Page 6 of 7

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:03 pm
by Astus
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:49 pm
The above is mistaken, and is posited on a realist perspective.
What do you mean by direct perception of others' minds then?

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:04 pm
by Grigoris
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:01 pm
Showing it would mean that I experience exactly the way you experience, that my visual consciousness is identical to yours, etc.
No, it does not mean that. For example: 1+1=2 REGARDLESS of your mental conditioning.
Those do not explain how within anyone's experience there can be something independent of one's mental conditioning.
So you think that a Buddha's awakened mind is conditioned?
Even when there are group activities, each member experiences and comprehends alone, without any means to perceive with the mind of others.
In most situations communication occurs via a medium.

But it seems that you believe that communication cannot occur at all, unless it is directly from mind to mind. If that is your hypothesis, you have to prove it. Because it seems to me that this thread is clear proof that valid communication can occur between individuals and through this communication one person can influence the other without direct unconditioned mind-to-mind communication.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:08 pm
by Malcolm
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:03 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:49 pm
The above is mistaken, and is posited on a realist perspective.
What do you mean by direct perception of others' minds then?
If you have the abhijñā of knowing the minds of others, for example, devas, when someone perceives something, it is perceived by a characteristic. A person with such abilities can perceive the intrinsic characteristics of the conceptual image existing in the other person's mind. It does not mean they share the same "thought."

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:58 pm
by DiamondMeru
When you are in a group of people and they yawn, can you prevent yourself from yawning?
We all share biological and cultural subconscious reactions that are shared. Perception of the mind is interpreting these reactions through the lense of one’s own conditioned experience. If you bow I may bow if I am sensitive to your cultural greeting, but ,if I am a confused ignorant American, I may just nod at you but realize it was a customary greeting. You can do this all without perceiving it when it happens because greetings are immediate like smiling and getting a :smile: in return.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:33 pm
by Astus
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:04 pm
For example: 1+1=2 REGARDLESS of your mental conditioning.
Mathematical truths mean nothing to those who know nothing about mathematics, i.e. they do not exist for them. If you propose that mathematics is real, independent of minds, that might be so, but they still do not exist for those without relevant knowledge.
In most situations communication occurs via a medium.But it seems that you believe that communication cannot occur at all, unless it is directly from mind to mind.
Let's review again what I said:

Karma and its results are strictly individual (here).
Experience is defined by one's own interpretation (here & here).
Therefore:
Individual experiences are the results of karma of the individual (here & here).
Interaction with others is within the scope of individual karma (here).
If that is your hypothesis, you have to prove it.
Which one of the above you do not agree with? Is you view then, that:
- Karma is not strictly individual?
- Ignorance is not the root of dependent origination?
- Karma is not responsible for one's experiences?

I presume it is the third one. In other words, there must be exceptions from what occurs to a being, that are not the products of one's karma and not distorted by one's mental conditioning.
So you think that a Buddha's awakened mind is conditioned?
A mind is necessarily conditioned. But that's another matter. The problem with assuming that not all experiences are the results of karma means that even when one has attained liberation from karma, all sorts of experiences continue to occur that one can never be free from. In other words, there is no liberation from a conditioned mind.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:46 pm
by Astus
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:08 pm
can perceive the intrinsic characteristics of the conceptual image existing in the other person's mind. It does not mean they share the same "thought."
That is a perception of a reflection, a copy, a simulacrum of those characteristics, in other words, a representation. Why? Simply because it is the god's perception of a characteristic, not that other being's. To make it not merely a representation, there should be thoughts apart from minds.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:40 pm
by Grigoris
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:33 pm
Mathematical truths mean nothing to those who know nothing about mathematics, i.e. they do not exist for them. If you propose that mathematics is real, independent of minds, that might be so, but they still do not exist for those without relevant knowledge.
I am not talking about mathematical truths. Even if I have no grasp of mathematics, I know that two individual phenomenon make a pair.
Which one of the above you do not agree with? Is you view then, that:
- Karma is not strictly individual?
- Ignorance is not the root of dependent origination?
- Karma is not responsible for one's experiences?
Don't shift the goal posts. You know very well that I do not disagree with any of those points. I asked a specific question, you did not answer it.
A mind is necessarily conditioned.
So you believe a Buddha's mind is conditioned and thus cannot see things for what they are. You believe that a Buddha is afflicted by ignorance.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:08 pm
by Malcolm
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:46 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:08 pm
can perceive the intrinsic characteristics of the conceptual image existing in the other person's mind. It does not mean they share the same "thought."
That is a perception of a reflection, a copy, a simulacrum of those characteristics, in other words, a representation. Why? Simply because it is the god's perception of a characteristic, not that other being's. To make it not merely a representation, there should be thoughts apart from minds.
Astus, of course an image is a representation. All perceptions of characteristics are representational.

For example, there is a story of a monk of whom devas were fond. They cast theirs mind forth one day, looking for this monk, and unable to locate him, they went to the Buddha and asked what had become of him. The Buddha replied, "Why, he became an arhat, he is sitting right there in samadhi."

What had happened? The arhat in samadhi was not grasping any signs, and so his mind disappeared from the mental sight of these devas.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:10 pm
by Malcolm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:40 pm
So you believe a Buddha's mind is conditioned and thus cannot see things for what they are. You believe that a Buddha is afflicted by ignorance.
A buddha's mind stream is conditioned and relative; it is however free of affliction and endowed with omniscience.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:43 pm
by Astus
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:40 pm
Even if I have no grasp of mathematics, I know that two individual phenomenon make a pair.
How do you know? Is that an information inherent in the perceived object, or is it rather an understanding arrived at by inference?
So you believe a Buddha's mind is conditioned and thus cannot see things for what they are. You believe that a Buddha is afflicted by ignorance.
A mind is conditioned, because it is functional, and functioning requires change, causes, etc.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:59 pm
by Astus
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:08 pm
an image is a representation. All perceptions of characteristics are representational.
Then why do you call that a direct perception?
For example, there is a story of a monk of whom devas were fond. They cast theirs mind forth one day, looking for this monk, and unable to locate him, they went to the Buddha and asked what had become of him. The Buddha replied, "Why, he became an arhat, he is sitting right there in samadhi."
What had happened? The arhat in samadhi was not grasping any signs, and so his mind disappeared from the mental sight of these devas.
Check out Dogen's Tashintsu (BDK ed: vol 4, ch 79). Aside from stories, do you know any text that explains knowing other's minds like that? By the way, the standard list of what kinds of minds are perceived includes whether it is liberated or not.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:32 pm
by Malcolm
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:59 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:08 pm
an image is a representation. All perceptions of characteristics are representational.
Then why do you call that a direct perception?
Astus, surely you know what a pratyakṣa is and what it entails.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:33 pm
by Malcolm
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:59 pm
By the way, the standard list of what kinds of minds are perceived includes whether it is liberated or not.
A liberated mind still has images when it perceives characteristics, but when it is in a signless samadhi it doesn't.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:42 am
by Grigoris
Astus wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:43 pm
How do you know? Is that an information inherent in the perceived object, or is it rather an understanding arrived at by inference?
Inference. I can imagine that a human society that does not have a mathematical or numerical system will still know that two items are twice as many as one item.

But now you are avoiding my question again:
Of course I can. The fact that there can be mutually understood communication is a testament to that. The fact that teaching and learning can occur is a testament to that. The fact that socialisation occurs is a testament to that.

Are you denying these occur?

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:48 am
by Grigoris
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:10 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:40 pm
So you believe a Buddha's mind is conditioned and thus cannot see things for what they are. You believe that a Buddha is afflicted by ignorance.
A buddha's mind stream is conditioned and relative; it is however free of affliction and endowed with omniscience.
Doesn't conditioning imply/require ignorance? Conditioned means dependently arisen and dependent arising has ignorance as it's lynch pin.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:47 am
by Astus
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:32 pm
Astus, surely you know what a pratyakṣa is and what it entails.
"The cognition in which there is no conceptual construction is perception."
(Dignaga: Pratyaksapariccheda, in Dignaga on Perception, p 25, tr Hattori)

However:

"By the power of meditation the yogin can have such clear representations that they appear to him almost like the specific forms of the mind of another person, just as deities will bestow grace on a person by appearing in their dreams etc. So even the yogin does not directly grasp another person's mind through his representations. He can be said to know another person's mind only in the sense that the representations which appear in his own mind have the same form as those in another person's mind. therefore yogipratyaksa is called perception only for the sake of convenience."
(Dharmakirti: Samtanantara-siddhi, in Mind Only, p 217-218, tr Wood)

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:51 am
by Astus
Grigoris wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:42 am
But now you are avoiding my question again:
Of course I can. The fact that there can be mutually understood communication is a testament to that. The fact that teaching and learning can occur is a testament to that. The fact that socialisation occurs is a testament to that.
Are you denying these occur?
I do not deny the occurrence. What I say is that they can only occur within the scope of individual karma.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:33 pm
by Malcolm
Grigoris wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:48 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:10 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:40 pm
So you believe a Buddha's mind is conditioned and thus cannot see things for what they are. You believe that a Buddha is afflicted by ignorance.
A buddha's mind stream is conditioned and relative; it is however free of affliction and endowed with omniscience.
Doesn't conditioning imply/require ignorance? Conditioned means dependently arisen and dependent arising has ignorance as it's lynch pin.
Simply put, no. Being conditioned is not commensurate with being contaminated. For example, path dharmas are conditioned, but they are pure.

The dependent origination you describe is the dependent origination of bondage. But there is also a dependent origination of freedom. Conditioned by knowledge, merit arises; conditioned by merit, etc.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:36 pm
by Malcolm
Astus wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:47 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:32 pm
Astus, surely you know what a pratyakṣa is and what it entails.
"The cognition in which there is no conceptual construction is perception."
(Dignaga: Pratyaksapariccheda, in Dignaga on Perception, p 25, tr Hattori)

However:

"By the power of meditation the yogin can have such clear representations that they appear to him almost like the specific forms of the mind of another person, just as deities will bestow grace on a person by appearing in their dreams etc. So even the yogin does not directly grasp another person's mind through his representations. He can be said to know another person's mind only in the sense that the representations which appear in his own mind have the same form as those in another person's mind. therefore yogipratyaksa is called perception only for the sake of convenience."
(Dharmakirti: Samtanantara-siddhi, in Mind Only, p 217-218, tr Wood)
Yes, this is what we mean when we say that one can have a direct perception of another's mind.

What you cite here is not even slightly different than what I said. Therefore, one can know another's thoughts, because thoughts have characteristics and so forth, which are perceptible to those who possess the abhijña of knowing the minds of others.

Apprehending the blue vase in another person knows, for such people, is exactly the same as direct perception of a blue vase; first the blueness, etc, of the representation in the mind of another is apprehended, and then it is constructed as the blue vase they have perceived in one's own mind. The process is identical. This is not hard to understand.

Re: Collective karma

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:14 am
by Caoimhghín
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:33 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:48 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:10 pm


A buddha's mind stream is conditioned and relative; it is however free of affliction and endowed with omniscience.
Doesn't conditioning imply/require ignorance? Conditioned means dependently arisen and dependent arising has ignorance as it's lynch pin.
Simply put, no. Being conditioned is not commensurate with being contaminated. For example, path dharmas are conditioned, but they are pure.

The dependent origination you describe is the dependent origination of bondage. But there is also a dependent origination of freedom. Conditioned by knowledge, merit arises; conditioned by merit, etc.
This looks to slightly resemble the "dependent cessation" of sravakayana.

I don't think it can be the "same thing", because that would imply that bodhisattvas are headed the way of arhats when they realize it, but it is at least vaguely similar, inasmuch as "two modalities", if we can forgive that dreadful tirthika language, are being explored of DO.