Mind-streams: Separate?

[Queequeg]

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.

[conebeckham]

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.

[Queequeg]

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[conebeckham]

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......

[Malcolm]

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.

[Snowbear]

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?

[Queequeg]

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.

[Malcolm]

It all sounds a bit too immaterial. What is "candle to candle" meant to capture?

One flame lighting the next flame.

[Malcolm]

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.

Come on, Astus, bring it in

[Astus]

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.

[Astus]

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.

[Grigoris]

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.

[Malcolm]

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)

[Queequeg]

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.

[Queequeg]

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.

[Malcolm]

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.

[Snowbear]

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[Malcolm]

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.