A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
smcj
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by smcj » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:57 pm

Lotus_Bitch wrote:
smcj wrote: As you have conceded elsewhere, Dudjom R. (both incarnations) subscribes to the "Great Madhyamaka" view, which is basically a form of monism (universal in the above quotation). I know you disagree, and as a qualified expert that is your right, but there are other qualified experts that do hold that view.
:crazy:

Madhyamaka explains emptiness as the absence of extremes of "one" and "many";
Prasangika Madhyamaka, yes.
...alayavijnana, in Yogacara doctrine, is an individual continuum.
In the traditional "Mind Only" version of Yogacara, yes. Unfortunately modern Karma Kagyu writers have redefined the term to be synonymous with Shentong, which creates much confusion. But as far as "Mind Only" goes, that is correct.
It's highly skeptical Dudjom Rinpoche would've parsed it in this fashion.
This is from Dudjom R.'s commentary on Longchenpa's "The Four Themed Precious Garland"

Ultimate reality is the mandala of the perfectly pure expanse of voidness. It is like a "magic" mirror. What unimpededly appears on it are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included. These things appear naturally on the "magic" mirror, through and to your mind. There is no third reality of a truly existing mind or objects juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images in it.(underlining mine)

This makes it clear that he is not talking about a "Mind Only" perspective, but that there is an underlining universal strata.


The current Dudjom R. has the exact same quote on his webpage. I don't have the url handy for it right now though.
Last edited by smcj on Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Lotus_Bitch » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:32 pm

smcj wrote: In the traditional "Mind Only" version of Yogacara, yes. Unfortunately modern Karma Kagyu writers have redefined the term to be synonymous with Shentong, which creates much confusion. But as far as "Mind Only" goes, that is correct.

Ultimate reality is the mandala of the perfectly pure expanse of voidness. It is like a "magic" mirror. What unimpededly appears on it are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included. These things appear naturally on the "magic" mirror, through and to your mind. There is no third reality of a truly existing mind or objects juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images in it.(underlining mine)

This makes it clear that he is not talking about a "Mind Only" perspective, but that there is an underlining universal strata.

The current Dudjom R. has the exact same quote on his webpage. I don't have the url handy for it right now though.
:zzz:

Ohhh, the proverbial "mirror" metaphor, affirming an entity for eternalists everywhere. :tongue:

I'm perplexed as to how this conclusion was reached, but I won't press the issue further, as you seem to be adamant in your conviction.

:anjali:
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare

smcj
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by smcj » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:25 pm

Lotus_Bitch wrote:I'm perplexed as to how this conclusion was reached, but I won't press the issue further, as you seem to be adamant in your conviction.
Well when you say;
...alayavijnana, in Yogacara doctrine, is an individual continuum.
…and then Dudjom R. says…
What unimpededly appears on (ultimate reality) are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included.
… with the fact that he includes your mind as just one more thing of relative reality to appear on "ultimate reality, he' is making it clear that he is NOT talking about a "Mind Only" perspective.

If you want to characterize that as eternalist, I'm ok with that.
Last edited by smcj on Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28318
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:52 pm

Andrew108 wrote:Certainly I am not a physicalist.

Sure you are, you think minds come from brains.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

smcj
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by smcj » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:07 am

Ok, a little time out. What are the definitions of:

physicalist

materialist

realist

I hate it when I've been participating in a discussion and realize I'm not 100% sure about the terms I've been discussion.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28318
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:17 am

smcj wrote:Ok, a little time out. What are the definitions of:
physicalist
Thinks minds come from brains.
materialist
Thinks there is no rebirth, generally, a physicalist — feels the science is definitive in terms of defining what is real from what is not real.
realist
Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28318
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:17 am

smcj wrote:Ok, a little time out. What are the definitions of:
physicalist
Thinks minds come from brains.
materialist
Thinks there is no rebirth, generally, a physicalist — feels the science is definitive in terms of defining what is real from what is not real.
realist
Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

smcj
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by smcj » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:40 am

Thanks.

Boy this website is sure screwed up today! Double posts, inaccurate "view unread posts", SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]
error messages, etc.
Last edited by smcj on Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Lotus_Bitch » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:15 am

smcj wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:I'm perplexed as to how this conclusion was reached, but I won't press the issue further, as you seem to be adamant in your conviction.
Well when you say;
...alayavijnana, in Yogacara doctrine, is an individual continuum.
…and then Dudjom R. says…
What unimpededly appears on (ultimate reality) are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included.
… with the fact that he includes your mind as just one more thing of relative reality to appear on "ultimate reality, he' is making it clear that he is NOT talking about a "Mind Only" perspective.

If you want to characterize that as eternalist, I'm ok with that.
Only your equation of Shengtong with monism.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:16 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:17 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:18 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
You can't answer can you?

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:20 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
If you can.

smcj
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by smcj » Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:18 am

Lotus_Bitch wrote:
smcj wrote: If you want to characterize that as eternalist, I'm ok with that.
Only your equation of Shengtong with monism.
I'm ok with that too.
Last edited by smcj on Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:28 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes, if you are able to do so. While you are at it, could you also explain where the electric charge and magnetism of an electron features in the scheme of the five elements.

Andrew108
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Andrew108 » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:30 pm

smcj wrote:Ok, a little time out. What are the definitions of:
physicalist
Malcolm wrote:Thinks minds come from brains.
Well....Yes a physicalist would say that minds come from brains, but if we open up the terms a little we know that the relationship between consciousness and the brain is very intimate and that according to Abhidharma texts, matter and form support consciousness and consciousness gives rise to form. There were schools of thought in Buddha's time that saw consciousness as an emergent property of matter, much in the same way that alcohol is a property of fermentation of ingredients that do not contain alcohol. It's an interesting point of view in that it goes against Vedic teachings in such a direct way.
materialist
Malcolm wrote:Thinks there is no rebirth, generally, a physicalist — feels the science is definitive in terms of defining what is real from what is not real.
Science isn't definitive yet. It is an incomplete discourse. It is scientific method that excites. At one level science has worked out all of the mechanisms that make up the world we experience. At another level there are still a lot of unknowns. It makes sense therefore to talk about an objective condition rather than an objective reality. Buddhists also talk about an objective condition and they/we have descriptions of the nature of matter. Rebirth is questioned by materialists and not really accepted. But as the debates about belief in literal rebirth have shown, in large part it comes down to interpretation. Rebirth as becoming is allowed within a materialist framework. Rebirth that implies consciousness exists independently of matter is not.
realist
Malcolm wrote:Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc.
Perhaps but I would say that a realist contrasts with an idealist in that the realist accepts that there are laws or invariances that govern the universe. Again this idea latter idea of the universe containing laws and invariance is also found within Buddhism.

The arguments and positions are all very subtle. As always it comes down to the pragmatics of overcoming craving and suffering.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:45 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes, if you are able.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28318
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:26 pm

Sherab wrote: Yes, if you are able.

Electrons have mass, motion, etc.,
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:27 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes, if you are able to.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind

Post by Sherab » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:41 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The four or five elements apply at all levels of matter, whether molecular, atomic, subatomic and so on...
Really? What then is the meaning of solidity, liquidity, motility, fire and dimension for a bunch of free electrons or for the electrons within an atom?
Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Yes, if you can.

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: topazdreamz and 61 guests