A Dangerous Fallacy.

[Simon E.]

After a period of relative stability on this forum, an old and misleading distortion of Buddhdharma seems to have resurfaced, to whit, nihilistic solipsism.
The notion that only mind..indeed only my mind, exists and is somehow coterminous with MInd, and that Buddhist realisation consists of seeing this to be the case.
This is an idea that has its genesis in various Vedantic teachings. It is not and has never been central to Buddhadharma.
It is an error that has often taken refuge in modern 'zen' flavoured sites where it lurks like the Legionnaires Virus lurks in the heating ducts in public buildings.
Note well, this is not a critique of authentic Zen Buddhism which has a long and respected pedigree, but rather the zen flavoured populist fare offered often by those looking to rationalise their own psychological alienation.
Nihilistic solipsism has never formed any part of the teaching of the Vajrayana, and imo opinion it is incumbent on western students, in particular (because it as an idea it is not found to any degree in traditional Vajrayana culture) to see that it never does.

[Josef]

After a period of relative stability on this forum, an old and misleading distortion of Buddhdharma seems to have resurfaced, to whit, nihilistic solipsism.
The notion that only mind..indeed only my mind, exists and is somehow coterminous with MInd, and that Buddhist realisation consists of seeing this to be the case.
This is an idea that has its genesis in various Vedantic teachings. It is not and has never been central to Buddhadharma.
It is an error that has often taken refuge in modern 'zen' flavoured sites where it lurks like the Legionnaires Virus lurks in the heating ducts in public buildings.
Note well, this is not a critique of authentic Zen Buddhism which has a long and respected pedigree, but rather the zen flavoured populist fare offered often by those looking to rationalise their own psychological alienation.
Nihilistic solipsism has never formed any part of the teaching of the Vajrayana, and imo opinion it is incumbent on western students, in particular (because it as an idea it is not found to any degree in traditional Vajrayana culture) to see that it never does.

Perhaps it should be a critique of zen, rather than deflected onto "western" Vajrayana students.

[Simon E.]

I would not have mentioned it at all if I had not seen such sentiments in the mouths of purported Vajrayana students.

[krodha]

I would not have mentioned it at all if I had not seen such sentiments in the mouths of purported Vajrayana students.

Vajrayāna does refer to false-aspectarian Yogācāra view for its position on how appearances manifest and are mistakenly apprehended as substantial entities. Hence consciousness in some modality of itself is fundamental.

Solipsism does not work because (i) mind is subject to the same scrutiny as everything else, and (ii) the buddhadharma allows for the conventional diversity of mindstreams.

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display... so while solipsism is an incorrect view, it is only incorrect for specific reasons.

[Simon E.]

'Incorrect' being the operative word.

[Thomas Amundsen]

I would not have mentioned it at all if I had not seen such sentiments in the mouths of purported Vajrayana students.

Vajrayāna does refer to false-aspectarian Yogācāra view for its position on how appearances manifest and are mistakenly apprehended as substantial entities. Hence consciousness in some modality of itself is fundamental.

Solipsism does not work because (i) mind is subject to the same scrutiny as everything else, and (ii) the buddhadharma allows for the conventional diversity of mindstreams.

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display... so while solipsism is an incorrect view, it is only incorrect for specific reasons.

[SunWuKong]

"After a period of relative stability on this forum, an old and misleading distortion of Buddhdharma seems to have resurfaced, to whit, nihilistic solipsism."

Simon, Where?

"It is an error that has often taken refuge in modern 'zen' flavoured sites where it lurks like the Legionnaires Virus lurks in the heating ducts in public buildings."

Again, where?

"Note well, this is not a critique of authentic Zen Buddhism which has a long and respected pedigree, but rather the zen flavoured populist fare offered often by those looking to rationalise their own psychological alienation."

Who?

There is no dialog or discussion possible in hearsay claims. Try to be clear and precise.

[SunWuKong]

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display...

really? where's the proof of that?

[明安 Myoan]

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display...

really? where's the proof of that?

Dependent origination.

[krodha]

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display...

really? where's the proof of that?

The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.

[SunWuKong]

At the end of the day mind is fundamental, and matter is a byproduct of incorrectly cognizing mind's own display...

really? where's the proof of that?

The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.

That's the cart before the horse. The only way to prove you are awakened is to show it.

[SunWuKong]

really? where's the proof of that?

The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.

That's the cart before the horse. The only way to prove you are awakened is to show it.

We can go on like this forever, but really Simon needs to log back on and define his terms. Personally I think the appearance of the "Dangerous Fallacy" on these boards might be a fiction, but if it's not, it's unfair to talk about people behind their backs. Name the names.

[krodha]

really? where's the proof of that?

The only way to prove it to oneself is to awaken and recognize it.

That's the cart before the horse. The only way to prove you are awakened is to show it.

If I said chocolate is sweet, and you inquired as to what the proof of that sweetness is, I would likewise urge you to taste it for yourself, directly and experientially, then no further proof is needed. You would then know it first hand and even if someone tried to prove otherwise, your confidence would be unassailable.

[Simon E.]

"After a period of relative stability on this forum, an old and misleading distortion of Buddhdharma seems to have resurfaced, to whit, nihilistic solipsism."

Simon, Where?

"It is an error that has often taken refuge in modern 'zen' flavoured sites where it lurks like the Legionnaires Virus lurks in the heating ducts in public buildings."

Again, where?

"Note well, this is not a critique of authentic Zen Buddhism which has a long and respected pedigree, but rather the zen flavoured populist fare offered often by those looking to rationalise their own psychological alienation."

Who?

There is no dialog or discussion possible in hearsay claims. Try to be clear and precise.

Take it or leave it.
It wasnt a scientific analysis. If it doesn't have resonance for you, that's fine by me.

[SunWuKong]

Again, hearsay evidence has no validity. Case dismissed.

[Simon E.]

Fine. We can all go home..at least from this thread.
But before putting my hat and coat on I would just observe that on another forum Meido pointed out that 1) I did not criticise real Zen, quite the reverse and 2) That I said the phenomenon was not confined to Zen and was found in the Vajrayana too.

And frankly ,to deny the fact is naif.

Now..wheres the exit?

[Simon E.]

I have PMd you SunWuKong.

[ItsRaining]

After a period of relative stability on this forum, an old and misleading distortion of Buddhdharma seems to have resurfaced, to whit, nihilistic solipsism.
The notion that only mind..indeed only my mind, exists and is somehow coterminous with MInd, and that Buddhist realisation consists of seeing this to be the case.
This is an idea that has its genesis in various Vedantic teachings. It is not and has never been central to Buddhadharma.
It is an error that has often taken refuge in modern 'zen' flavoured sites where it lurks like the Legionnaires Virus lurks in the heating ducts in public buildings.
Note well, this is not a critique of authentic Zen Buddhism which has a long and respected pedigree, but rather the zen flavoured populist fare offered often by those looking to rationalise their own psychological alienation.
Nihilistic solipsism has never formed any part of the teaching of the Vajrayana, and imo opinion it is incumbent on western students, in particular (because it as an idea it is not found to any degree in traditional Vajrayana culture) to see that it never does.

It was just one person misreading the phrase One Mind....

[Simon E.]

No it wasn't...

But itemising every statement from every person who made it is not helpful I would suggest.
Either the phenomenon i.e. mistaking solipsistic nihilism for Buddhadharma exists or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, if it is a figment of my imagination, then there is no need to waste any more time on it, is there?
I have flagged up my concern.

[Grigoris]

I think that's about enough meta-discussion for another day.