Can we ever really understand consciousness?
- padma norbu
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
Well, I guess this is all too abstract for me. I bow out of another thread I started. Don't care anymore.
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
That's all Intro to Vajrayana: 101. That's not upper-division let alone graduate school dharma. We're not talking on the same wave length brotherman. Okay, everything you said is right. I'm wrong. All the best...padma norbu wrote:Again: nope. Remember what I said about Urgyen's use of the term "carbon copies?" Well, yeah, you might want to re-read that. He also said the Buddhas are enlightened beings, empty cognizance infused with awareness, compassionate beings committed to helping deluded beings and that the difference between a Buddha and a deluded being is knowing his real nature. So, plenty of things that are different from what you've said and somehow you are not understanding that.adinatha wrote:I skimmed that Tulku Urgyen passage:We are not saying different things. Somehow you are understanding it to mean the buddhas travel from their pure lands to inhabit your body. I dunnoDevelopment stage means to mentally create or imagine the form of the buddhas. Even though visualization is at this point an artificial construct, a mentally fabricated act, still it is an imitation that resembles what is already present in ourselves. Until we are able to practice the ultimate development stage, we need to visualize or mentally create pure images in order to approach that absolute state.
CAW!
- padma norbu
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see where you've given erroneous advice until someone points it out and then you stick to your guns and disagree with, for example, the great Dzogchen master Namkhai Norbu... or explain it away casually like in the case with the 5 lights.
However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate. Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.
However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate. Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
I haven't said anything wrong yet.padma norbu wrote:Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see or admit when you've given erroneous advice.
You haven't picked anything apart yet.However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate.
Boring.Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.
CAW!
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:08 pm
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.adinatha wrote:I realize that is the explanation. I was just using a convenient exampleVajrahridaya wrote:They are the radiance's of elements, they are the elements on formless levels. They arise at the same time as the formless levels of consciousness. They are not the same things you see when you push your eyes, that's physical stuff. The pure lights are on a less gross dimension of awareness.adinatha wrote:
At some level, these "lights" are not light. They are appearances with a basis in the physical body.
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
There is a more fundamental explanation about them too related to wisdom winds in the physical heart. I can't remember if that's a secret or not.Vajrahridaya wrote:Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.adinatha wrote:I realize that is the explanation. I was just using a convenient exampleVajrahridaya wrote:They are the radiance's of elements, they are the elements on formless levels. They arise at the same time as the formless levels of consciousness. They are not the same things you see when you push your eyes, that's physical stuff. The pure lights are on a less gross dimension of awareness.
CAW!
- padma norbu
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
There was some disagreement on that.adinatha wrote:I haven't said anything wrong yet.padma norbu wrote:Upper-division or graduate school doesn't negate freshman or elementary school teachings, brotherman. I get bored of going around in circles with you, as you often misunderstand me and never see or admit when you've given erroneous advice.
Others have. I haven't bothered.adinatha wrote:You haven't picked anything apart yet.However, your efforts are appreciated, if not just done out of some weird egotistical need to be dharma man. It is just a little troubling to me that you're so verbal and then so much of what you say can be picked apart and turns into a debate.
This is why I haven't bothered.adinatha wrote:Boring.Maybe if you are trying to really help, it would help if you took the time to find a source and be specific with your language all the time instead of sometimes when you reach opposition from others.
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
- padma norbu
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
BTW, is this a bad translation? People seem to say his is the definitive translation and that he is a great translator.
"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten kinds of Wisdom produced single thought by single thought. What are these ten? All Buddhas can, in a single thought, appear to descend from heaven in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest birth as Bodhisattvas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest renunciation of the mundane and study of the Way to liberation in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest attainment of the Perfect Correct Awakening under Bodhi-trees in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest turning wonderful Dharma- wheels in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest education of sentient beings and service of the Buddhas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest untold variety of Buddha-bodies in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest all kinds of sublimes in infinite worlds, innumerable sublimes, the freedoms of the Thus Come Ones, and the treasury of omniscience. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest countless pure beings in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest the Buddhas of past, present, and future in infinite worlds, with various faculties and characters, various diligences, and various practices and understandings, attaining the Perfect Correct Awakening in the past, present and future. These are the ten."
— Avatamsaka Sutra Translated into English by Thomas Cleary
BTW, if the Buddha couldn't think, how do you suppose he decided to produce Siddhartha Gautoma as a nirmanakaya emanation as a display in order to teach sentient beings?
PS - yes, I really am done with this thread. I have no desire to engage in any more discussion about this, these are just parting thoughts.
"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten kinds of Wisdom produced single thought by single thought. What are these ten? All Buddhas can, in a single thought, appear to descend from heaven in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest birth as Bodhisattvas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest renunciation of the mundane and study of the Way to liberation in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest attainment of the Perfect Correct Awakening under Bodhi-trees in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest turning wonderful Dharma- wheels in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest education of sentient beings and service of the Buddhas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest untold variety of Buddha-bodies in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest all kinds of sublimes in infinite worlds, innumerable sublimes, the freedoms of the Thus Come Ones, and the treasury of omniscience. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest countless pure beings in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest the Buddhas of past, present, and future in infinite worlds, with various faculties and characters, various diligences, and various practices and understandings, attaining the Perfect Correct Awakening in the past, present and future. These are the ten."
— Avatamsaka Sutra Translated into English by Thomas Cleary
BTW, if the Buddha couldn't think, how do you suppose he decided to produce Siddhartha Gautoma as a nirmanakaya emanation as a display in order to teach sentient beings?
PS - yes, I really am done with this thread. I have no desire to engage in any more discussion about this, these are just parting thoughts.
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:08 pm
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
I don't know, I've heard about that, read about that, felt some things about that... but, I don't know specifics. I wouldn't mind hearing more about it though!adinatha wrote:There is a more fundamental explanation about them too related to wisdom winds in the physical heart. I can't remember if that's a secret or not.Vajrahridaya wrote: Gotcha... I was wondering, as I replied considering how informed your posts generally are.
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
A nirmanakaya is a result of the aspirations and good karma of the beings to be trained. There's no decision to emanate. It's natural. You can't read "thought" literally. A buddha has realized nonself, there's no one thinking a thought.padma norbu wrote:BTW, is this a bad translation? People seem to say his is the definitive translation and that he is a great translator.
"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten kinds of Wisdom produced single thought by single thought. What are these ten? All Buddhas can, in a single thought, appear to descend from heaven in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest birth as Bodhisattvas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest renunciation of the mundane and study of the Way to liberation in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest attainment of the Perfect Correct Awakening under Bodhi-trees in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest turning wonderful Dharma- wheels in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest education of sentient beings and service of the Buddhas in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest untold variety of Buddha-bodies in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest all kinds of sublimes in infinite worlds, innumerable sublimes, the freedoms of the Thus Come Ones, and the treasury of omniscience. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest countless pure beings in infinite worlds. All Buddhas can, in a single thought, manifest the Buddhas of past, present, and future in infinite worlds, with various faculties and characters, various diligences, and various practices and understandings, attaining the Perfect Correct Awakening in the past, present and future. These are the ten."
— Avatamsaka Sutra Translated into English by Thomas Cleary
BTW, if the Buddha couldn't think, how do you suppose he decided to produce Siddhartha Gautoma as a nirmanakaya emanation as a display in order to teach sentient beings?
PS - yes, I really am done with this thread. I have no desire to engage in any more discussion about this, these are just parting thoughts.
CAW!
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
sure you are..just like "the illusion of spac" is unchanging so is the illusion of the mind..it doesnt function under its own cause and effect, it merely emerges when its parts come togetheradinatha wrote:I'm not saying it is unchanging at all.
i didnt say it was an emergent property of a certain location, i said it is an emergent property of physical parts in a certain location. you cant cut such an apple, you can only cut the physical parts and bring about 2 emergent halves of an apple.An apple is not an emergent property of a certain location. An apple is an evolved living organism.
you cant actually cut the apple, the apple is just an illusion it cannot act under its own causes and conditions, it depends on that from which it emerged (the physical parts)
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
padma norbu wrote: "The difference between buddhas and sentient beings is the difference between knowing or not knowing our innate nature."
That is my understanding.
It also, by the way, reminds me of a very funny quote attributed to Salvador Dali:
"The only difference between a madman and myself, it that I am not mad"
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
What did I say was changing? Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence, causality, nidanas, etc. The dharmadhatu is unchanging.5heaps wrote:sure you are..just like "the illusion of spac" is unchanging so is the illusion of the mind..it doesnt function under its own cause and effect, it merely emerges when its parts come togetheradinatha wrote:I'm not saying it is unchanging at all.
i didnt say it was an emergent property of a certain location, i said it is an emergent property of physical parts in a certain location. you cant cut such an apple, you can only cut the physical parts and bring about 2 emergent halves of an apple. [/quote]An apple is not an emergent property of a certain location. An apple is an evolved living organism.
This sort of metaphysical speculation is just semantics.
I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.you cant actually cut the apple, the apple is just an illusion it cannot act under its own causes and conditions, it depends on that from which it emerged (the physical parts)
CAW!
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise." --Surangama Sutra
Phenomenon, vast as space, dharmata is your base, arising and falling like ocean tide cycles, why do i cling to your illusion of unceasing changlessness?
Phenomenon, vast as space, dharmata is your base, arising and falling like ocean tide cycles, why do i cling to your illusion of unceasing changlessness?
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
emergent property is an actual philosophy, unlike your "pentagon mirror room" and "illusion of space" example. if mind is like those then mind is unchanging, for the reasons ive explainedadinatha wrote:I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.
how is it produced if its like "the illusion of space"? space is unchanging. an illusion of space is a nonexistent. how can those be like mind, which is a changing thing?Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence
mind is changing because its momentary..is space momentary? is a nonexistent momentary?
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
Consciousnesses (8 of them) are the effects of mind now. These are what we have now. When we become enlightenment, the effects of mind will be greater.
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
The mirror example comes from some monk (I forget who) who actually built one of these mirror rooms to illustrate an example from the Avatamsaka Sutra. I didn't make it up.5heaps wrote:emergent property is an actual philosophy, unlike your "pentagon mirror room" and "illusion of space" example. if mind is like those then mind is unchanging, for the reasons ive explainedadinatha wrote:I cut an apple with a knife. Your talking pseudo-philosophy.
You have not established your point. You need to do that. All you've done is throw out some jargon.
If you have an idea that there is space, then yes. How do you separate space from your awareness? Impossible. These two are co-emergent.5heaps wrote:how is it produced if its like "the illusion of space"? space is unchanging. an illusion of space is a nonexistent. how can those be like mind, which is a changing thing?Consciousness is always changing. It is a skandha subject to impermanence
mind is changing because its momentary..is space momentary? is a nonexistent momentary?
CAW!
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
One can take many teachers of opposing views and then contemplate for oneself and possibly change one's views through the years too. Also in any advanced level within any subject or discipline discussed by many, no teacher means mass diversions based on what's important to different people currently and mass confusion.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
- padma norbu
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
Offered without comment...
http://www.lamrimnotes.webs.com/dzogchen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.lamrimnotes.webs.com/dzogchen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
Re: Can we ever really understand consciousness?
they are different things, they exist as separate things by definition. perhaps what youre trying to say is that in order for mind to arise it needs an object to engage with (ie. cognition is not possible without cognition of something). but this still doesnt explain how mind is like "the illusion of space", which is an ontological statement, rather than a statement about its productionadinatha wrote:If you have an idea that there is space, then yes. How do you separate space from your awareness? Impossible. These two are co-emergent.