Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm If sense consciousness is CAN be faulty, you can never be certain that at the time of an experience through the sense consciousness, that it is not faulty. If so, there can be no certainty of the truth of an experience especially when the experience is something new.
I once asked my teacher about this very thing.
His answer was basically that because the nature of awakened mind is clarity rather than confusion, when you have a truly valid awakening, you will know that your experience is valid.

Rather than being unsure, as you suggest, you will be sure. This is no different than finding one’s way out of the woods or out from a maze. You don’t wonder if you are out or not. It’s evident, because the causes of that clarity are there.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by LastLegend »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:32 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:37 pm
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:57 pm I should also say that "precedes" is not quite the right word, as the naturally present awareness cannot be "temporal" and in fact imbues experiences as well. It is beyond the ability of conceptual mind to contain or define. But it is not a "thing," or any sort of permanent entity either.
This is just consciousness. Otherwise, you are proposing a consciousness which does not belong to the six or eight consciousnesses and this is erroneous.

Consciousness is not necessarily dualistic. When you subtract "vi" from "jñāna" you only have jñāna as a remainder. But this still is not outside the manodhātu.
Aren't the six consciousness dependently arisen? If so, all the six consciousness are dualistic by definition isn't it?
It could be a big debate here to discuss what consciousness does, but maybe we can agree that we all have a function to distinguish regardless how’s it worded (you versus me, sentient beings, etc). The sense of self and appearance of self come from that function (distinguish). This function becomes functional wisdom when one has truly awakened. People have showed disagreement here and that’s fine.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:16 pm
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:14 pm
You yourself said that sense consciousness can be faulty. If sense consciousness is CAN be faulty, you can never be certain that at the time of an experience through the sense consciousness, that it is not faulty. If so, there can be no certainty of the truth of an experience especially when the experience is something new.
This is why we have teachers. And in an ordinary way, if we are not sure of an experience, we confirm it with someone else, such as "Did you hear that? Did you see that? Did you feel that?" etc.

It is not the big mystery you are making it out to be. Sheesh.
Sure, a Buddha will have to consult his teacher if he has a new experience. And his teacher will have to consult his teacher if that experience is new to him as well.
This is strange. Buddhas are omniscient with respect to all paths and the experiences on those paths. But yes, they too once had teachers.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 am
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:16 pm

This is why we have teachers. And in an ordinary way, if we are not sure of an experience, we confirm it with someone else, such as "Did you hear that? Did you see that? Did you feel that?" etc.

It is not the big mystery you are making it out to be. Sheesh.
Sure, a Buddha will have to consult his teacher if he has a new experience. And his teacher will have to consult his teacher if that experience is new to him as well.
This is strange. Buddhas are omniscient with respect to all paths and the experiences on those paths. But yes, they too once had teachers.
Of course it is strange. It is what would logically follow from all that you have said previously. From what you have said previously, Buddhas too must have their experience mediated via sense consciousness based since there is no such thing as direct knowing without mediation via sense consciousness. Therefore it has to be teachers all the way because certainty cannot be obtained without consultation with teachers since sense consciousness can be faulty.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:00 pm
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm If sense consciousness is CAN be faulty, you can never be certain that at the time of an experience through the sense consciousness, that it is not faulty. If so, there can be no certainty of the truth of an experience especially when the experience is something new.
I once asked my teacher about this very thing.
His answer was basically that because the nature of awakened mind is clarity rather than confusion, when you have a truly valid awakening, you will know that your experience is valid.

Rather than being unsure, as you suggest, you will be sure. This is no different than finding one’s way out of the woods or out from a maze. You don’t wonder if you are out or not. It’s evident, because the causes of that clarity are there.
If your ability to realize the true nature of reality must always be mediated by a sense consciousness and if a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can you ever be sure if a particular experience of reality is true? Some doubt, no matter how small must be present. But an awakened mind is free from even the tiniest bit of doubt. How can there be such a mind if all experiences of the mind must be mediated by possibly faulty sense consciousness?
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5712
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:21 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:00 pm
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm If sense consciousness is CAN be faulty, you can never be certain that at the time of an experience through the sense consciousness, that it is not faulty. If so, there can be no certainty of the truth of an experience especially when the experience is something new.
I once asked my teacher about this very thing.
His answer was basically that because the nature of awakened mind is clarity rather than confusion, when you have a truly valid awakening, you will know that your experience is valid.

Rather than being unsure, as you suggest, you will be sure. This is no different than finding one’s way out of the woods or out from a maze. You don’t wonder if you are out or not. It’s evident, because the causes of that clarity are there.
If your ability to realize the true nature of reality must always be mediated by a sense consciousness and if a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can you ever be sure if a particular experience of reality is true? Some doubt, no matter how small must be present. But an awakened mind is free from even the tiniest bit of doubt. How can there be such a mind if all experiences of the mind must be mediated by possibly faulty sense consciousness?
Do you consider the mental consciousness to be a sense consciousness, Sherab?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:21 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:00 pm
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm If sense consciousness is CAN be faulty, you can never be certain that at the time of an experience through the sense consciousness, that it is not faulty. If so, there can be no certainty of the truth of an experience especially when the experience is something new.
I once asked my teacher about this very thing.
His answer was basically that because the nature of awakened mind is clarity rather than confusion, when you have a truly valid awakening, you will know that your experience is valid.

Rather than being unsure, as you suggest, you will be sure. This is no different than finding one’s way out of the woods or out from a maze. You don’t wonder if you are out or not. It’s evident, because the causes of that clarity are there.
If your ability to realize the true nature of reality must always be mediated by a sense consciousness and if a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can you ever be sure if a particular experience of reality is true? Some doubt, no matter how small must be present. But an awakened mind is free from even the tiniest bit of doubt. How can there be such a mind if all experiences of the mind must be mediated by possibly faulty sense consciousness?
Are you aware of the field of Pramana? It is an important logical study in Tibetan Buddhism, which specifically addresses this very good question you raise here.

I'm sure some members could provide references if you like.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:14 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 am
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 pm
Sure, a Buddha will have to consult his teacher if he has a new experience. And his teacher will have to consult his teacher if that experience is new to him as well.
This is strange. Buddhas are omniscient with respect to all paths and the experiences on those paths. But yes, they too once had teachers.
Of course it is strange. It is what would logically follow from all that you have said previously. From what you have said previously, Buddhas too must have their experience mediated via sense consciousness based since there is no such thing as direct knowing without mediation via sense consciousness. Therefore it has to be teachers all the way because certainty cannot be obtained without consultation with teachers since sense consciousness can be faulty.
Buddhas know things directly without sense mediation. But they didn’t start out that way, and neither do we. Hence there is no beginning to tathagatas, and this infinite regress is not a fault.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Caoimhghín »

So do Buddhas only have four out of five eyes, according to either you or your tradition? Or rather, they have fleshly eyes and don't use them, never letting them make contact with a visible to produce the corresponding visual consciousness?
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:11 pm So do Buddhas only have four out of five eyes, according to either you or your tradition? Or rather, they have fleshly eyes and don't use them, never letting them make contact with a visible to produce the corresponding visual consciousness?
Buddhas can smell with their eyes, taste with their ears, hear with their tongues, and so on.

In any case, Sarvajnana is unmediated knowledge of reality and all knowables included with aggregate, senses bases and sense elements.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:29 pm
Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:21 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:00 pm
I once asked my teacher about this very thing.
His answer was basically that because the nature of awakened mind is clarity rather than confusion, when you have a truly valid awakening, you will know that your experience is valid.

Rather than being unsure, as you suggest, you will be sure. This is no different than finding one’s way out of the woods or out from a maze. You don’t wonder if you are out or not. It’s evident, because the causes of that clarity are there.
If your ability to realize the true nature of reality must always be mediated by a sense consciousness and if a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can you ever be sure if a particular experience of reality is true? Some doubt, no matter how small must be present. But an awakened mind is free from even the tiniest bit of doubt. How can there be such a mind if all experiences of the mind must be mediated by possibly faulty sense consciousness?
Do you consider the mental consciousness to be a sense consciousness, Sherab?
Yes
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:44 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:14 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 am

This is strange. Buddhas are omniscient with respect to all paths and the experiences on those paths. But yes, they too once had teachers.
Of course it is strange. It is what would logically follow from all that you have said previously. From what you have said previously, Buddhas too must have their experience mediated via sense consciousness based since there is no such thing as direct knowing without mediation via sense consciousness. Therefore it has to be teachers all the way because certainty cannot be obtained without consultation with teachers since sense consciousness can be faulty.
Buddhas know things directly without sense mediation. But they didn’t start out that way, and neither do we. Hence there is no beginning to tathagatas, and this infinite regress is not a fault.
Budhas know things directly without sense mediation. Therefore, we too can know things directly without sense mediation because without that ability, we can never become Buddhas. It follows that direct knowing makes sense only if it is not mediated by sense consciousness, unless we have one definition of direct knowing for Buddhas and another for the rest.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:57 pm Budhas know things directly without sense mediation. Therefore, we too can know things directly without sense mediation because without that ability, we can never become Buddhas. It follows that direct knowing makes sense only if it is not mediated by sense consciousness, unless we have one definition of direct knowing for Buddhas and another for the rest.
So, are you talking about yogapratyakṣa? If so, what inhibits this is traces of ignorance, which is why the yogic direct perception of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is incapable ot realizing all objects of knowledge due to the presence of traces of ignorance.

Generally, however, pratyakṣa is confined to the five sense because manas is always a cognition of a direct perception of the five sense bases, aka a simple impression.

Yogic direct perception is a personal intuition (pratyatmyavit), not an ordinary direct perception, for example the direct perception of a hawk hunting mice.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:23 pm
Sherab wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:57 pm Budhas know things directly without sense mediation. Therefore, we too can know things directly without sense mediation because without that ability, we can never become Buddhas. It follows that direct knowing makes sense only if it is not mediated by sense consciousness, unless we have one definition of direct knowing for Buddhas and another for the rest.
So, are you talking about yogapratyakṣa? If so, what inhibits this is traces of ignorance, which is why the yogic direct perception of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is incapable ot realizing all objects of knowledge due to the presence of traces of ignorance.

Generally, however, pratyakṣa is confined to the five sense because manas is always a cognition of a direct perception of the five sense bases, aka a simple impression.

Yogic direct perception is a personal intuition (pratyatmyavit), not an ordinary direct perception, for example the direct perception of a hawk hunting mice.
I was talking about direct knowing. It started off by my asking conebeckham what was his definition of direct knowing. Both you and conebeckham insisted that direct knowing is necessarily mediated by sense consciousness, and therefore the debate ensued.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:29 pm I was talking about direct knowing.
Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”

Direct perceptions are, in ordinary people only the consciousnesses of the five physical senses.

Yogis have different capacities, called abhijnana, “higher or direct knowing,” Knowledge past lives, etc. these are also five in number.

The sixth, unique to Buddhists, is insight.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:49 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:29 pm I was talking about direct knowing.
Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first. Therefore I asked him what his definition was. His posts and your posts indicated to me that both of you took "direct knowing" as being mediated by sense consciousness. My responses would have indicated to you that I disagreed. That much should be obvious.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by LastLegend »

When it’s filtered then it’s become subject of aggregates.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

The best description of Direct Knowing that I’ve ever seen is expressed in the famous zen writing,
On Believing In Mind:

http://www.mendosa.com/way3.htm
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5712
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:49 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:29 pm I was talking about direct knowing.
Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first. Therefore I asked him what his definition was. His posts and your posts indicated to me that both of you took "direct knowing" as being mediated by sense consciousness. My responses would have indicated to you that I disagreed. That much should be obvious.
I guess I should clarify that for us, sentient beings, direct knowing is the sense consciousnesses direct nonconceptual perception, but that for us, this is always the object of the mental consciousness--these direct perceptions become the content of mental consciousness and are therefore conceptual and at one remove from direct knowing.

But we have the capacity for insight in meditative states, and the possibility of a "direct knowing" that is not conceptual nor derived from sense consciousnesses. Or so I think......
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:49 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:29 pm I was talking about direct knowing.
Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first.
Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”