thuscomeone

Makes perfect sense to me. The alaya is all too often taken to be and clung to as some super awareness/cosmic consciousness which is the source of all. In Zen, as Xabir has pointed out, masters all too often go no further than believing alaya to be a substantial source.

Well when you get to talking about possibilities, it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. In that sense I agree. It's a permanent potential. But a potential isn't a thing or object. But you then start talking about mind as if it were the source of this potential and I'm not sure how that fits in. Emptiness includes and is beyond mind.

goldisheavy said: "Don't use my questions as an opportunity to preach dependent origination, because I understand DO better than you do, so there's no need to preach at me." No...just no. Please explain DO to me.

If you're suggesting that Buddha actually taught eternalism (which you are), you really need to get back to the basics. Oh well, at least you're an eternalist rather than a nihilist. Both completely wrong views, but the latter is much worse in my opinion.

Well, I wasn't speaking about myself there. Just in general about those who cling to a part of emptiness/dependent arising (the view of them) and mistakenly think that the part (the view) is the whole. Those who realize that they are emptiness/dependent arising see that they don't have to maintain any sort of view of it. Everything they do is it. They live it and are it effortlessly, like you say.

Here's my problem with this. It's clear that insight and wisdom liberate. But, if one constantly trys to maintain this insight, or a state of being insightful, isn't that making this insight into another permanent self to guard against impermanence? Isn't that the very tendency which is the cause of suffering, which we seek to eliminate in the first place?

Ok, there is the truth, which if it is really and objectively the truth, does not depend on perspective. It's true regardless of what you think about it. That's why, in zen, people are told that they have Buddha nature even if they don't know they have it yet. The master knows that the student is already Buddha regardless of the student's illusions. But the student doesn't know it. When I say there is both round and not round, I'm not talking about a perspective. It's an objective fact. But we must realize this objective fact through the subjective mind. We can hold different parts of that objective truth in our minds. The four lines at the beginning of the genjokoan are the objective truth being looked at from different angles (perspectives). This is where perspective comes in.

Not sure I understand you. Rephrase?

Ok, I think I understand you now. So all possible meanings. Now, as you've said, this total array of meanings does not change. Why and how so?

Not at all. One truth with different parts. Each of which are equally true. When I say "perspective", I mean you can look at this truth or that truth or that truth. You can choose which truth to look at.

Both. You're the one that was criticizing me for being too black and white before. How ironic. If you read the genjokoan, the first four lines are levels understanding in terms of relative and absolute . The first line is only the relative. The second line is the absolute. The third is neither absolute nor relative. And the fourth is just "like this." All four lines are different perspectives and they are all true simultaneously.

Ok, so what doesn't change is the total array of meaning. I'm still not clear on what you mean by "total array of meaning."

You don't understand how absurd the implications of permanence would be.

Independent as in unchanged, unaffected by its contents. Does the totality have parts? What do you mean by totality?

There are no contradictions present. Only if you misunderstand and are only able to hold one perspective in your mind at once. Take it up with Nagarjuna, Dogen, The Buddha, etc . You'll never get it if you approach it from traditional western/Aristotelian logic.

Is there cognition independent of the contents of cognition? Do you see the non existent divide you are creating between cognition and the contents of cognition? What's the difference!

In what sense is it not dependent on its contents? In other words, what is the difference between "it" and its "contents"?

You are so scared of answering this. It's hilarious. You have no idea, do you? Ok, I believe that the mind you're talking about is independent of thought. Apart here means independent. It is the source of thoughts, but yet is unchanged by thoughts. What I believe you are talking about is the alaya -- rebirth consciousness.

Semantics. You're playing games again. Is this mind independent and permanent? Is it an independent and permanent source of thoughts?

You've just said that it is important not to confuse the mind with something like thought. Which means to me, that this mind is separate (aka apart) from thought. So what do you mean by apart? That's the question. Don't turn this around on me again. You're the one who's explaining here. Would you say that this mind is independent and permanent?

Ok, then is this mind apart from thoughts, perceptions and sensations?

Space is not apart from the things that occupy space, that is, matter and mind. Where is space apart from objects in space? If the past were in the present, we could still know them separately because the past and present obviously appear separate. Of course I would have a sense of being if they all arose together. That means that past, present and future are actually unfindable. Because they are unfindable, they can arise and appear. Only because I don't really exist, I can appear and function. This is incomprehensible to one (you) who does not understand dependent arising. Ok, this precise moment. Say me and you are standing in a room together. The totality of the space there is me and you plus the things in the room. Now, this is from a relative perspective . Say while we're standing in this room, I punch you in the face. The distinct moment is me punching you in the face. This is true from a relative perspective. But actually, that moment can be broken down into a bunch of smaller parts such that we don't find any inherency to it. But it certainly appears distinct. It's non-inherency is what allows it to appear particular and distinct. Everything is not the same and not different. It's easiest just to apply this to yourself. You're not the same you you were yesterday, mentally or physically. Yet you are what you are today because of a million yesterdays. Your past is cut off, yet your past is still fully present.

I think what lucky7strikes is having trouble with is understanding that it is because something arises dependently that it is not an actual thing. Again, it is because it arises dependently that it can't be established. Causes can't be established because causes can be established. Dependent arising starts with an appearance and says that because there is this dependent appearance, there is no-thing. And because there is no-thing, there is the dependent appearance. This is a bit difficult to get. A causes B so therefore B does not truly exist. But notice, "A causes B," which means that A and B are not nothing. Causes and conditions aren't something or nothing. Like you say, they aren't estabished.

I won't look for it as an object. It's not an object as in something physical and visible. Like a thought -- a thought isn't an object in that sense. But a thought is still undeniably present, object or not.

Yes, exactly. But I've always been confused as to why it is referred to as "mind." Why not just call it emptiness?Sure mind itself is empty, but calling emptiness "primordial mind" has always seemed just to complicate things; at least for me. It makes it sound like some cosmic consciousness. I think this is the problem that has arisen in the other thread. "Mind," as in awareness, is taken to be the source -- the creative potential. When actually, emptiness is that creative potential. And emptiness includes and is beyond mind/awareness. In other words, mind is emptiness. But emptiness is what allows mind to be.