Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

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 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.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

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?
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:04 pm When the mind rests alertly free from inner and outer objects, this will reveal the fundamental consciousness (gnyug ma'i shes pa), also called tha mal gyi shes pa and so on.
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?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:11 pm In other words, the ultimate truth cannot be directly perceived.

Of course it can, if not, the Buddha was not a buddha.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:38 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:04 pm When the mind rests alertly free from inner and outer objects, this will reveal the fundamental consciousness (gnyug ma'i shes pa), also called tha mal gyi shes pa and so on.
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?
"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 am
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:54 pm
Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm
That which experience the first moment of an experience prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain etc., what is it?
Awareness--naturally present awareness, empty and lucid, precedes all "experiences" of objects and concepts.
That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
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.
Can the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?
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:
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?
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
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")
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:11 pm
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 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.
Well, depending on what “ultimate truth“ you are referring to, the mind can be aware of anything.

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.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:38 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:04 pm When the mind rests alertly free from inner and outer objects, this will reveal the fundamental consciousness (gnyug ma'i shes pa), also called tha mal gyi shes pa and so on.
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?
"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
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".
Last edited by Sherab on Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 am
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 am
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.
Can the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?
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:
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?
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
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.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:38 pm
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?
"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
So, when your body is free from disease, it does mean that the disease is absent in the body.
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.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pm
conebeckham wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 am
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 am
Can the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?
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:
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?
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
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.
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.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:45 pm
Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:41 pm

"Free from" does not mean "in absence of," thus there is no fault.
So, when your body is free from disease, it does mean that the disease is absent in the body.
In this case it simply means the mind is free from any grasping outer and inner sense objects. It does not mean that mind lacks apprehension of outer and inner sense objects.
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.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:54 pm
Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pm
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?"
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.
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.
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
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:56 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:45 pm
Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:37 pm
So, when your body is free from disease, it does mean that the disease is absent in the body.
In this case it simply means the mind is free from any grasping outer and inner sense objects. It does not mean that mind lacks apprehension of outer and inner sense objects.
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.
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."

How things seem to you is not under my control.
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.
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.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pm
conebeckham wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:23 am
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:58 am
Can the direct knowing by Sem Nyi which precedes the experience of mental consciousness be faulty if the physical or mental sense consciousness is faulty?
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:
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?
If the mind is free from inner and outer objects, is there still a "mind?"
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.
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?
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")
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

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.
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.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:57 pm
Sherab wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:41 pm
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?"
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.
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?
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.
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 9:14 pm
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.
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.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

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
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:16 pm
Sherab wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:14 pm
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.
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”