Mind-streams: Separate?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:50 pm
When one's analysis fails to find something, one discovers the absence of inherent (a.k.a ultimate) existence, otherwise known as the absence of existence with respect to any of the four extremes. This analysis is not endless, since one only needs to discover the emptiness of one thing to realize the emptiness of all things. To echo Āryadeva, those who propose any sort of existence must prove the existence of each and everything they propose as existent, whereas those who make arguments via emptiness need only to prove the emptiness of one thing in order to prove the emptiness of all things.
I think you misunderstand my point. I agree with you for the most part, though we could quibble about whether we are actually on the same page discussing the same thing.

My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4755
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by conebeckham » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:11 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:30 pm
Astus wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:26 am
Queequeg wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:41 pm
They go on contemplating endlessly trying to find "nothing", ie. analysis without remainder. Pursuing an impossible end is, in my view, and endless austerity.
Kamalasila in the quote says that those who do not perform proper analysis do not end their conceptualisation, even if they temporarily suspend it. So it is the opposite of what you say.
You've utterly lost me.

Their conceptions never end

What do you call that? I call that an endless austerity.

Its nothing but convention. I make no demand that you accept my characterization.
Those who perform proper analysis acquire wisdom whereas those who do not perform proper analysis never end conceptualization.
When one analyzes, one is engaged in conceptualization. When one analyzes properly, one exhausts conceptualization (regarding the object to be analyzed). If you are trying to find "nothing," you're doing it wrong. To borrow from Mahamudra tradition, "it is the not-finding which is the ultimate finding."


Do you yourself know your assertion to be true? You don't need to answer that. Its rhetorical. You can if you want to, though.
The assertion that one can eliminate wrong views through learning, understanding, and contemplation? It works in science, works in philosophy, works in everyday life, and it works in Buddhism as well.
Again, do you know this? Or are you inferring?

If sheer analysis worked, then the Buddha's insights about reality should have emerged ubiquitously. Humanity has been blessed with countless geniuses whose capacity for analysis have touched the limits of possibility. And yet, the Buddha's insights have been limited to the Buddha and those who have taken refuge in him and his teachings.
Sheer analysis is a method, but it is the result of that analysis--and it is a very specific kind of analysis, with a very specific object--is a species of wisdom. These geniuses you speak of were not engaged in proper analysis, and were analyzing objects other than the specific object of analysis which is the focus of Madhyamaka.
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
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:23 pm

conebeckham wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:11 pm
Those who perform proper analysis acquire wisdom whereas those who do not perform proper analysis never end conceptualization.
When one analyzes, one is engaged in conceptualization. When one analyzes properly, one exhausts conceptualization (regarding the object to be analyzed). If you are trying to find "nothing," you're doing it wrong. To borrow from Mahamudra tradition, "it is the not-finding which is the ultimate finding."...

Sheer analysis is a method, but it is the result of that analysis--and it is a very specific kind of analysis, with a very specific object--is a species of wisdom. These geniuses you speak of were not engaged in proper analysis, and were analyzing objects other than the specific object of analysis which is the focus of Madhyamaka.
No disagreements.

My point is, "Whence Wisdom?" How do we arrive at the proper analysis. Someone, with wisdom, has to teach us the proper analysis. To enter that proper analysis, we need a disposition of trust and confidence until the wisdom arises in ourselves - until we know. Candle to candle.

Would you disagree with that?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
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
conebeckham
Posts: 4755
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by conebeckham » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:45 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:23 pm
conebeckham wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:11 pm
Those who perform proper analysis acquire wisdom whereas those who do not perform proper analysis never end conceptualization.
When one analyzes, one is engaged in conceptualization. When one analyzes properly, one exhausts conceptualization (regarding the object to be analyzed). If you are trying to find "nothing," you're doing it wrong. To borrow from Mahamudra tradition, "it is the not-finding which is the ultimate finding."...

Sheer analysis is a method, but it is the result of that analysis--and it is a very specific kind of analysis, with a very specific object--is a species of wisdom. These geniuses you speak of were not engaged in proper analysis, and were analyzing objects other than the specific object of analysis which is the focus of Madhyamaka.
No disagreements.

My point is, "Whence Wisdom?" How do we arrive at the proper analysis. Someone, with wisdom, has to teach us the proper analysis. To enter that proper analysis, we need a disposition of trust and confidence until the wisdom arises in ourselves - until we know. Candle to candle.

Would you disagree with that?
I would not disagree with that--in fact, there's a whole thread about "The need for a teacher" somewhere around here......
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
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:45 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:23 pm


Would you disagree with that?
No (speaking for Cone with confidence here because we are Vajrayāna practitioners) since the essence of Vajrayāna is the direct introduction of suchness.
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

Snowbear
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Snowbear » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:23 pm
conebeckham wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:11 pm
Those who perform proper analysis acquire wisdom whereas those who do not perform proper analysis never end conceptualization.
When one analyzes, one is engaged in conceptualization. When one analyzes properly, one exhausts conceptualization (regarding the object to be analyzed). If you are trying to find "nothing," you're doing it wrong. To borrow from Mahamudra tradition, "it is the not-finding which is the ultimate finding."...

Sheer analysis is a method, but it is the result of that analysis--and it is a very specific kind of analysis, with a very specific object--is a species of wisdom. These geniuses you speak of were not engaged in proper analysis, and were analyzing objects other than the specific object of analysis which is the focus of Madhyamaka.
No disagreements.

My point is, "Whence Wisdom?" How do we arrive at the proper analysis. Someone, with wisdom, has to teach us the proper analysis. To enter that proper analysis, we need a disposition of trust and confidence until the wisdom arises in ourselves - until we know. Candle to candle.

Would you disagree with that?
It all sounds a bit too immaterial. What is "candle to candle" meant to capture?

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:32 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
Agree.

And further, this ultimate disagreement with Astus was in mind as the end the whole time.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:22 pm

Snowbear wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

It all sounds a bit too immaterial. What is "candle to candle" meant to capture?
One flame lighting the next flame.
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: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:22 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:32 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
Agree.

And further, this ultimate disagreement with Astus was in mind as the end the whole time.
:group:

Come on, Astus, bring it in :hug:
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
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6859
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Astus » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:31 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:30 pm
Their conceptions never end
What do you call that? I call that an endless austerity.
"Their conceptions never end" refers to those who do not analyse correctly but merely suspend thinking. If analysis is correct, it ends all conceptualisation, because it brings about the realisation that all appearances are empty.

See also the commentary on the quoted section by HHDL (Stages of Meditation, p 134):

"In order to understand the true nature of things, it is vital that a. practitioner use intelligence and wisdom in the process of examination. As the author clearly states, the mere elimination Of mental activity does not constitute meditation on suchness. When mentally inactive, an individual may not be misconceiving the self, but he or she also lacks any sense of discerning selflessness; this sheds no light, and so the individual is not free from the fabrications of misconceptions."
Again, do you know this? Or are you inferring?
It is an inference.
If sheer analysis worked, then the Buddha's insights about reality should have emerged ubiquitously.
Did non-violence emerged ubiquitously? If not, does that make it an incorrect morality?
the Buddha's insights have been limited to the Buddha and those who have taken refuge in him and his teachings.
Why wouldn't it be so? Even among those who have faith in the Triple Jewel there are people without correct morality, correct meditation, and correct wisdom.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6859
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Astus » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:43 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
The disagreement is not whether one needs to learn, but how learning can happen. For instance, Nichiren did not have a teacher who told him all he had then imparted on his disciples.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Grigoris » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:34 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:21 pm
Axes and their intersection are causes and conditions of the origin, are they not?
What does this statement even mean? Couldn't one say (with just as much validity) that point O is the source of the axes? If I remember correctly there is a type of dependent origination where the causes and conditions support one another like three sticks resting on each other to make a pyramid. Either way though: ultimately there is no axis and no point O to be found.
You're talking about the parikalpita svabhava, or at best, paratantra-svabhava.
Can you please dumb this down for me?
In the yogacara approach, it seems to me, and I am open to correction, the two truths are not reconciled. There is a leap between the two lower levels of understanding and the perfected understanding which sees emptiness, ie. only the ultimate truth of the two truths; all dharmas, whether false or dependently originated, are not the ultimate truth.
I don''t even know what the Yogacara approach is, so I fail see how I can be the great defender of it.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:36 pm

Astus wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:43 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
The disagreement is not whether one needs to learn, but how learning can happen. For instance, Nichiren did not have a teacher who told him all he had then imparted on his disciples.
No teacher, no blessings; no blessings, no realization (cue: debate about blessings) :twisted:
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
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:00 pm

Astus wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:31 pm
See also the commentary on the quoted section by HHDL (Stages of Meditation, p 134):

"In order to understand the true nature of things, it is vital that a. practitioner use intelligence and wisdom in the process of examination.
From whence wisdom? Wisdom is the key. No wisdom, no wisdom.
As the author clearly states, the mere elimination Of mental activity does not constitute meditation on suchness. When mentally inactive, an individual may not be misconceiving the self, but he or she also lacks any sense of discerning selflessness; this sheds no light, and so the individual is not free from the fabrications of misconceptions."
As in the case of the practitioner who achieves the Fourth of the Formless Dhyana. Nothing ground breaking here.
If sheer analysis worked, then the Buddha's insights about reality should have emerged ubiquitously.
Did non-violence emerged ubiquitously? If not, does that make it an incorrect morality?
Non violence is not wisdom as to reality. Many tirthikas have come to this insight of non-violence.
the Buddha's insights have been limited to the Buddha and those who have taken refuge in him and his teachings.
Why wouldn't it be so? Even among those who have faith in the Triple Jewel there are people without correct morality, correct meditation, and correct wisdom.
Red herring. In response, here is an imperfect analogy: not following the path is not the fault of the engineer who laid the path. With no path, however, its just wilderness.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:06 pm

Astus wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:43 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:44 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:04 pm
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.
Revise "Buddha" to "virtuous mentor," and we are in perfect agreement, though Astus will vehemently disagree.
The disagreement is not whether one needs to learn, but how learning can happen. For instance, Nichiren did not have a teacher who told him all he had then imparted on his disciples.
This is a little too specific for the Mahayana forum, but, Nichiren asserted he received the Saddharma from Shakyamuni Buddha when he attended on Shakyamuni as Bodhisattva Visistacaritra, similarly as Zhiyi received the teaching from Shakyamuni as in the form of Bodhisattva Bhaisajyaraja.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:15 pm

Astus wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:43 pm
Nichiren did not have a teacher who told him all he had then imparted on his disciples.
Nichiren studied under many Dharma teachers. Thus, your example is invalid.
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

Snowbear
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Snowbear » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:22 pm
Snowbear wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

It all sounds a bit too immaterial. What is "candle to candle" meant to capture?
One flame lighting the next flame.
What, exactly, are we talking about with the flame?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:28 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:21 pm
What does this statement even mean? Couldn't one say (wn the yogacara approach, it seems to me, and I am open to correction, the two truths are not reconciled. There is a leap between the two lower levels of understanding and the perfected understanding which sees emptiness, ie. only the ultimate truth of the two truths; all dharmas, whether false or dependently originated, are not the ultimate truth.
No, this is not correct. The absence of the imputed nature in the dependent nature is the perfected nature.

The two truths are reconciled in Yogacara through the dependent nature.

In other words, the dependent nature is the hinge for the relative and the ultimate, samsara and nirvana, etc.

The main difference between standard Madhyamaka, where one perceives that a given entity has two natures, and the Yogācāra three natures, is that first, all given entities are reduced to mind-only, that recognition of mind-only is the transition point to recognizing that they exist only as seeds in the ālayavijñāna (the dependent nature); through recognizing that they do not existas anything other seeds, one is no longer confused about the imagined nature (relative truth), recognizing that the dependent is empty of the imagined itself is ultimate truth. The main problem with Yogācāra is that they are unable to account for how a conditioned consciousness transforms into unconditioned jñāna, hence Yogācāra is held by Madhyamaka to be a realist school.
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: 27366
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mind-streams: Separate?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:31 pm

Snowbear wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:28 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:22 pm
Snowbear wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

It all sounds a bit too immaterial. What is "candle to candle" meant to capture?
One flame lighting the next flame.
What, exactly, are we talking about with the flame?
Realization.
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 47 guests