How are they different?
[/quote]
The biggest difference, at least for me, is that the One Mind does not include such concepts as a creator god, personal god, theistic god, etc. The One Mind is not a god.
How are they different?
This argument does not make any sense. It also contradicts Nagārjuna, "Without relying on convention, the ultimate will not be understood."Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:21 amThis to me looks like an over negation. It creates a circularity and/or contradiction to dependent origination that invalidate all modes of existences. In other words, if ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth, none of us can even be here debating about it.
That is your private idea, one which you will never find in any Dharma text. According to Candrakīrti, ultimate truth is the object of an unmistaken cognition, that's all.What does dependent origination refers to? Dependent origination relies on the idea of causes and conditions. But conditions can be understood as a subset of causes. Therefore, many if not all, understood dependent origination as referring to a causal chain of one sort or another. But causal chains are temporal chains. And the flow of time is in my opinion what distinguished the relative from the ultimate.
So, if the ultimate is merely a conventional truth, it would mean that the ultimate is the endless linear temporal chain of causes and effects.
None of these consequences apply.Alternatively, one must somehow argue that the endless chain is a closed loop. Such a position necessarily imply that the endless temporal chain of causes and effects ITSELF is real while the phenomena on this endless chain are not. If the closed loop of causal chain is accepted, it would mean accepting that phenomena hold itself up by its own bootstraps. Neither position seems satisfactory to me.
It isn't. Dependent origination operates in three modes simultaneously: serially, momentarily, and simultaneously.If time is central in dependent origination,
Dependent origination taught by the Buddha is simply, "When this arises, that arises; with the arising of that, this arose."then that in itself contradicts what is understood in the Special Theory of Relative by Einstein, a theory that has withstood all experiments so far. In Special Relativity, all frames of reference are valid. But the photon ( a light "particle") experiences no time in its frame of reference. So an atemporal frame of reference is also valid. Causality as commonly understood only applies in frame of references other than that of the photon. That is why the speed of light can be understood as the speed of causality. Also, more theoretical physicists are now thinking that like space, time may not be fundamental.
Dependent origination is profound, but it is also eminently describable.One can read in various places in the sutras how the state of enlightenment is really not something describable. I think dependent origination is similar and not easily describable ultimately by unenlightened beings like ourselves.
I don't like this kind of reductionism. Madhyamaka and the Yogacara don't need to agree about everything, especially since the Yogacara school was in some ways a reaction to the Madhyamaka school.
Whether it's termed the One Mind, the Universal Mind, or the Big Mind, it's been a concept in Ch'an/Zen for over a thousand years, regardless of its scriptural basis or lack thereof:Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:59 pm "One Mind" is an English mistranslation of 一心 (cittamatra), i.e., mind-only.
You can clearly see this if you examine the Sanskrit and the Chinese side by side.
https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index ... xt&vid=441
The One Mind is also a concept in Tibetan Buddhism:Mind
Key concept in all Buddhist teaching.
Frequent term in Zen, used in two senses: (1) the mind-ground, the One Mind ... the buddha-mind, the mind of thusness ... (2) false mind, the ordinary mind dominated by conditioning, desire, aversion, ignorance, and false sense of self, the mind of delusion ... (J.C. Cleary, A Buddha from Korea.)
The ordinary, deluded mind (thought) includes feelings, impressions, conceptions, consciousness, etc. The Self-Nature True Mind is the fundamental nature, the Original Face, reality, etc. As an analogy, the Self-Nature True Mind is to mind what water is to waves -- the two cannot be dissociated.
https://www.ymba.org/books/mind-seal-buddhas/glossary
Ālayavijñāna (Skt., Tib. kun gzhi rnam par shes pa) - the unified field of consciousness in the Universe. This universal mind is each individual's higher consciousness. Each living being is an individual "spark" of this one vast whole, in which we breathe and move and have our being. This whole universal consciousness is the living Cosmos itself, constantly evolving through the totality of all experience, and growing ever more "aware" over billions of years. Like a great ocean, the lives of all beings, planetary worlds and star-systems leave their impressions, or imprints, within the whole, which become stored, as it were, in the total body of Universal Mind. Ultimately this is the meaning of life, for we are all contributing our lives to the conscious whole, and the conscious whole is a growing entity moving towards eventual self-reflexive awakening. This is an uniquely mystical doctrine perceived through direct insight by the Masters of the Yogācāra tradition.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library ... ossary.htm
The One Mind is not a Hindu Atman since it's ultimately empty which is why it's called pure, eternal, etc. It's not Brahman because Brahman is a God whereas One Mind is just talking about the pure mind of beings. It's not really different to saying Mind tbh.Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:56 pmHow are they different?Dharma Flower wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:35 am The One Mind is a teaching of the Lankvatara Sutra, in addition to the Flower Garland Sutra:
When there is an aversion to the Mahayana concept of the One Mind, this might be due to its apparent similarity to the Hindu concept of Atman and Brahman. The Mahayana and Hindu teachings, however, are not the same.Ma-tsu (709-788)
The Patriarch said to the assembly, “All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha. The great master Bodhidharma came from India to China, and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used the Lankavatara Sutra to seal the sentient beings’ mind-ground. Therefore, in the Lankavatara Sutra, mind is the essence of all the Buddha’s teachings, no gate is the Dharma-gate.
https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/sermons
It sounds similar to the True Self found in some Tibetan schools. A concept open to much misinterpretation.ItsRaining wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:30 amThe One Mind is not a Hindu Atman since it's ultimately empty which is why it's called pure, eternal, etc. It's not Brahman because Brahman is a God whereas One Mind is just talking about the pure mind of beings. It's not really different to saying Mind tbh.
You mentioned earlier that even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. This would mean that the ultimate is a convention just like the relative. As the ultimate truth is also a conventional truth, and since you said that the ultimate truth is the perception of emptiness of dependently originated phenomena, that very perception is not a perception of emptiness etc. but is merely labeled as a perception and is every bit as illusory as any perceived relative phenomena. So even perception of emptiness cannot be trusted as a true perception. In fact, nothing can be trusted as true whether relatively or ultimately once the statement that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is accepted. This is the circularity that I was alluding to.
But serially, momentarily and simulatneously all carry the idea of time. So it is incorrect to say that they are not dependent on time.
The teaching looks simple, but it is that simplicity that gave it a generality that enables dependent origination to encompass various forms, from serially, momentarily, simultaneously and even atemporally. In other words, while dependent origination is often understood as a temporal chain, it does not rule out the possibility that it can also be understood as atemporal chain.
I mentioned that dependent origination (and by extension emptiness), like the state of enlightenment, is not easily describable. I make this linkage because enlightenment is associated with the ultimate truth and therefore ontology. Dependent origination is also associated with onthology as it has to be a natural law of sorts since creationism is rejected in Buddhism. As both the state of enlightenment and dependent origination are associated with ontology, and since the state of enlightenment is hard to describe as attested to in the sutras, dependent origination/emptiness too I think, is hard to describe.
I would say that it's definition is a convention, but that it's realisation is beyond convention.
Ultimate has a meaning only relative to conventional, hence it is a conventional concept like all other concepts, otherwise one would have to claim that there is an ultimate concept.
So it is.This would mean that the ultimate is a convention just like the relative.
Even emptiness is empty.As the ultimate truth is also a conventional truth, and since you said that the ultimate truth is the perception of emptiness of dependently originated phenomena, that very perception is not a perception of emptiness etc. but is merely labeled as a perception and is every bit as illusory as any perceived relative phenomena.
Nothing should be trusted at all. When the mind abides nowhere, that is when it is free from clinging.So even perception of emptiness cannot be trusted as a true perception. In fact, nothing can be trusted as true whether relatively or ultimately once the statement that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is accepted.
This does not follow since truths in the specific usage of Buddhist texts are cognitions of objects. An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:59 amYou mentioned earlier that even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. This would mean that the ultimate is a convention just like the relative. As the ultimate truth is also a conventional truth, and since you said that the ultimate truth is the perception of emptiness of dependently originated phenomena, that very perception is not a perception of emptiness etc. but is merely labeled as a perception and is every bit as illusory as any perceived relative phenomena.
This consequence does not apply.So even perception of emptiness cannot be trusted as a true perception. In fact, nothing can be trusted as true whether relatively or ultimately once the statement that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is accepted. This is the circularity that I was alluding to.
Pretty clearly, you seem not to understand that in Buddhadharma, time is considered dependent on objects. Time is also something conditioned and relative.In response to my argument that time becomes central to dependent origination when it is taken as causal chain, you repliedBut serially, momentarily and simulatneously all carry the idea of time. So it is incorrect to say that they are not dependent on time.
Simultaneous dependent origination is atemporal, all links functioning at once and together. However, dependent origination is also merely a convention we use to describe causal appearances.The teaching looks simple, but it is that simplicity that gave it a generality that enables dependent origination to encompass various forms, from serially, momentarily, simultaneously and even atemporally. In other words, while dependent origination is often understood as a temporal chain, it does not rule out the possibility that it can also be understood as atemporal chain.
If you imagine there is really some transpersonal overmind, you are far outside the Buddha's teachings.Dharma Flower wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:36 amWhether it's termed the One Mind, the Universal Mind, or the Big Mind, it's been a concept in Ch'an/Zen for over a thousand years, regardless of its scriptural basis or lack thereof:Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:59 pm "One Mind" is an English mistranslation of 一心 (cittamatra), i.e., mind-only.
You can clearly see this if you examine the Sanskrit and the Chinese side by side.
https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index ... xt&vid=441
This definition is very mistaken. Whoever wrote this is completely ignorant of Yogacāra. No educated Tibetan scholar of any school would accept this definition.The One Mind is also a concept in Tibetan Buddhism:
Ālayavijñāna (Skt., Tib. kun gzhi rnam par shes pa) - the unified field of consciousness in the Universe. This universal mind is each individual's higher consciousness. Each living being is an individual "spark" of this one vast whole, in which we breathe and move and have our being. This whole universal consciousness is the living Cosmos itself, constantly evolving through the totality of all experience, and growing ever more "aware" over billions of years. Like a great ocean, the lives of all beings, planetary worlds and star-systems leave their impressions, or imprints, within the whole, which become stored, as it were, in the total body of Universal Mind. Ultimately this is the meaning of life, for we are all contributing our lives to the conscious whole, and the conscious whole is a growing entity moving towards eventual self-reflexive awakening. This is an uniquely mystical doctrine perceived through direct insight by the Masters of the Yogācāra tradition.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library ... ossary.htm
You also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".
All functional phenomena are conventional.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:07 pm You saidYou also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".
So according to your own words, "even ultimate truth (the veridical perception of a given entity) is merely a conventional /relative truth (a non-veridical perception of a given entity."
Or to put it more starkly, you have effectively said "even the veridical perception of a given entity is a non-veridical perception of a given entity."
When reduced to functional phenomena via conceptualisation.
It’s just saying an Mind that’s pure lol, I don’t see how it’s close to a self. Yongming Yanshou says it’s part of the teaching with distinctions (conventional)where the mind is divided into the physical heart, eight consciousness and one mind/Tathagatagarbha whereas in the path of non-distinction there are no minds.Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:09 amIt sounds similar to the True Self found in some Tibetan schools. A concept open to much misinterpretation.ItsRaining wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:30 amThe One Mind is not a Hindu Atman since it's ultimately empty which is why it's called pure, eternal, etc. It's not Brahman because Brahman is a God whereas One Mind is just talking about the pure mind of beings. It's not really different to saying Mind tbh.
Your reply is a non-reply since that which is veridical (ultimate) and that which is non-veridical (conventional) are both functional (in the context of this discussion). But your position effectively implies that what is veridical is non-veridical, which is incoherent.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:17 pmAll functional phenomena are conventional.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:07 pm You saidYou also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".
So according to your own words, "even ultimate truth (the veridical perception of a given entity) is merely a conventional /relative truth (a non-veridical perception of a given entity."
Or to put it more starkly, you have effectively said "even the veridical perception of a given entity is a non-veridical perception of a given entity."
Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:29 pmYour reply is a non-reply since that which is veridical (ultimate) and that which is non-veridical (conventional) are both functional (in the context of this discussion). But your position effectively implies that what is veridical is non-veridical, which is incoherent.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:17 pmAll functional phenomena are conventional.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:07 pm You said
You also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".
So according to your own words, "even ultimate truth (the veridical perception of a given entity) is merely a conventional /relative truth (a non-veridical perception of a given entity."
Or to put it more starkly, you have effectively said "even the veridical perception of a given entity is a non-veridical perception of a given entity."