In other words, the ultimate truth cannot be directly perceived. It can only be inferred. Somehow, I don't think that way of knowing the ultimate truth is reliable. Your inference can be in error and you will not know it.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:16 pm The faulty perception that we are bound to as humans is our relative truth, and the reality of things as they are, that we cannot necessarily perceive directly, is the ultimate truth.
Question about inherent existence
Re: Question about inherent existence
Re: Question about inherent existence
Aren't the six consciousness dependently arisen? If so, all the six consciousness are dualistic by definition isn't it?Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:37 pmThis is just consciousness. Otherwise, you are proposing a consciousness which does not belong to the six or eight consciousnesses and this is erroneous.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.
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.
Re: Question about inherent existence
The Buddha said, when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
When the mind is free from inner and outer objects, what object still remains in order for that mind not to cease as per dependent origination?
Re: Question about inherent existence
"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5714
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Question about inherent existence
Sem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.Sherab wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 amCan the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?conebeckham wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:54 pmAwareness--naturally present awareness, empty and lucid, precedes all "experiences" of objects and concepts.
Naturally present awareness is unborn, unfabricated, empty, and not dependently arisen. In Tibetan we use the terms Sem Nyi, or Thamal Gyi Shepa, or Rangjung Yeshe. These terms are distinct from "Consciousness" which is subject/object and dependent.That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
You asked:
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"The Buddha said, when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
When the mind is free from inner and outer objects, what object still remains in order for that mind not to cease as per dependent origination?
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")
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")
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9443
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Question about inherent existence
Well, depending on what “ultimate truth“ you are referring to, the mind can be aware of anything.Sherab wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:11 pmIn other words, the ultimate truth cannot be directly perceived. It can only be inferred. Somehow, I don't think that way of knowing the ultimate truth is reliable. Your inference can be in error and you will not know it.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:16 pm The faulty perception that we are bound to as humans is our relative truth, and the reality of things as they are, that we cannot necessarily perceive directly, is the ultimate truth.
In Buddhism, ultimate truth generally refers to the mutual arising and lack of inherent ‘self’ in phenomena. That can be directly experienced, even though we refer to the relative truth of things as perceived.
We have microscopes too.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Question about inherent existence
So, when your body is free from disease, it does not mean that the disease is absent in the body according to your definition of "is free from".Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:41 pm"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
Last edited by Sherab on Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Question about inherent existence
Since the first instance of an experience is mediated by a sense consciousness, and since a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can the experience of the Mind Itself be free from error? It does not matter if the experience by the Mind Itself is atemporal, it's experience is still mediated by a faulty sense consciousness according to you.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 amSem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.Sherab wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 amCan the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?conebeckham wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:54 pm
Awareness--naturally present awareness, empty and lucid, precedes all "experiences" of objects and concepts.
Naturally present awareness is unborn, unfabricated, empty, and not dependently arisen. In Tibetan we use the terms Sem Nyi, or Thamal Gyi Shepa, or Rangjung Yeshe. These terms are distinct from "Consciousness" which is subject/object and dependent.
You asked:If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"The Buddha said, when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
When the mind is free from inner and outer objects, what object still remains in order for that mind not to cease as per dependent origination?
Re: Question about inherent existence
In this case it simply means the mind is free from any grasping to outer and inner sense objects. It does not mean that mind lacks apprehension of outer and inner sense objects.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Question about inherent existence
Just because a sense consciousness can be faulty does not entail that it must be faulty. A sense consciousness can also be veridical, provided the organ is healthy and there are no other deceptive conditions.Sherab wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pmSince the first instance of an experience is mediated by a sense consciousness, and since a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can the experience of the Mind Itself be free from error? It does not matter if the experience by the Mind Itself is atemporal, it's experience is still mediated by a faulty sense consciousness according to you.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 amSem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.
You asked:If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"The Buddha said, when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
When the mind is free from inner and outer objects, what object still remains in order for that mind not to cease as per dependent origination?
Re: Question about inherent existence
So, free from objects = free from apprehension of objects. Who would have thought that they meant the same thing. It is not a conventional way of understanding the phrase, it seems to me.
Re: Question about inherent existence
As long as it CAN be faulty, there is no way of having certainty regarding the truth of an experience since all experiences have to be mediated by a sense consciousness according to you.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:54 pmJust because a sense consciousness can be faulty does not entail that it must be faulty. A sense consciousness can also be veridical, provided the organ is healthy and there are no other deceptive conditions.Sherab wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pmSince the first instance of an experience is mediated by a sense consciousness, and since a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can the experience of the Mind Itself be free from error? It does not matter if the experience by the Mind Itself is atemporal, it's experience is still mediated by a faulty sense consciousness according to you.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 am
Sem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.
You asked:
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
Re: Question about inherent existence
I did not say that. I said, "In this case it simply means the mind is free from any grasping to outer and inner sense objects. It does not mean that mind lacks apprehension of outer and inner sense objects."Sherab wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:56 pmSo, free from objects = free from apprehension of objects. Who would have thought that they meant the same thing. It is not a conventional way of understanding the phrase, it seems to me.
How things seem to you is not under my control.
Of course one can be certain of the truth of an experience, even mundane experience. If one's senses are healthy and there is no obscuring conditions, one can be confident that one's sensory experience is veridical. For example, seeing one moon rather than two.As long as it CAN be faulty, there is no way of having certainty regarding the truth of an experience since all experiences have to be mediated by a sense consciousness according to you.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5714
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: Question about inherent existence
Let's limit the discussion to the Mental Consciousness for the moment. Our mindstream is composed of images, thoughts, concepts, feelings, memories, etc. All the "Sense consciousnesses" focused outward produce the material which the mental consciousness takes as objects as well--sights, sounds, etc. All of this material is experienced, really, by mental consciousness as experience. I believe that the result of an object and a sense consciousness can't really be said to be "experienced" until there is an "experiencer," which is the mental consciousness. Do you agree with this?Sherab wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pmSince the first instance of an experience is mediated by a sense consciousness, and since a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can the experience of the Mind Itself be free from error? It does not matter if the experience by the Mind Itself is atemporal, it's experience is still mediated by a faulty sense consciousness according to you.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 amSem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.
You asked:If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"The Buddha said, when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
When the mind is free from inner and outer objects, what object still remains in order for that mind not to cease as per dependent origination?
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")
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")
Re: Question about inherent existence
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.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:12 pm Of course one can be certain of the truth of an experience, even mundane experience. If one's senses are healthy and there is no obscuring conditions, one can be confident that one's sensory experience is veridical. For example, seeing one moon rather than two.
Re: Question about inherent existence
Some argue that dependent arising is simultaneous in that the subject and object arise at the same time. And so, an experience would arise at the same time as the arising of the subject and object. I tend to agree with this for experiences in the mind. Dependent arising in the physical world, I tend to think that cause to precede effect.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:57 pmLet's limit the discussion to the Mental Consciousness for the moment. Our mindstream is composed of images, thoughts, concepts, feelings, memories, etc. All the "Sense consciousnesses" focused outward produce the material which the mental consciousness takes as objects as well--sights, sounds, etc. All of this material is experienced, really, by mental consciousness as experience. I believe that the result of an object and a sense consciousness can't really be said to be "experienced" until there is an "experiencer," which is the mental consciousness. Do you agree with this?Sherab wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pmSince the first instance of an experience is mediated by a sense consciousness, and since a sense consciousness can be faulty, how can the experience of the Mind Itself be free from error? It does not matter if the experience by the Mind Itself is atemporal, it's experience is still mediated by a faulty sense consciousness according to you.conebeckham wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 am
Sem Nyi, Mind Itself, is the nature of consciousness--saying it "precedes" in a temporal fashion is incorrect--I pointed this out in a subsequent post. Whether the physical or mental sense consciousnesses are faulty or not is not relevant--whether the consciousness is faulty or not, the nature of the consciousness is primordially beyond fault. As I said, it's not really correct to say that Awareness "precedes." Let's just say that it imbues all our experience--"Unborn" is just a descriptive word.
You asked:
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
Re: Question about inherent existence
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.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:14 pmYou 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.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:12 pm Of course one can be certain of the truth of an experience, even mundane experience. If one's senses are healthy and there is no obscuring conditions, one can be confident that one's sensory experience is veridical. For example, seeing one moon rather than two.
It is not the big mystery you are making it out to be. Sheesh.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17092
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Question about inherent existence
I don't really understand defining a sense experience as "true" or "false", those are conceptual things.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Question about inherent existence
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.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:16 pmThis 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.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:14 pmYou 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.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:12 pm Of course one can be certain of the truth of an experience, even mundane experience. If one's senses are healthy and there is no obscuring conditions, one can be confident that one's sensory experience is veridical. For example, seeing one moon rather than two.
It is not the big mystery you are making it out to be. Sheesh.