Early Buddhism and Mahayana

[Malcolm]

Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

Yes, of course it is an aggregate: manas, vijñāna and citta are all synonyms.

[Son of Buddha]

you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.

Dzogchen is not a tenet system.

sure it is
do you receive a teaching in Dzogchen from a teacher?
what is his teachings to you???
those teachings are VIEWS and are called Tenets.

as soon as you came on here and disagreed with anyone you established that their VIEWS were different than your
VIEWS...hence you have tenets for which you use to disagree with others with.

the view that Enlightenment is "signless" is a tenet which you uphold.

see we can paddle the boat of dualism together.

[Son of Buddha]

Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

Yes, of course it is an aggregate: manas, vijñāna and citta are all synonyms.

then as the sutras and suttas I quoted state Buddhahood is not an Aggregate
so do you take Buddhahood to be an Aggregate even though the suttas/sutras say it is not?

[Malcolm]

you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.

Dzogchen is not a tenet system.

sure it is
do you receive a teaching in Dzogchen from a teacher?
what is his teachings to you???

Dzogchen is one's state which can be discovered. It is not something about which one needs to speculate and analyze.

[Malcolm]

Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

Yes, of course it is an aggregate: manas, vijñāna and citta are all synonyms.

then as the sutras and suttas I quoted state Buddhahood is not an Aggregate
so do you take Buddhahood to be an Aggregate even though the suttas/sutras say it is not?

I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

[Astus]

so Shakyamuni did put a Permanent end to greed anger and hatred when he became Enlightened correct??
so the "cause" was permanently put to an end correct?
is Enlightenment Permanent or can i slip back into Samsaric ways?

Of course, it is a permanent end of afflictions and there is no return. That's why it is also called, among other names, the Deathless.

[conebeckham]

I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

Agreed. Mind is an aggregate, that should be obvious to anyone with a handful of Dharma study. And it should also be obvious to all that Buddhahood should be sought "in one's mind."

But Buddhahood is not "mind." It is related to Nature of Mind, which is different from Mind. Put another way, we must use "mind" to identify Nature of Mind.....that is the first step. But equating Nature of Mind with a "Great Self" is a slippery slope....expedient means, maybe, for some.

[Malcolm]

I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

Agreed. Mind is an aggregate, that should be obvious to anyone with a handful of Dharma study. And it should also be obvious to all that Buddhahood should be sought "in one's mind."

But Buddhahood is not "mind." It is related to Nature of Mind, which is different from Mind. Put another way, we must use "mind" to identify Nature of Mind.....that is the first step. But equating Nature of Mind with a "Great Self" is a slippery slope....expedient means, maybe, for some.

The essence of the mind cannot be different than mind, otherwise it would not be the essence of the mind. It would be like suggesting that fire and the nature of fire [heat] were distinct.

[conebeckham]

Agreed....though we can discuss the differences between Thamal Gyi She Pa, so-called "Ordinary Mind," and discursive thinking, etc....these are terms of art, I think. Ultimately, there is only one thing...but it ain't a Self.

[Malcolm]

Agreed....though we can discuss the differences between Thamal Gyi She Pa, so-called "Ordinary Mind," and discursive thinking, etc....these are terms of art, I think. Ultimately, there is only one thing...but it ain't a Self.

According to Yangongpa, the term tha mal gyi shes pa is just a yogis term for wisdom (ye shes). He mentions this in his commentary on Sahaja Mahāmudra.

[Koji]

You talk of compounded and uncompounded as two different things. Rather, because appearances are compound phenomena they are empty, dependent. Because things are born they are unborn. Unborn means that there is no actual fixed independent essence that is really born of something (or nothing, from itself or another...). If there were such an essence it could not be born, either it was existent or non-existent but change could never happen. That's why emptiness is not different from appearances at all.

There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty.

I am just wondering, but how does one personally know "there is just experience"? Of course we all know that anyone can imagine such as state but what the imagination concocts doesn't mean it is either real or attainable.

[Son of Buddha]

Dzogchen is not a tenet system.

ME
sure it is
do you receive a teaching in Dzogchen from a teacher?
what is his teachings to you???

Malcolm
Dzogchen is one's state which can be discovered. It is not something about which one needs to speculate and analyze.

so that's your views and tenet system.........................you cant escape having views Malcolm.
also how do you verify your discovery in Dzogchen?............do you just take your own word for it?

[Son of Buddha]

Agreed....though we can discuss the differences between Thamal Gyi She Pa, so-called "Ordinary Mind," and discursive thinking, etc....these are terms of art, I think. Ultimately, there is only one thing...but it ain't a Self.

Tathagatagarbha Sutras say it is a Self.

Many Tantras say it is a Self

but to each his own on how they describe "this only one thing"

[dzogchungpa]

The essence of the mind cannot be different than mind, otherwise it would not be the essence of the mind. It would be like suggesting that fire and the nature of fire [heat] were distinct.

This essence of the mind is the same as what they call the basis of the individual in Dzogchen?

[Son of Buddha]

Malcolm"]
I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

Son of Buddha wrote:
(P.S. when did I say Buddhahood lies outside the mind?)

Malcolm
When you said that your truly existent self lies outside of the aggregates, and that that is buddhahood.

I guess you think there is a Self too since you also think that Buddhahood is not an aggregate.

[Son of Buddha]

I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

Agreed. Mind is an aggregate, that should be obvious to anyone with a handful of Dharma study. And it should also be obvious to all that Buddhahood should be sought "in one's mind."

But Buddhahood is not "mind." It is related to Nature of Mind, which is different from Mind. Put another way, we must use "mind" to identify Nature of Mind.....that is the first step. But equating Nature of Mind with a "Great Self" is a slippery slope....expedient means, maybe, for some.

The essence of the mind cannot be different than mind, otherwise it would not be the essence of the mind. It would be like suggesting that fire and the nature of fire [heat] were distinct.

So this is not the views and tenet system you claimed to not have?

[Astus]

I am just wondering, but how does one personally know "there is just experience"? Of course we all know that anyone can imagine such as state but what the imagination concocts doesn't mean it is either real or attainable.

If there is something that is not an experience you don't experience it, consequently you don't know anything about it. What is not an experience is nothing more than a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea.

[Malcolm]

I guess you think there is a Self too since you also think that Buddhahood is not an aggregate.

Buddhahood is merely the realization of the nature of phenomena, that is all.

[Malcolm]

So this is not the views and tenet system you claimed to not have?

The essence of the mind is not something you need to analyze to discover. When you have discovered you do not need a theory to account for it, no more than you need a theory to account for the heat of a fire once you have been burned.

[daverupa]

What is not an experience is nothing more than a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea.

...which would arise via the mind sense base, if experienced, and wouldn't arise, if unexperienced.

It's just the six sense bases & their concomitant experiences:

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."

This is easily checked for oneself, as any experience of any kind is via these six, or one among them. Even arupa states are still experienced over the mind sense base. Inference covers the ground untrodden by direct experience.

Therefore, "there is just experience" in this way.