I already explained: body, voice and mind.mirage wrote:But I find the question of intersubjectivity to be very relevant to the aims of Mahayana. If the ultimate aim is Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, then any Mahayana philosophy has to explain how beings can possibly interact with each other.futerko wrote: The issue of epistemology focuses on the question of knowledge of phenomena which is less of an issue if one's focus of enquiry is the study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness.
Rather than the issue of objective knowledge, Buddhism enquires as the conditions for anything appearing at all - the focus is not about the truth "behind" appearances, but the truth about them.
How do mind-streams interact?
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Sorry, but I do not understand how this answers the question I asked earlier - the example with Eiffel Tower.Malcolm wrote:I already explained: body, voice and mind.mirage wrote: But I find the question of intersubjectivity to be very relevant to the aims of Mahayana. If the ultimate aim is Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, then any Mahayana philosophy has to explain how beings can possibly interact with each other.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
mirage wrote:Sorry, but I do not understand how this answers the question I asked earlier - the example with Eiffel Tower.Malcolm wrote:I already explained: body, voice and mind.mirage wrote: But I find the question of intersubjectivity to be very relevant to the aims of Mahayana. If the ultimate aim is Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, then any Mahayana philosophy has to explain how beings can possibly interact with each other.
You do not need to make it so complicated.We are communicating right now using words, via a print media i.e. body. If we were talking that would be voice, if we had advanced skills of claivoyance, we could communicate mind to mind.
We do not need things like intersubjectivity and so on. They are rabbit holes.
M
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
There is the teaching of three natures (trisvabhava) in Yogacara that you should consider here. On the imaginary level it is just like for everyone else. On the dependent level all is interrelated, phenomena are dependent on perception. Being dependent on perception doesn't mean that nothing exists beyond that, it just means that mind defines and interprets what one perceives. And on the ultimate level ideas of perception and perceiver are understood to be interpretations and ideas only. In the end, there is not even a mind one can conceive.
The problem raised, the interaction of mind-streams, is based on the assumption that there are physically-spatially distinct minds. But minds are not bound by space or time, they are immaterial. Another problem here is the idea that Yogacara - or Buddhism generally - should give a comprehensive philosophy. But it doesn't have anything like that. It is the path of liberation, all teachings are meant to assist in getting rid of grasping at thoughts and emotions.
The problem raised, the interaction of mind-streams, is based on the assumption that there are physically-spatially distinct minds. But minds are not bound by space or time, they are immaterial. Another problem here is the idea that Yogacara - or Buddhism generally - should give a comprehensive philosophy. But it doesn't have anything like that. It is the path of liberation, all teachings are meant to assist in getting rid of grasping at thoughts and emotions.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Oh, I do not know about that. I might as well be seeing a kind of a dream, and these words on my screen are just a bit of my karma manifesting, without any other sentient being involved. Probably good karma, but still.Malcolm wrote: You do not need to make it so complicated.We are communicating right now using words, via a print media i.e. body.
Not spatially - just separate. Our minds are clearly separate in some way, otherwise our experience would be the same.Astus wrote: The problem raised, the interaction of mind-streams, is based on the assumption that there are physically-spatially distinct minds.
That would be a bit disappointing.Astus wrote: Another problem here is the idea that Yogacara - or Buddhism generally - should give a comprehensive philosophy. But it doesn't have anything like that. It is the path of liberation, all teachings are meant to assist in getting rid of grasping at thoughts and emotions.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Don't be silly, it simply a matter of conventional fact.mirage wrote:Oh, I do not know about that. I might as well be seeing a kind of a dream, and these words on my screen are just a bit of my karma manifesting, without any other sentient being involved. Probably good karma, but still.Malcolm wrote: You do not need to make it so complicated.We are communicating right now using words, via a print media i.e. body.
M
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
We have a very common example of the situation I am talking about: dreams. In dreams we interact with "people", but they are not sentient beings.Malcolm wrote:Don't be silly, it simply a matter of conventional fact.mirage wrote: Oh, I do not know about that. I might as well be seeing a kind of a dream, and these words on my screen are just a bit of my karma manifesting, without any other sentient being involved. Probably good karma, but still.
M
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Sometimes they are.mirage wrote: We have a very common example of the situation I am talking about: dreams. In dreams we interact with "people", but they are not sentient beings.
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Maybe. But what matters in this case is that often they are not.Huseng wrote:Sometimes they are.mirage wrote: We have a very common example of the situation I am talking about: dreams. In dreams we interact with "people", but they are not sentient beings.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
If you acknowledge that other sentient beings exist, you might as well assume that conventionally you are communicating with other sentient lifeforms.mirage wrote:Maybe. But what matters in this case is that often they are not.Huseng wrote:Sometimes they are.mirage wrote: We have a very common example of the situation I am talking about: dreams. In dreams we interact with "people", but they are not sentient beings.
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Only if you decide that the waking state is more real than dreaming, in which case you have sunk your whole position of doubt.mirage wrote:Maybe. But what matters in this case is that often they are not.Huseng wrote:Sometimes they are.mirage wrote: We have a very common example of the situation I am talking about: dreams. In dreams we interact with "people", but they are not sentient beings.
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Naturally I assume it, I just wanted to find out how is such communication possible. Mostly an academic interest.Huseng wrote: If you acknowledge that other sentient beings exist, you might as well assume that conventionally you are communicating with other sentient lifeforms.
Sorry, I do not follow. I did not make any statements about "reality" of waking or dreaming states. I am not even sure how to define that. Anyway, this discussion probably has nothing to do with the original question.Malcolm wrote:Only if you decide that the waking state is more real than dreaming, in which case you have sunk your whole position of doubt.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
What separates them? If you mean that they are not the same experiences, yes, that is true. But how is that a problem?mirage wrote:Not spatially - just separate. Our minds are clearly separate in some way, otherwise our experience would be the same.
Explanations have limited value. Explanations of the world are only as good as their efficacy in creating peace and wisdom. Buddhist teachings are not meant to be used as philosophical statements or scientific observations. They are practical guidelines. They are like recipes - they tell you what and how to cook, you can't eat the paper. On the other hand, the understanding that all views are conventional, relative and mind made, is quite a coherent teaching.mirage wrote:That would be a bit disappointing.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
I have no idea what separates them, or even if "what" is a meaningful word to use here. Still, nearly every text on Yogacara I have read states in very clear terms that there exist multiple separate mind-streams:Astus wrote: What separates them?
If there were only a single consciousness how could the ten directions, the sages and ordinary folk, causes and effects, and so on, be distinguished? Who would look for [the teachings] and who would espouse them? What [would differentiate] the Dharma from its seeker?
Thus, the words 'wei-shih' have a deep meaning. The word shih (consciousness, vijnapti, vijnäna)in general reveals that all sentient beings each have [their own] eight consciousnesses, six types of caittas, altered [consciousness] (so-pien) qua nimitta- and darsana- [bhägas], distinguishing divisions, and tathata which is disclosed through the principle of emptiness.
(Ch'eng wei-shih lun, quoted from "Buddhist Phenomenology" by Dan Lusthaus)
Well, the question is the same: if both of us see an apple, that means I have experience of apple, and you have a (different) experience of apple. Then I eat the apple, and your experience of it changes (disappears). What made your experience change?Astus wrote:If you mean that they are not the same experiences, yes, that is true. But how is that a problem?
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Conventionally, the idea of someone else eating an apple is not something requiring philosophical proof. One of the issues for Buddhism is the way in which perception is influenced by desire, if that apple was my subject for a still life painting and you were hungry and just walked up and ate it, then our views may well conflict in terms of the meaning we gave to said apple.mirage wrote:Well, the question is the same: if both of us see an apple, that means I have experience of apple, and you have a (different) experience of apple. Then I eat the apple, and your experience of it changes (disappears). What made your experience change?
I think that you may have more joy comparing Buddhist philosophy to modern continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy.
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Sadly, I know next to nothing about continental philosophy. Maybe this is why I would still like to find an answer to my question.futerko wrote: Conventionally, the idea of someone else eating an apple is not something requiring philosophical proof. One of the issues for Buddhism is the way in which perception is influenced by desire, if that apple was my subject for a still life painting and you were hungry and just walked up and ate it, then our views may well conflict in terms of the meaning we gave to said apple.
I think that you may have more joy comparing Buddhist philosophy to modern continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
When we talk about me, you and apple, that is the imagined reality. There is no understanding of consciousness-only here. If it is understood in terms of consciousness-only, the ideas of an external apple and you, and an internal me, they are all just ideas and not distinct entities. So, if you don't mix up these two, there is no problem at all.mirage wrote:Well, the question is the same: if both of us see an apple, that means I have experience of apple, and you have a (different) experience of apple. Then I eat the apple, and your experience of it changes (disappears). What made your experience change?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
Do you have trouble with the idea of someone else eating an apple? If not, why ask in the first place? What will it benefit you to find an answer to this question?mirage wrote:Sadly, I know next to nothing about continental philosophy. Maybe this is why I would still like to find an answer to my question.futerko wrote: Conventionally, the idea of someone else eating an apple is not something requiring philosophical proof. One of the issues for Buddhism is the way in which perception is influenced by desire, if that apple was my subject for a still life painting and you were hungry and just walked up and ate it, then our views may well conflict in terms of the meaning we gave to said apple.
I think that you may have more joy comparing Buddhist philosophy to modern continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is the question of your desire and motivation for such a line of enquiry.
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
I feel like I almost understand you here, but in fact I probably do not. Do you mean that there is a deeper "level" beneath eight individual consciousnesses, on which mind-streams cease to be distinct?Astus wrote: When we talk about me, you and apple, that is the imagined reality. There is no understanding of consciousness-only here. If it is understood in terms of consciousness-only, the ideas of an external apple and you, and an internal me, they are all just ideas and not distinct entities. So, if you don't mix up these two, there is no problem at all.
The motivation is simple: I have several ideas which I am trying to reconcile. One is the notion that everything we experience is a part of our consciousness, our individual mind-stream. The other is a Mahayana concept of helping all sentient beings, which means that interaction must occur - I change something within my own mind-stream (because it is all that is accessible for me), and somehow changes occur in a different mind-stream. So far I fail to understand how such a thing can be explained without falling into indirect realism of some sort or whatever.futerko wrote: Do you have trouble with the idea of someone else eating an apple? If not, why ask in the first place? What will it benefit you to find an answer to this question?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is the question of your desire and motivation for such a line of enquiry.
Please consider donating to help find a cure for Degenerative Vitreous Syndrome:
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
http://www.gofundme.com/floaters
Re: How do mind-streams interact?
I'm not sure I follow you here, if anything, Buddhism appears to be a form of subjective idealism, at least at a "naive" level.mirage wrote:So far I fail to understand how such a thing can be explained without falling into indirect realism of some sort or whatever.