Malcolm wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:49 pm
So, since you hold clarity as ultimate, how can it cognize or be aware of anything, including itself?
So you say nature of mind is not self-aware? How do you reconcile this with Dzogchen?
The nature of mind is not latent (referring to krodha's saying "latent and unrecognized nature of mind") and not contained in anything.
When krodha says the nature of the mind is "latent," he means it is not something which is obvious to everyone. For example, like a crocodile under the water.
I understand what krodha means. This does not make it correct though.
Because the nature is not an object, not a phenomenon, not a concept but emptyness which is infinite potentiality.
All possible phenomena appear from the nature, withinin the nature and liberate back to the nature.
The have no separate, inherent existence.
So you are claiming a nonphenomena as a source of phenomena? How does that happen?
You might claim it, I don't.
Phenomena are created by avidya and are illusion by definition.
They originate from the incapacity of the conceptual mind to percieve reality as it is.
The ordinary conditioned mind operates only with objects, categories, concepts. That is all.
The nature of mind is not an object, not a concept, not a phenomenon.
So the ordinary mind cannot percieve it, because it is looking for an object outside or inside of itself.
It can of course make a concept and an object out of the nature of mind through abstraction, but this is not real experience.
This is why it will never be able to percieve it
So here, you are absolutely claiming that the mind can never see its own nature. Right?
So, you are claiming here that the mind (owner) has a nature (object). Right?
What about dualism and conceptual thinking?
The clarity of the nature of mind means it is self-aware.
What do you mean by self-aware? Is this clarity of the nature of the mind part of the mind or something different than the mind?
If is not different than the mind, why claim the mind cannot see its own nature?
Maybe you think "nature of mind" (not nature of "the" mind!) is a possession or a part of the mind. I have never thought or heard anything like that.
So please explain me: where does the (ordinary conceptual) mind come from?
How can it "have" a nature?
Can a wave, existing for 30 seconds, and even within this 30 seconds ever changing its shape and position, "own" the ocean.
Can you claim it's "his" ocean? In everyday speach maybe, but that's all.
If it is different than the mind, why call it the nature of the mind since it is other than the mind?
The way of recognizing nature is direct perception, not through the conceptual mind.
Direct perception with what instrument of perception?
Why would you need an instrument to perceive something that is not dualistically separate from the perceiver?
Instruments you need in order to manipulate objects. In this case there is a manipulator, an instrument and a manipulated object.
This is the function of the ordinary mind, avidya by definition.
Dou you really think avidya is a proper "instrument" in order to reach bodhi?