenn Dana wrote: Only when you have given in to the flow of consciousness without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone. Then whatever appears just happens. It does not mean you don't act. Your actions also arise spontaneously. As I perceive it that can be compared with unbiased love of what just happens in the now (not happy-happy-joy-joy-ness), without wanting it to be any different or trying to make it stay the same, no matter how it appears.
But 'not even hold on to thoughts' isn't "not doing anything", because you not even hold on to thought's.. right? That's what you do. It's grasping. It's practiced nonpractice. It's fabrication, it's like you're freezing. It's like you follow the suggestion: "Do nothing" .. you fall into a trance, because you automatically practice "doing nothing" instead of doing nothing. And the reified-conceptualisation of this suggestion expresses itself as state of mind. Look for yourself. The qualities which arising from this state of mind you described, are the expression of your reified-conceptualisation of doing nothing. It's some-thing like "not doing anything'nes", seems to be behind, before, above the experience you have; I talk in a metaphorical way. And this quality (sometimes called subject/self/observer) is reified-identified with the experience. Therefore bliss and other stuff seems to appear. That's delusion. But there's another way to to implement this task. A completely unfabricated way .. . Note: The term "spontaneously" in the context of an primordial nonpractice like Dzogchen, doesn't mean: "Now .. now .. now .. . That's an artificial focus to. It means natural, immediate, obvious, primordial unfabricated.Gwenn Dana wrote:without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone.
Sure. You just showed that this problem is recursive. Good for you. Do you really think I don't know that? So words won't be able to lead there. So we will never be able to nail that down on this forum. So? What does that have to do with what I experience when I'm driving down a road?thigle wrote:But 'not even hold on to thoughts' isn't "not doing anything", because you not even hold on to thought's.. right? That's what you do. It's grasping. It's practiced nonpractice. It's fabrication, it's like you're freezing. It's like you follow the suggestion: "Do nothing" .. you fall into a trance, because you automatically practice "doing nothing" instead of doing nothing. And the reified-conceptualisation of this suggestion expresses itself as state of mind. Look for yourself. The qualities which arising from this state of mind you described, are the expression of your reified-conceptualisation of doing nothing. It's some-thing like "not doing anything'nes", seems to be behind, before, above the experience you have; I talk in a metaphorical way. And this quality (sometimes called subject/self/observer) is reified-identified with the experience. Therefore bliss and other stuff seems to appear. That's delusion. But there's another way to to implement this task. A completely unfabricated way .. . Note: The term "spontaneously" in the context of an primordial nonpractice like Dzogchen, doesn't mean: "Now .. now .. now .. . That's an artificial focus to. It means natural, immediate, obvious, primordial unfabricated.Gwenn Dana wrote:without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone.
Hmm. there are two aspects in my opinion.garudha wrote:Are (unconditioned) children generally in the state of Buddhahood according to your outlook, Gwenn ?Gwenn Dana wrote: Only when you have given in to the flow of consciousness without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone. Then whatever appears just happens. It does not mean you don't act. Your actions also arise spontaneously. As I perceive it that can be compared with unbiased love of what just happens in the now (not happy-happy-joy-joy-ness), without wanting it to be any different or trying to make it stay the same, no matter how it appears.
It´s really Lord Shakyamuni, but you can call him Gautam Buddha!garudha wrote:
Gautama Siddartha cut the root of conciousness.
Factual "non-focusing" isn't a recursive problem. But a recursive problem is the result of fabrication.Gwenn Dana wrote: Sure. You just showed that this problem is recursive.
Yes. Because it's a recursive problem for you.Gwenn Dana wrote:Good for you. Do you really think I don't know that?
That's a projection. You've read the text and just thought about it, instead of comparing it with the direct experience. Therefore you answer: "Words won't be able to lead here". Buddhism isn't Philosophy.Gwenn Dana wrote:So words won't be able to lead there.
Dear royal king, it's not about "nailing that down on this forum", it's about an shared buddhist endoperspective based in direct experience, sometimes called dharma.Gwenn Dana wrote:So we will never be able to nail that down on this forum. So?
Everything. Because your life/death is the result of the described process.Gwenn Dana wrote:What does that have to do with what I experience when I'm driving down a road?
Dear royal king, are we brahmanic or buddhist? Very different view, very different fruits.Gwenn Dana wrote:If we now want to get Brahmanic
When looking at that recursive problem, imagine me standing outside from it, not outside from it, both inside and outside at the same time, and neither.thigle wrote:Yes. Because it's a recursive problem for you.Gwenn Dana wrote:Good for you. Do you really think I don't know that?
When reading some replies, it seems that it is perhaps a common misunderstanding that father´s or mother´s consciousness would descend into that womb, via some magic sperm or ovum binding.Malcolm wrote: It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.
It means that three things are required for conception to take place — the father's sperm, the mother's egg and a consciousness seeking rebirth.Gwenn Dana wrote:When reading some replies, it seems that it is perhaps a common misunderstanding that father´s or mother´s consciousness would descend into that womb, via some magic sperm or ovum binding.Malcolm wrote: It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.
I only read that consciousness "descends" into that womb, from whereever.
Best wishes
Gwenn
If all things are in a state of nirvana can't we just say that any matter is capable of becoming sentient as a "functioning group of manifest matter" ... as scientists presently know to be true ?Malcolm wrote:It means that three things are required for conception to take place — the father's sperm, the mother's egg and a consciousness seeking rebirth.Gwenn Dana wrote:When reading some replies, it seems that it is perhaps a common misunderstanding that father´s or mother´s consciousness would descend into that womb, via some magic sperm or ovum binding.Malcolm wrote: It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.
I only read that consciousness "descends" into that womb, from whereever.
Best wishes
Gwenn
All is mind? Do you mean mind is like space? Do you think that awareness and space are the same? Do you think that awareness needs an active perceiver? Do you think this mind is singular or multiple? All these questions get asked and we try to make a form out of the answer. A form such as 'All is mind'. So we have this form 'all is mind' and then what do we do with it? Do we try to hold onto it? Do we drop it and look for something else? Do we adorn the form 'all is mind' and turn it into a belief?garudha wrote: As I understand it; All Is Mind.
Further. If we create a dualism where mind & matter are not the same ...but distinct... how can the "Great Perfection" be credible as a valid non-dual experience ?
Andrew108 wrote:All is mind?garudha wrote: As I understand it; All Is Mind.
Further. If we create a dualism where mind & matter are not the same ...but distinct... how can the "Great Perfection" be credible as a valid non-dual experience ?
garudha wrote: As I understand it; All Is Mind.
Andrew108 wrote:All is mind?
Everything is truth, Gween.Gwenn Dana wrote:@garudha: Excuse me ... what is truth?