Lucky7Strikes

This is what I meant...

The difference in understanding here is subtle. We all agree on dependent origination and emptiness of experience. Yet one side sees experience in terms of a ungraspable and impersonal universal process, while the other sees limitless potential of independent minds.

Huh? The entire text is like that, "I am the supreme source" "All things manifest from me" "All elements are of pure consciousness" "I am self-arising" Why would it say that if it's all interdependent d.o.? to confuse practitioners? It wouldn't even have "I" in there more or less "pure consciousness"?? If it is dependently originated no-self causes and conditions of universe, wouldn't it say that? Like: "there is no supreme source, no pure consciousness, only empty dependent origination of causes and conditions etc." I don't get how Norbu mistakes this in bad english, especially when that quote is in the opening to the book.

Are you telling me my hearing knows and is aware self-evidently all the causes and conditions it comes from?

I'm not reifying anything. I'm just observing life as it is. And that quote is just conceptual comfort cushion and is not relevant to life. Self, no-self, the conventional world is experienced through a "you." It's not like you realize no-self and you forget the conventional self and its place in the world. Nor, a the article says, you forget about or escape from "objective" causal factors. Whenever something arises in experience your interpretation is, "it is d.o.ed" or as the article says, "it is the universe exercising freedom." Hence the manifestation is attributed to an impersonal process or of a totality. That very attitude of living is deterministic. Denying choice and will to life is just as good as killing it. Living is synonymous with creativity and will, it defines sentience apart from an automated robot. The universe is not some contained whole or needs to be seen that way. It is limitless and without boundaries. It is undetermined, hence empty.

@ Thuscomeone I didn't know you would take this so personally. I just wanted to point out that your view leads to a deterministic lifestyle that attributes everything to the d.o. process.

Ok. Go live your deterministic life. . Accept whatever this dependent origination throws at you.

Here is a flashy video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oePY_MH3mqk&feature=related

Windness, since you use that example so much, is not just a single blowing. Rather it encompasses all types and kinds of blowing. That is the very meaning of wind, that there are bunch of ways air can blow, so we call the entire manifestation wind. Of course this isn't to be taken literally. Because wind isn't alive.

Self evident to what entity. In your view there is no such thing, only a thought of such thing. And since that thought is d.o.ed shouldn't it be evident in that thought that it is d.o.ed by...what exactly? Then everyone would be enlightened because it would be self-evident. The what are you implying is aware or self evident?

No, that is understanding the subject through the duality of an agent and object. This very approach is flawed. Yes, and I'm saying you should see the space, the potential, in objects. No, those are just appearance consciousness, imprisoned in your belief that it is dependently originated. You draw arbitrary lines of "each" manifestation. There are no such units of manifestation. At the end of the day, your understanding is that you are part of an ungraspable flow. In your paradigm you have no free will, no choice. You are handicapped to a greater process of manifestation. You just drift. I am beginning to understand that rather I am a limitless potential of being. That the mind is a limitless manifestation of d.o. I choose to have a choice and not believe that I am bound to a universal process.

It is not self evident to A that it arises from B. There is no such thing as "self-evident" to A. This is against the very purpose of the teaching of dependent origination imo. The only thin self-evident is awareness, because it is the last thing one can deny.

The consciousness talked about in the pali suttas are sense consciousness.

I see... To realize dependent origination is to become free of its illusory hold. The master is no longer the slave. The conscious mind is no longer shadowed by the infinite unconscious darkness, instead the light has turned around and now illuminates everything, unconditioned and free.

Well we'll see. Currently I like my interpretation and it makes more sense for me and I don't see it clashing with much of what I read on Buddhism. I'm still not perfectly certain of it. But your advice has so far been, "just meditate more and have more experiences" So... "Reading the Kunjed Gyalpo you will often come across the word "I": "I am the nature of all phenomena," "I am the root of existence," and so on. This "I" is your true state: the primordial Buddha, the supreme source of manifestation." -Chogyal Namkai Norbu :P :P

I equate the word sentience with awareness. So I wrote sentience there so you wouldn't write what you wrote above.

IMO, It's not really a stream as if this knowing goes from A to B and so on, it just appears to be a stream due to change. So mind should not be seen as something that goes from body to the next body and so on. It only dreams that there is a continuation from birth to death and birth to death in a habitual loop. So it's not like there is an entity being reborn. It just appears that way.

I meant that mind is not dependently originated from something else. Sorry that was a confusing sentence

I think in Buddhist sense this is similar to the idea of karma.

You can say notions are interdependent. You can say wisdom is interdependent. I think I can agree to that. But not sentience. My aliveness itself is not dependent. Even if it were, you would not be able to confirm it directly. Only through speculation.

"Ananda, your mind is coarse and shallow, and so you do not realize that the seeing and hearing are the Treasury of the Thus Come One, and you do not discover that knowing is the same way. You should contemplate these six locations of consciousness: are they the same or different? Are they empty or existent? Are they neither the same nor different? Are they neither empty nor existent? 3:205 ”You basically do not know that in the Treasury of the Thus Come One the nature of consciousness is bright and knowing. Enlightened brightness is the true consciousness. The wonderful enlightenment is tranquil and pervades the Dharma Realm. 3:206 ”It encompasses the emptiness of the ten directions and issues forth in it. How can it have a location? 3:206 ”It is experienced to whatever extent is dictated by the law of karma. Ignorant of this fact, people in the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the conscious mind, are nothing but the play of empty words which have no real meaning.” 3:207 At that time, Ananda and the Great Assembly, filled with the subtle, wonderful instruction of the Buddha, the Thus Come One, were peaceful in body and mind and were without obstructions. Everyone in the Great Assembly became aware that his or her mind pervaded the ten directions, beholding emptiness in the ten directions as one might look at a leaf or at an object held in one’s hands. 3:208 All the things that exist in the world were the wonderfully bright inherent mind of Bodhi. 3:211 The essence of the mind was completely pervading and contained the ten directions. 3:212 *Let's not make this a sutra quoting contest. If you want to discuss the sutra, make another thread for it or through messaging.

No, inquiry begins with you observing things. Your inability to reconcile mind and matter is because you think mind is this one thing and matter is some other thing. I'm saying this isn't a good application of logic to our experience. This is not the perfect example but you are saying: There is time There are events So Time and events arise together/time does this to events/events do this to time/events come from time/time comes from events... All this is stupid because you are assuming the nature of time and events are even comparable in a dualistic model.

Your inquiry starts with duality. Duality is already assumed between mind and matter.

I agree. Empty is the quality of mind. It's not that there is no actual mind dependently orginated from something else.

Um, in that case, I'd have to cut and paste the whole sutra for you! Or it'll just be "Oh, it's taken out of context."