Chittamatra and Svatantrika, which is more subtle?

[heart]

I never said that the eye consciousness have thoughts. It is non-conceptual in fact. However you said "appearances are mental activity" so obviously the appearances are a creation of the mind and that means thoughts.

oh i see. by mental activity i just mean mind (consciousness), which is what the eye consciousness is. it too has appearances but we cant say that they are thoughts, since they are colours and shapes and colours and shapes are not thoughts

my point is that appearances of form, which is to say internal colours and shapes, are different to actual form which is external.

if we are mindonly-leaning and dont accept external objects, we still cant say that that nonexternal form is the same as the appearance of nonexternal form

therefore we can say every buddhist system is negating a false appearance pertaining to actual objects, not a false appearance pertaining to just appearances of objects.

To my understanding the eye-consciousness is non-conceptual like the other consciousnesses of the five senses , it is this consciousness that present the colors and forms and so on to the mind-consciousness. The mind-consciousness is thoughts, nothing else. Thoughts are pretty "visual" which you will notice when you meditate. So appearances, if defined as the inner thought image of the outer "real" object like you do, is only thoughts.
For me appearances is the both the inner and outer object since they are both equally empty.

/magnus

[Mariusz]

I never said that the eye consciousness have thoughts. It is non-conceptual in fact. However you said "appearances are mental activity" so obviously the appearances are a creation of the mind and that means thoughts.

oh i see. by mental activity i just mean mind (consciousness), which is what the eye consciousness is. it too has appearances but we cant say that they are thoughts, since they are colours and shapes and colours and shapes are not thoughts

my point is that appearances of form, which is to say internal colours and shapes, are different to actual form which is external.

if we are mindonly-leaning and dont accept external objects, we still cant say that that nonexternal form is the same as the appearance of nonexternal form

therefore we can say every buddhist system is negating a false appearance pertaining to actual objects, not a false appearance pertaining to just appearances of objects.

To my understanding the eye-consciousness is non-conceptual like the other consciousnesses of the five senses , it is this consciousness that present the colors and forms and so on to the mind-consciousness. The mind-consciousness is thoughts, nothing else. Thoughts are pretty "visual" which you will notice when you meditate. So appearances, if defined as the inner thought image of the outer "real" object like you do, is only thoughts.
For me appearances is the both the inner and outer object since they are both equally empty.

/magnus

They are both equally empty indeed, not only they but also the perfect is so. But for the purpose of the path they are skilfully differenciated, only illusion-like skilfully, until total freedom from all reference points=unblurred vission when they are no more illusion-like needed. Making it so simple like the Dzogchen But maybe not so simple because here there are even the Four Vissions

[Dharmaswede]

He insisted that, if you were on the path of seeing, if you where sitting on a railroad and you meditated on emptiness you will not see the train as it approach, neither could the train hurt you when it passed over you.

i agree with him.

That's clarifying, because that's where I think the dualism that I suggested was implied in your position blossoms into nihilism. No disrespect, but we simply disagree.

But here I am saying that a Geshe is wrong, I am right, and that I know what will happen on the path of seeing! Sure, you gotta make up your own mind, but it's funny where that effort may take you!

Best Regards,

Jens