Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:29 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
alpha wrote:
can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.



The Yogacara Madhyamakas like Santarakshita accept that mind is self-knowing (svasaṃvedana).

N

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am
Posts: 74
[also waiting for Namdrol's thoughts]
It's a simple idea that the mind only knows an objective referent from the (albeit immediate) past. We can cognize that we cognize(d), but not cognize a cognition itself. The idea that I can cognize a cognition, and cognize that one, and then that one is very troubling to epistemologists. I myself have no problem with it. My brain isn't that flexible, but I can't see why one couldn't.
Also, there are prasangikas and there are prasangikas. Tsongkhapa, et alum, certainly refute the relative existence of rangrig, but Karmapas VIII and IX, Gorampa and Mipham to name a few, considered themselves prasangika and allowed the relative existence of rangrig.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am
Posts: 74
Minyak Kunzang Sonam - a Geluk sometimes student of Mipham - puts it like this:
We can see blue, but to be conscious of seeing blue is actually a cognition of "seeing blue," not of actual "blue."
To be conscious that we are conscious of seeing blue is again a third objective referent, and not in itself consciousness cognizing itself. We cannot fully cross our eyes, to coin a phrase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am
Posts: 74
I really enjoyed Paul WIlliam's book on the subject, Reflexive Nature of Awareness:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b742C2 ... &q&f=false

As well as Kapstein's review/critique of it:
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethi ... ein001.pdf

-and no, I did not pay $170 for it! Got it through ILL. ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Yogacara, Mahyamaka is not Dzogchen.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am
Posts: 74
Taroo datt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
magnus...

emptiness is the same as drinking or not drinking a glass of water,
it is different.
it is the same and yet different.
it is neither the same nor different.
it is none of these things, you cant talk about it.
it is all of these things, and in and as every normal thing, includuing all deluded concepts which are infact in their own way enlightened.

magnus, you cant get away from emptiness. every form of idea is emptiness, every view is no more substantial than clouds and yet clouds can bring flood and damage.

i guess i have tried to cover all bases magnus, just playing a game with words. words are empty. i am empty. the moment is empty. this computer is empty. rigpa is empty. non duality is emptyness. you cant get away from emptiness, but can you see it? mind seeing mind. emptiness seeing emptiness. all one and yet not one. emptiness.

the mind sees itself, when you have learnt to look within yourself and found the sensation within, and then it can be said that mind sees itself, or mind can be seen when you look at the objects around you, this normal sensation. mind is normal as a glass of water. not looking for anything that seems special.

best wishes, Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
White Lotus wrote:
magnus...

emptiness is the same as drinking or not drinking a glass of water,
it is different.
it is the same and yet different.
it is neither the same nor different.
it is none of these things, you cant talk about it.
it is all of these things, and in and as every normal thing, includuing all deluded concepts which are infact in their own way enlightened.

magnus, you cant get away from emptiness. every form of idea is emptiness, every view is no more substantial than clouds and yet clouds can bring flood and damage.

i guess i have tried to cover all bases magnus, just playing a game with words. words are empty. i am empty. the moment is empty. this computer is empty. rigpa is empty. non duality is emptyness. you cant get away from emptiness, but can you see it? mind seeing mind. emptiness seeing emptiness. all one and yet not one. emptiness.

the mind sees itself, when you have learnt to look within yourself and found the sensation within, and then it can be said that mind sees itself, or mind can be seen when you look at the objects around you, this normal sensation. mind is normal as a glass of water. not looking for anything that seems special.

best wishes, Tom.


Tom, a lot of words indeed. I hope you enjoyed them. :smile:

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
alpha wrote:
can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.



The Yogacara Madhyamakas like Santarakshita accept that mind is self-knowing (svasaṃvedana).

N

Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?



recollection.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

recollection.

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Prasangika Madhyamakas do not accept that there is svasaṃvedana relatively, let alone absolutely. Makes me wonder how they explain how a mind knows that it knows. Could you throw some light on this Namdrol?

recollection.

I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.


I feel the opposite, as soon as there has been an encountering between eye, ear, tongue and so on it is imprinted/registered also if it's not yet known ... knowing can happen at the time of the recollection (for any reason). Why should an experimentation disappear ... also if it has been no conscience of the knowing at the time of the sens even.
It's curious how years after I could "dream" of me walking in a street and clearely seeing an insignifiacnt object, like a bell on a door or such, that of course had no sens or interest or consequences or else, at the time of the walking ..

Sönam

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am
Posts: 74
Sherab wrote:
I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Posts: 460
Location: South Africa
Yontan wrote:
Sherab wrote:
I feel that for there to be a registration of the knowing, there has to be a knowing of the knowing at the time of the knowing. Without that, a memory is not registered. If a memory is not registered, there can be no recollection.

A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.


Or we can just go and practice :stirthepot:

_________________
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
White Lotus wrote:
magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.


Just look into own mind! Guru Rinpoche.

Hello 'my own conceptual drawings, how are you fools? Shall I manipulate you? Shall I be kind to you? All mind. = edit for clarification: when there is fault to see, it is my own mind only. _/\_

truth= IT IS NEITHER MIND NOR ANYTHING BUT MIND. Longchenpa.

All beings have tathagatagarbha
And thus they all posses the cause for buddhahood
So, view all of them as pure
And consider their great kindness.

ps not answering for Magnus, only general.

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


Last edited by muni on Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Yontan wrote:
A perfect example of the "infinite regression" problem. How can you know you know you know if you don't know you know you know you know?
In epistemological terms, we can distinguish descriptive/propositional knowledge (I know that the sky is blue) from knowledge by acquaintance (I look at the sky and eye sees blue). We do not have to know that the eye sees blue in order to see blue, nor in order to know that the sky is blue. After the fact, we can indeed "know" that the eye sees blue, but that is knowledge of the eye's perception, not knowledge of the color of the sky.

It is an infinite regression problem if you adopt the linear thinking of the Gelugpas.

For the yogacaras madhyamikas, knowing of the knowing is part and parcel of the knowing. It occurs simultaneously with knowing.

If you consider mind to be non-local, ie., there is knowing at all "possible points" "within" mind, then it makes sense for knowing of the knowing to arise at the time of the knowing. Think of a knife. Where does "cutting" occurs in a knife. Answer: at the cutting edge. At the cutting edge, the edge that is cutting is also cut. If the cutting edge is non-local i.e. all possible points of the knife is a cutting "edge", then at the time of cutting, the knife is also cut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
White Lotus wrote:
magnus, to see truth, you must realize it for yourself, length of post is not the issue. it is truth, which is emptiness. your terse replies are fun, and do nothing more than reveal my ego! (a valuable lesson). and yes, i did smile!

thank you.

Tom.


Please, don't feel offended. True emptiness leaves no experience since it destroys the mind.

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
not offended, just intrigued. a perfect mirror to see myself. but what puzzles me is... who or what would be offended especially since there is no i nor mine to be offended.

respects Magnus.

Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
White Lotus wrote:
not offended, just intrigued. a perfect mirror to see myself. but what puzzles me is... who or what would be offended especially since there is no i nor mine to be offended.

respects Magnus.

Tom.


Offense is just a bunch of thoughts arising like a dark cloud from the clinging to an I, nothing else.

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
There is nothing to undo, nothing to transform in the nonseparation of samsara or nirvana; all arises, subsides in itself. There is no samsara to undo or nirvana to reach.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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