Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:05 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
Simply put, one object of consciousness must end for another to begin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
"Consciousness" may have an object--and there may be "another" moment of consciousness based on another object, I grant you.

But there's a certain nonreferential "awareness" that is not dualistic, subject/object. Perhaps we should look there......

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm
Posts: 1601
I don't know about termites last statement.

but to respond to the last.....what I would find there is awareness considered a actualitywithout object.
Which cannnot happen. In basic form we can never become aware of a object that is nonexistant.

That awareness is a quality which precipitates when object presents speaks to our nature as sentient being, having that capacity always. That we have that quality doesn't speak to its inherant existance.

It is that awareness when presents does not have to have a particular aspect of subject oject when presenting as consciousness. Consciousness is not simply awareness. It is a compositie of differing aspects of awareness. Seeing a subject object relationship in our common world does not infer that object is not being presented in fashion to our awareness but that when object presents we fail to see we are naturally part of that object for consideration. It is not that we have a constantly present awareness but that when object presents it becomes on. Creating a false seperation is the inception of the self other dichotomy. But that doesn't infer object is not present nor we as being aware of object are not present. The basic could be misconstrued in various fashion and is.

We take this on to be seperate from us with misconception When on or aware we can only remember on not not on. That is a constriction of our reality.... the way awareness functions. So on combined with that characteristic and habiitual inclination aspect of awareness(anther aspect of consciouisness which helps up to apprehend our reality/object) it presents as a continum, or always on.
We simply have no function which allows for us to perceive not on.

But to take then awareness as being always on...conflicts with our observations on how awareness always functions...which is in relationship to object.....always.
ONe could hypotheise such a state, but such would have to conflict with how awareness works and hence consciousness which has a base in aware function.

Imagine consciousness as being a exercise in understanding or comprehending. Each aspect of awareness purely understood is with only one intent...to comprehend. We discriminate aspect, we see commonality in aspect, we see intention in object we see object acting as other object to understand we must habitate object or see how its action is commonly seen to be other things we may have known so we can then apprehend object and say....well it is like this..hence habitual consciousness base in aware aspect....and on and on.

So seen that way the delusion is not in its being on or not on but in how we find it to be conflicting with how we think it to be. So we take it to be always on as we have a habit of it being always on.

Logically it is contrindicated.

I would not state we cannot as sentient being with consciousness develope a always on in a functional sense in that habitual aspect can internalize and conceptualize object so a continum of consciouness can present in some form...But that doesn't detract from the reality of awareness requireing object to become aware of.

Hence to my opinion why we do not rebirth immediately. A evolution of habitual retentitive aspect of consciousness is occuring in relationship to its last moment of perceived life. So we rebirth only when concluded and aspect no longer provides object and thusly rebirth when circumstance precipitates that particular consciousnesses production or appearence. In whatever realm to which by circumstance it is exactly suited to appear. Not on the basis of consciousness being always on but on the basis of evolution of consciousness which then fits exactly its next precipitation.

Purely seen with awareness in directly understood realtionship to object presented it is not that neigher exists nor that such a being does not exist or that it necessarily always exists it is that when it exists awareness it exists in relationship to what is being cognicized. Self cognition....certainly.
Consciousnesses aspect varying would speak to that. So functionally permanant
not actually permanent.

What the difference.....self holds onto continum as self continum. It is not so.
A bundle of understanding would be more like it. Correctly or incorrectly apprehending bundle.
But not with aspect that cannot be found in reality, a always on or aware aspect that apprehends objects which do not exist. Functionally always on, but like water being always wet that indciator does indicate we will always find water or that water is everywhere. In our reality we will always find water. The most we can rationally say is it is always wet.....that is the most we can really say when we find water.
So aware aspect is found not always on as our realtiy speaks to a off. If we could ever produce a realm with no on. We cannot. If we could we could not remember it. No basis would exist for its rememberence.

On such a basis...l can never rebirth. The circumstance of I could replicate and I present as such. No I would ever rebirth. If one existed....the second I would have to exclude the first or the first second...never could both exist in the manner of sameness, same space. Different spaces a thousand perhaps exactly equal circumstances or close enough for city work to be considered exactly equal in presentation....certainly...happens all the time I would assume. Hence dopplegangers antimatter universes and matter universes and all the rest and multiple emenations of a buddha....I conjecture. Everything speaks to a grand grand scale to this thing. Our conceptions only speak to the small.

Which is why to my view when presented with the view only in part to a member of the royal court by Padmesambhava years ago she fainted dead away....it is so large if fully apprehended it would blow us apart. We prevent that occurance as it speaks against a singular identity which is what fuels our delusion and creates our existance in this realm. We create a reality perception which affirms and never denies our singular nature....our realm and all that presents within it. It presents in this fashion as it reflects our believing it to be so..this reflects our belief as how things are not as they are. As they are is empty....to every extent.

_________________
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
ronnewmexico wrote:
I don't know about termites last statement.


Just pointing to the nature of the relationship between consciousness/object and what follows from it. Rebirth is the process of "breaking apart" that co-arisen phenomenon into seer and seen. It is "becoming."

(And, to conebeckham: If there were 'nonreferential "awareness"' it would be necessary for it to be an object -- and thus a "reference" -- in order to be seen. "Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm
Posts: 432
termite wrote:
Just pointing to the nature of the relationship between consciousness/object and what follows from it. Rebirth is the process of "breaking apart" that co-arisen phenomenon into seer and seen. It is "becoming."

(And, to conebeckham: If there were 'nonreferential "awareness"' it would be necessary for it to be an object -- and thus a "reference" -- in order to be seen. "Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)


Very astute and clear point, termite! I'm impressed.
:namaste:

_________________
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive Word Press
Mud to Lotus

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind. ;)

Gotta remember to keep up my image... :rolleye:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm
Posts: 432
termite wrote:
"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind. ;)

Gotta remember to keep up my image... :rolleye:



actually, you had me at "Tapeworm Soup"...
:rolling:

_________________
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive Word Press
Mud to Lotus

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
OgyenChodzom wrote:
termite wrote:
"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind. ;)

Gotta remember to keep up my image... :rolleye:



actually, you had me at "Tapeworm Soup"...
:rolling:


It's an old family recipe. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
termite wrote:
"Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

The Magic of Me - good title for a children's book. :twothumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
conebeckham wrote:
Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--


"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
shel wrote:
termite wrote:
"Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

The Magic of Me - good title for a children's book. :twothumbsup:


Hi, Mommy, I'm home! Today in art class we made a Me out of Mud. And Billy threw Becky's Me at the wall, and the teacher made him clean it up.


:rolling:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
termite wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--


"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me. :)

Is that a problem? :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 58
shel wrote:
termite wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--


"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me. :)

Is that a problem? :oops:

I don't know. I don't know where "beyond" is. If "beyond" is part of "dualistic 'mind consciousness'" then it isn't somewhere else, is it?

I think whatever problem there is, it is in meaning not getting across from one internet poster to another. Namely, I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Nice to read here down. Termite, where is beyond? :smile: Like that rebirth reflected in narrowness results only in rejecting and accepting. Ah, what! Makes no any change! Natures' law and what is called rebirth, just is so in labeling by dream habits. But to be freed of these, beyond conceptual mind the stream of samsaric rebirths stop.

Or (figurative temporary vision) it must be like my dog who was looking football. He followed such little fellow running behind a ball and disappearing in the right corner down the screen. He directly looked under the TV table where that thing was gone. There must be something "out" of nature like it is, which disappears, out of processes or ends in continuum.

This is (a bit out of topic) shining through offered posts:

"I don't value high positions, I like low ones.
The lowest place is the seat of the saints of the past". Patrul Rinpoche.

Thank you. :bow: Okay, give me some of that soup.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:20 am
Posts: 407
Perhaps this is "Hinayana" here, but...

I think that rebirth is more clearly understood in phenomenological terms, as one's own direct experience of the present, rather than objective, scientific terms, as the cause & effect of life and death.

The latter seems like it's wrapped up with eternalism, self-view, and reincarnation theories, but the former is immediately accessible and with the post-mortem state, it's merely a toss-up; although there's no reason to doubt that the vehicle of experience is somehow fundamentally different from the present one, except with regards to the mechanisms through which it can be expressed. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am
Posts: 432
Individual wrote:
I think that rebirth is more clearly understood in phenomenological terms, as one's own direct experience of the present, rather than objective, scientific terms, as the cause & effect of life and death.
does buddhism assert that mere mind is equivalent to biological life and death? i would say they cant since by definition mind is one heap and physical form is another heap.

what we do say though is that the cessation of both the physical and mental heaps is what is named "death", whereas science currently might say that there is just physical matter which deteriorates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
"To remain undistracted right now practicing Dharma through the rolling train of life is the way to respect rebirth.
By merely reading and rejecting laws of nature, we are like an elephant running through a small shopping street, having all knowledge in plastic bags, while forgetting impermanence, interdependency and no any solidness to grasp to. We forget breath is not independent. " By a simple being.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Sakya Trizin expressed it a bit the same: "Your present life is just one life, future lives are inummerable.
Do not sacrifice so many lives to your illusionary being and its' welbeing".

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:20 am
Posts: 407
muni wrote:
"To remain undistracted right now practicing Dharma through the rolling train of life is the way to respect rebirth.
By merely reading and rejecting laws of nature, we are like an elephant running through a small shopping street, having all knowledge in plastic bags, while forgetting impermanence, interdependency and no any solidness to grasp to. We forget breath is not independent. " By a simple being.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Sakya Trizin expressed it a bit the same: "Your present life is just one life, future lives are inummerable.
Do not sacrifice so many lives to your illusionary being and its' welbeing".

Both are well-said.

Rather than focusing on what's true, I also think it's easier to understand rebirth if we understand what it's not.

It's not eternalism or annihilationism. I think some people are very self-deceptive in how they define those two terms. Some Buddhists might think "agnosticism," isn't connected to annihilationist biases, while others may try to sneak in some kind eternal non-dual transcendental mind object or process which isn't a self, but actually is, not seeing that this is a form of eternalist bias too. :)

For instance, I could dispute something like this:
conebeckham wrote:
Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

There is no "thing" I know beyond samsara (if you do, can you prove it? :)) and everything in samsara is dependent and impermanent, even the highest states of blissful non-dual awareness. Whatever is subject to arising is subject to cessation. If it can be gained, it can be lost. And if it can be lost, there is suffering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
What about Buddhahood, or the Dharmakaya, then?

You will doubtless say they are not "things," .....but what are things? What is mind? A Thought?

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group