thuscomeone

We do.

I know what you mean. I'm glad we've gotten down to the essential disagreement. We've spent weeks debating now. I think that's enough. I need a long break

No, I see what the problem is. You have it backwards. That aliveness is emptiness. Mind is its function. Emptiness comes first, not mind. I don't know about that quote. I would trust that namdrol knows a bit more than either of us. And if you look at my earlier quote from him, you'll see that he states that Longchenpa rejects the mind-only view. But I don't want to turn this into a battle of quotes.

I agree that there is this aliveness. But it is NOT a manfestation of mind/awareness. I know what you are talking about. aliveness. True understanding of emptiness aka d.o. leads you to just that. If there were a mind that were the whole, that aliveness would not be possible at all.

No, you are clearly saying that mind is the creator. You said that mind is the whole and mind manifests d.o.

Sorry, I'm talking to you in two different threads. Anyway, what you're talking about isn't limitless potential. You're saying there is a substantial mind which is manifesting d.o. That's the very opposite of limitless potential. Limitless potential is emptiness aka the absence of that substantial mind.

Ok, you say mind is the whole. If mind is the whole, it can't manifest things through d.o. For mind to create, manifest or even influence, it must change in some way. If it changes, it is not independent. If it is not independent, it is not the whole.

Right. Since the nature of mind is emptiness, mind is not the whole. Mind is dependently arisen.

Didn't say it was. It's infinite potential. Potential isn't a thing.

Maybe. I just don't prefer to refer to emptiness as "mind."It seems to make mind as in cognizance the whole. When it is just one part.

Right, it's an aliveness which is not the same as just the knowingness/cognizant aspect of mind. Not some super cognizance which gives birth to everything. I think herein lies most of our difficulties -- in defining terms.

I don't think "all creating king" means what you think it means. Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is.

Or it might be Buddha-nature aka emptiness which includes and is beyond mind.

Nope. We should put the person in jail because the person is accountable for their actions. You don't get it. Try again. "That's ok, you will someday" - Kevin Spacey, American Beauty

I do decide to spend time on this forum. But the universe decides if I decide to spend time on this forum. In other words, the universe is expressing itself through a being that can make choices. So it's both ultimately.

It's not a cop out at all. And it's not fatalism. You're limiting it. Like I said, it embraces everything. Everything includes non-fatalism. It doesn't change anything at all. You can have all the intent you want. It contains all that.

GIH, you are just like the monk at the end of the genjokoan. "Although you understand the nature of the wind is permanent, you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere." The way reaches and embraces everything -- including personal choice, will and practice. In fact, one's will can be stronger than ever after realizing anatta. Then will is actually free, whereas it was bound before realization.

I took it personally because of the way it is worded, the dismissive tone, and the icon. And please don't tell me to "lighten up." Men say that all time to take the blame off of themselves. Anyway, is it determinism? As in, do we really have control of anything? Nope. Not at all. Zip. Zero. It's all out of our hands. But this is the greatest freedom of all. Freedom from trying to manipulate and control. Freedom to just be. That said, we do still continue to live our lives under the illusion of control. Our thoughts naturally grant us those illusions. But even these illusions of control are simply just happening. But most are too scared to take the plunge and just let go. Not knowing that heaven awaits on the other side.

This is getting personal. This is about truth, not me. Further, you continue to twist my words to try and make your points. I won't bite anymore. Let's get back to the topic or call it quits.

Anyone who has a position, including a solipsist, is going to try to gain certainty in and justify their position. Are you talking about me? I'm a control freak because I don't enjoy being insulted? People can use insults all they want but that doesn't mean I have to like them or promote them. I understand people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean I promote insults.

I should have said "promoting." Not "allowing."

Such a person probably wouldn't care about others. For there would be no others. They would most likely be a control freak. They would probably debate it just to continue solidifying their deluded view and gaining certainty in it. Further, they would probably spread this view to others, poisoning their minds as well. You don't see any problem with ignorance itself? There's nothing inherently wrong with lying to yourself? If this is so, please don't claim to know what the Buddha taught.

Because I am not perfect . Even if I claim to be realized, that doesn't make me perfect. It's perfection in imperfection. I didn't say that insults won't happen. But allowing them as some sort of means to awakening? No.

Solipsism is a view which completely ignores dependent arising. And it is possibly the most selfish view one could have. The world is ME. It is the ultimate triumph of the ego. Because it leads to suffering, energy draining debates like this one, dick measuring contests, anger, arrogance and extreme pride (you), hatred and many other things.