Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Post Reply
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 »

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.
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: 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?

That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
A physical sense consciousness, I.e contact. Then comes sensation.

As for your second question, of course.

The consciousness aggregate is always nonconceptual and momentary.
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 2:49 am
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?

That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
A physical sense consciousness, I.e contact. Then comes sensation.

As for your second question, of course.

The consciousness aggregate is always nonconceptual and momentary.
If a sense consciousness is faulty, the experience will be faulty. If the experience is faulty, the knowing is faulty. Can a faulty knowing be direct knowing?
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:54 pm
Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:30 pm

There is a moment prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain, ouch, etc. that is direct. But mental consciousness takes over in an instant, for us, and our experience becomes conceptual and indirect. In general terms, for sentient beings, all our "Experience" is indirect and mental consciousness.
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?
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 7:52 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:49 am
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?

That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
A physical sense consciousness, I.e contact. Then comes sensation.

As for your second question, of course.

The consciousness aggregate is always nonconceptual and momentary.
If a sense consciousness is faulty, the experience will be faulty. If the experience is faulty, the knowing is faulty. Can a faulty knowing be direct knowing?
Direct perceptions can be erroneous.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:52 am If a sense consciousness is faulty, the experience will be faulty. If the experience is faulty, the knowing is faulty. Can a faulty knowing be direct knowing?
In a sense, all of our sense faculties are faulty. We can’t smell nearly as well as dogs can, nor can we see the ultraviolet colors in flowers that bees can see. The fact that we see phenomena as static rather than as ongoing processes, or that we don’t see everything on the microscopic level on which everything is actually happening indicates that our perceptions are faulty.

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.

But that is precisely why we acknowledge the limits of our perceptions without clinging to them.

In a practical sense, it is that process of ‘not-clinging’ to our perceptions that is referred to as ‘direct perception’. If you want to talk about how Buddhas and celestial Bodhisattvas see with their third eyes or whatever, that’s a different story.

In terms of physical matter, no, you might never be able to look outside during a storm and be able to accurately count how many individual raindrops are falling, even though technically that would be a direct perception. But to experience rain as it is, without forming opinions about it, thinking “this is a terrible rain” or “this is a wonderful rain” because it’s just rain, is direct perception, meaning not imputing your interpretation onto things.

The whole purpose for developing direct perception isn’t to be able to smell what a dog smells or see what bees see, or hear what bats hear. The purpose is to reduce and eliminate self-grasping, not only at the experience one has of oneself, but at the experience one has of an intrinsic ‘self’ in objects of phenomena.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Archie2009
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Archie2009 »

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?
No.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

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.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:10 am
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:03 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:57 am

There may be arising duality a half second later.
But the instance of immediate pain, it’s just that.

Ultimately, everything is either awareness, or else, an object of awareness.
Half second... or a mind moment? And how much of this "pain" is constructed by the mind, how much would have been in the mind-moment of contact?

I think that vast majority of this pain is created by the mind (in subsequent processes). I'm doubtful that any of the pain would have happened in the moment of contact...
It’s still nonconceptual.
Not when there's an I hammering there. It's my pain.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:02 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:10 am
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:03 am

Half second... or a mind moment? And how much of this "pain" is constructed by the mind, how much would have been in the mind-moment of contact?

I think that vast majority of this pain is created by the mind (in subsequent processes). I'm doubtful that any of the pain would have happened in the moment of contact...
It’s still nonconceptual.
Not when there's an I hammering there. It's my pain.
But you aren’t thinking, “I, Crazy Wisdom, am now experiencing a painful sensation in my thumb!”
Just in terms of physiology, the signal sent to your brain from the nerve endings in your thumb happens at the speed of an electrical current. You feel the pain even before you know you feel it.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Archie2009
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Archie2009 »

Archie2009 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:22 pm
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?
No.
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.
So can the knowledge of rig pa/vidyā be faulty?

In your Wisdom Lecture 2 you defined vidyā in the context of Dzogchen as "the knowledge of the essence that permeates all, which is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance, and so on." And also "rig pa for Dzogchen means knowledge that you have a result of a direct perception. What’s called in Sanskrit a pratyakṣa or in Tibetan a mngon sum."

So, this vidyā is a kind of direct perception that cannot be faulty? And its knowledge is confined to the basis?

But, there is also a kind of vidyā called "Vidyā that apprehends characteristics. One’s nonconceptual knowing consciousness which is defiled by many cognitions." And this kind of vidyā can be faulty and is sort of preliminary?

Just trying to wrap my head around this.
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 »

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.
So, is Jnana a "Consciousness?" Would we classify "Sem Nyi" as a consciousness, in the usual sense, as a dualistic "perception?" Perhaps better to say that "consciousness" and "the nature of consciousness" are of course not separable? We can say the nature of all consciousnesses are clear, unimpeded, and empty but aware--and yet that which is "experienced" via the sense or mental consciousnesses is dependent and momentary? Is it appropriate to say that the "Nature of consciousness"---that which is clear, emoty, and unimpeded--relies on the momentary and dependent moments of any of the 6 (or 8) consciousnesses?
Last edited by conebeckham on Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

conebeckham wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:59 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.
So, is Jnana a "Consciousness?" Would we classify "Sem Nyi" as a consciousness, in the usual sense, as a dualistic "perception?"
Citta dharmatā is the nature of citta (dharmin). No citta dharmin, no citta dharmatā, cittatā (sems nyid) for short. 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.

Jñāna just means "knowledge," knowing, etc. There are both mundane and transcendent jñānas, meaning the object of this knowing is mundane or transcendent.
Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:10 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 »

Archie2009 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:37 pm
But, there is also a kind of vidyā called "Vidyā that apprehends characteristics. One’s nonconceptual knowing consciousness which is defiled by many cognitions." And this kind of vidyā can be faulty and is sort of preliminary?
Rig pa is a characteristic of the mind, there are basically three: clarity (gsal ba), cognizance (rig pa), and emptiness (stong pa). Often you see "gsal rig" as one adjectival phrase, but when we examine more closely, we see them parsed separately.

As for your question, yes the vidyā that grasps characteristics is faulty, not intrinsically, but merely because it is consciousness which grasps outer and inner objects.

There is nothing apart from the mind that can be found which can be called "rig pa." That's a rabbit hole down which many people fall.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:04 pm
conebeckham wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:37 pm

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.
So, is Jnana a "Consciousness?" Would we classify "Sem Nyi" as a consciousness, in the usual sense, as a dualistic "perception?"
Citta dharmatā is the nature of citta (dharmin). No citta dharmin, no citta dharmatā, cittatā (sems nyid) for short. 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.

Jñāna just means "knowledge," knowing, etc. There are both mundane and transcendent jñānas, meaning the object of this knowing is mundane or transcendent.
I edited my post while you were replying, but I think we are saying the same thing?
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 »

conebeckham wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:11 pm
I edited my post while you were replying, but I think we are saying the same thing?
Maybe, but when people start talking about rig pa, ye shes, sems nyid, etc. as if they are some other sort of mind not included in the vijñāna skandha, it is a little strange.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:24 pm
conebeckham wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:11 pm
I edited my post while you were replying, but I think we are saying the same thing?
Maybe, but when people start talking about rig pa, ye shes, sems nyid, etc. as if they are some other sort of mind not included in the vijñāna skandha, it is a little strange.
Got it, and understood. My teachers do differentiate between "Consciousness" and "Wisdom" but as I understand things, they are the same thing, have to be the same "thing," though in some sense there is no "thing" to be found anywhere--though one cannot deny personal experience, of course.
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")
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:45 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:02 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:10 am
It’s still nonconceptual.
Not when there's an I hammering there. It's my pain.
But you aren’t thinking, “I, Crazy Wisdom, am now experiencing a painful sensation in my thumb!”
Just in terms of physiology, the signal sent to your brain from the nerve endings in your thumb happens at the speed of an electrical current. You feel the pain even before you know you feel it.
Without hearing, study and meditation it's a concept with pain.
Archie2009
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Archie2009 »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:09 pm
Archie2009 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:37 pm
But, there is also a kind of vidyā called "Vidyā that apprehends characteristics. One’s nonconceptual knowing consciousness which is defiled by many cognitions." And this kind of vidyā can be faulty and is sort of preliminary?
Rig pa is a characteristic of the mind, there are basically three: clarity (gsal ba), cognizance (rig pa), and emptiness (stong pa). Often you see "gsal rig" as one adjectival phrase, but when we examine more closely, we see them parsed separately.

As for your question, yes the vidyā that grasps characteristics is faulty, not intrinsically, but merely because it is consciousness which grasps outer and inner objects.

There is nothing apart from the mind that can be found which can be called "rig pa." That's a rabbit hole down which many people fall.
Thanks. Let's hope my orangutan's head and body won't fit through. :rolleye:
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 12:14 pm
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:52 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:49 am

A physical sense consciousness, I.e contact. Then comes sensation.

As for your second question, of course.

The consciousness aggregate is always nonconceptual and momentary.
If a sense consciousness is faulty, the experience will be faulty. If the experience is faulty, the knowing is faulty. Can a faulty knowing be direct knowing?
Direct perceptions can be erroneous.
Since direct sense perceptions can be erroneous, it means that first instances of appearances can also be erroneous, since they are dependent on direct sense perceptions. Therefore there is nothing useful about direct sense perceptions and the first instances of an appearance. There is nothing useful in direct knowledge of anything.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”