Mind versus Self?

[futerko]

No the person is an identity or personality.
it is that identity/personality which is clung to the 5 aggregates that makes a worldy person

This aspect is two-fold. Belief that objects have self/identity and are consistent and unchanging from moment to moment sets up a division between subject and object where both are mistakenly seen as consistent.
By contrast "true Mind" views all of these apparent phenomena in a state of interdependent flux. This incidentally answers the OP.

really so believing that there is an ultimate essence is ignorance and the very cause of Samsara. I could of swore anything that was dependently arisen/dependent origination was ignorance and the very cause of Samsara.the 12 links of dependent origination has as its root and source ignorance,everything that is dependently arisen is rooted and produced in ignorance

The cause of samsara is in failing to perceive dependent origination. Dependent origination and "essence" are the same. Its essence is that nothing ever arises but is mere appearance - ignorance is a failure to realize this.

it is not the True Self I speak of which is the Dharmakaya the body of attributes that which is NOT dependently arisen from Ignorance.

Dharmakaya is non-dual, empty of conceptuality, and free of all characteristics, hence NOT self.

[undefineable]

Reality is conceptual (nominal), and mistaking concepts for substances is indeed the problem.

If you're saying that reality is made up of concepts, then how is there any reality for a being who has moved beyond concepts, i.e. an enlightened being, given that he or she cannot logically exist in any way whatsoever without one?

[oushi]

Its essence is that nothing ever arises but is mere appearance - ignorance is a failure to realize this.

What is the difference between arise and appear? Experience is the same, no matter how you explain it. Ignorance is the desire to grasp meaning. Realization has no meaning behind it, or even in it. It is pure meaninglessness.

[Astus]

No the person is an identity or personality.
it is that identity/personality which is clung to the 5 aggregates that makes a worldy person

That is your interpretation, not mine. If there were a self beyond the aggregates it had nothing to do with the aggregates themselves, could not even cling to them. That is because such a self would exist separately from the aggregates and wouldn't need them for its existence at all, nor have the attributes of the aggregates. That includes attachment itself, which is a function of the fourth aggregate (samskara).

really so believing that there is an ultimate essence is ignorance and the very cause of Samsara. I could of swore anything that was dependently arisen/dependent origination was ignorance and the very cause of Samsara.the 12 links of dependent origination has as its root and source ignorance,everything that is dependently arisen is rooted and produced in ignorance

so in your view if the Buddha/Emptiness is dependently arisen then he is produced from ignorance.

There are the twelve links of dependent origination but it is only a specific instance of dependent origination/interdependency. The Buddhist path itself is based on causes and effects, however, it leads to liberation and not suffering. The cause of enlightenment is the path of morality, meditation and wisdom, the direct cause is the very realisation of dependent origination.

also the "self" you speak of that clings to the 5 aggreagates is the worldly "i" personality/identity that thinks Astus will always be permenant,everlasting and unchanging this is called the super ego where one views his SELF as "I" have attained the highest.
this is the false self
it is not the True Self I speak of which is the Dharmakaya the body of attributes that which is NOT dependently arisen from Ignorance.

Again, I don't speak of any self that clings to the aggregates, it is something you do. Perhaps it is not clear for you what the aggregates actually are. They cover all the physical and mental functions that exist. That is, the five sensory faculties of the body, and every mental phenomenon from basic feelings and thoughts through complex ideas up to consciousness. There is in fact nothing else in this whole world. But if you think there is, well, let me know. Personally I have no knowledge of anything that is either not a physical object, a mental object or consciousness. Of course, if it is something else, nobody can see it, hear it, feel it or know about it.

[Astus]

If you're saying that reality is made up of concepts, then how is there any reality for a being who has moved beyond concepts, i.e. an enlightened being, given that he or she cannot logically exist in any way whatsoever without one?

The problem is not in having or not having concepts. Suffering comes from believing that concepts are not just concepts but real things, because we are always happy to relate to things in a positive, negative or neutral ways, to identify with them, to attach to them.

[futerko]

Its essence is that nothing ever arises but is mere appearance - ignorance is a failure to realize this.

What is the difference between arise and appear? Experience is the same, no matter how you explain it. Ignorance is the desire to grasp meaning. Realization has no meaning behind it, or even in it. It is pure meaninglessness.

You're right, it makes no difference to experience, but you’re might have a hard time convincing anyone that nothing appears. The point is the same - that there is no seperate substantial essence beyond appearances.

[oushi]

You're right, it makes no difference to experience, but you’re might have a hard time convincing anyone that nothing appears.

Why would I do that? That would be going to the other extreme. Appearing has nothing to do with naming, or acknowledging it.

The point is the same - that there is no seperate substantial essence beyond appearances.

This is once more, jumping between extremes. We cannot drink pure water from dirty hand.
We cannot know if there is or isn't, and the very attempt to know is the delusion. Knowing is empty, and out of it people try to make truth, taking it for granted. Why? Why not apply emptiness and impermanence also to "meaning"? Why treat it like a holy cow?

[futerko]

You're right, it makes no difference to experience, but you’re might have a hard time convincing anyone that nothing appears.

Why would I do that? That would be going to the other extreme. Appearing has nothing to do with naming, or acknowledging it.

The point is the same - that there is no seperate substantial essence beyond appearances.

This is once more, jumping between extremes. We cannot drink pure water from dirty hand.
We cannot know if there is or isn't, and the very attempt to know is the delusion. Knowing is empty, and out of it people try to make truth, taking it for granted. Why? Why not apply emptiness and impermanence also to "meaning"? Why treat it like a holy cow?

Applying emptiness and impermanence to knowing produces the same result. Experience is the same, no matter how you explain it. Realization has no meaning behind it, or even in it. It is pure meaninglessness.

[oushi]

Great, why then bring:

there is no seperate substantial essence beyond appearances

It points to a deep meaning, doesn't it?

[futerko]

Great, why then bring:

there is no seperate substantial essence beyond appearances

It points to a deep meaning, doesn't it?

I wasn't making any claims beyond explaining the doctrine of non-self and the limits of knowing. I think you may have taken what I wrote out of context.

[oushi]

Maybe that is the case, but I think I was pointing to something different.
As we didn't find a disagreement, there is no need to drill it any more.

[futerko]

Maybe that is the case, but I think I was pointing to something different.
As we didn't find a disagreement, there is no need to drill it any more.

The point I was making was basically the idea that, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" means that the two truths of emptiness and dependent origination, or essence and appearance, is not about two seperate realms but in fact non-dual. It seems that it can often be misunderstood to mean that there is some "deeper" essence when really the essence IS the appearance.

I take it that this is simply about the limits of mind, and not about whether our entire universe may actually exist in the pancreas of an 11th dimesional turtle who is in fact the imaginary friend of a transcendental ant.

[oushi]

The point I was making was basically the idea that, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" means that the two truths of emptiness and dependent origination, or essence and appearance, is not about two seperate realms but in fact non-dual. It seems that it can often be misunderstood to mean that there is some "deeper" essence when really the essence IS the appearance.

And I would go one step further, to "zero" dimension, and remove the essence (in the form of meaning) even from appearances. When meaning is removed from everything, appearances included, what is left? Neither thing, nor nothing. And this very state can be seen as deeper essence by some. No matter how you describe it from here, you will fail, as it is non-descriptive by nature... but experienced by all of us

[futerko]

The point I was making was basically the idea that, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" means that the two truths of emptiness and dependent origination, or essence and appearance, is not about two seperate realms but in fact non-dual. It seems that it can often be misunderstood to mean that there is some "deeper" essence when really the essence IS the appearance.

And I would go one step further, to "zero" dimension, and remove the essence (in the form of meaning) even from appearances. When meaning is removed from everything, appearances included, what is left? Neither thing, nor nothing. And this very state can be seen as deeper essence by some.

I'm unsure why you would equate emptiness with meaning. I tend to see meaning as being on the side of appearances/dependent origination/that which produces karma, while emptiness shows that grasping for meaning is like saving a fart in a jar.

[gregkavarnos]

There is meaning in realisation.
Realisation is meaningless.
Realisation is meaningful and meaningless.
Relalisation is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

Pick an extreme, any extreme, even money that it leads you back, smack bang, into samsara.

Any takers? Futerko? Oushi?

[oushi]

I'm unsure why you would equate emptiness with meaning. I tend to see meaning as being on the side of appearances/dependent origination/that which produces karma, while emptiness shows that grasping for meaning is like saving a fart in a jar.

That is a simple misunderstanding, and I would categorize meaning in the same way as you did. I would even go and equate emptiness with meaninglessness.

[futerko]

There is meaning in realisation.
Realisation is meaningless.
Realisation is meaningful and meaningless.
Relalisation is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

Pick an extreme, any extreme, even money that it leads you back, smack bang, into samsara.

Any takers? Futerko? Oushi?

I'm sure you must owe Nagarjuna some royalties for that one Greg!
I'll put my money on all 4 - from various perspectives, clearly there is some value which may be called "meaningful", but that is not the same as conceptual significance, and yet at the end of the day it is just a piece of nothing.

[oushi]

There is meaning in realisation.
Realisation is meaningless.
Realisation is meaningful and meaningless.
Relalisation is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

Pick an extreme, any extreme, even money that it leads you back, smack bang, into samsara.

Any takers? Futerko? Oushi?

I would pick meaninglessness as there is no way of grasping it, except this very word, which is just a road sign. No need to explain anything, or argue about meaning.

I'm sure you must owe Nagarjuna..

Funny you mentioned him, as I was thinking about him before reading your post. Especially his "no view" position. I wonder what it means

[gregkavarnos]

That is a simple misunderstanding, and I would categorize meaning in the same way as you did. I would even go and equate emptiness with meaninglessness.

You could just as easily turn around and equate meaning with emptiness. Meaning is empty and yet arises due to its emptiness. So where has your theorising landed you then? Smack bang in samsara again.

Any other takers?

[gregkavarnos]

I'll put my money on all 4 - from various perspectives..

Indecision, huh? That doesn't help much either.