How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

I am saying the conventional definition of mind is wrong.

 

 

 

Creation implies producing something out of nothing. Mind is able to transform appearances. That's why mind is an orchestrator and not a creator.

 

 

 

Wrong. It's easy to point out things that are dependent but hard to point out something that's independent. That's the reason why teaching Dharma is hard.

 

 

 

It's just the other way around. All identities make sense only in relation to other identities. This is why something that is not dependent is very very hard to identify. It's precisely on account of mind's independence that it resists attempts at identification.

No, it's impossible to point out something which is independent because there is nothing! The "pointing out" is itself dependent! That's what I'm showing you. Your logic is absurd. It's logically impossible. Anytime you point out "this", you must do it in the context of "not this."

 

Nope, if mind is all there is, as you say it is, it must be a creator. There is no way out of that. The only way is to say that things are also dependent on something other than mind. And thus to admit you are wrong.

 

No, you are completely wrong. Things only have relational identities. But relational identities are not real identities. An identity is specific. "This" is not "that." But if "this" comes from "that", "this" has no real (specific) identity or own being.

 

You don't understand dependent arising. That is the source of all your logical faults. If you were humble enough to admit you don't get it, you could learn a lot.

 

Going further, if mind is only able to transform appearances, then it is not all that exists. It does not have complete control. It is then limited by something else. It is therefore dependent on something else. So, the implications of this are that there must be something other than mind as well.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

No, it's impossible to point out something which is independent because there is nothing!

 

That's wrong. You are saying only that which is dependently arisen exists. In that case, in dependence on what does dependent arising arise? On what does dependent arising depend? Is there a situation when dependent arising does not take place?

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

That's wrong. You are saying only that which is dependently arisen exists. In that case, in dependence on what does dependent arising arise? On what does dependent arising depend?

Dependent arising is an infinite chain. It is dependence itself. It doesn't have to arise dependent on anything. It is a process of phenomena which aren't existent or non existent, etc. etc.

 

Notice how I say process. To keep you asserting that I am reifying "dependent arising" into a thing.

[goldisheavy]

Going further, if mind is only able to transform appearances, then it is not all that exists. It does not have complete control. It is then limited by something else. It is therefore dependent on something else. So, the implications of this are that there must be something other than mind as well.

 

When I imagine an apple and then imagine a pear instead, that's a transformation and not creation. At the same time, an imaginary apple is not "something else" and neither is an imaginary pear "something else".

 

You're indulging in a non-sequitor.

[goldisheavy]

Dependent arising is an infinite chain. It is dependence itself. It doesn't have to arise dependent on anything.

 

Congratulations. You've just posited something independent.

 

It is a process of phenomena which aren't existent or non existent, etc. etc.

 

Notice how I say process. To keep you asserting that I am reifying "dependent arising" into a thing.

 

Is mind a thing?

[thuscomeone]

When I imagine an apple and then imagine a pear instead, that's a transformation and not creation. At the same time, an imaginary apple is not "something else" and neither is an imaginary pear "something else".

 

You're indulging in a non-sequitor.

I wouldn't even being saying the word "non-sequitor" if I were you.

 

Nope. Stil not it. You say mind is all that exists. Fact is, if you state this, everything must be mind. Transformation or not, it's all still mind according to you. Things never really change because there all just mind. Just admit that you think mind is the creator. Or take back your statement where you said that it is all that exists.

[thuscomeone]

Congratulations. You've just posited something independent.

 

 

 

Is mind a thing?

Nope. Dependent arising as an infinite chain is neither independent or dependent. What arises dependently is not something and not nothing. Relatively, we say dependent. Ultimately, we say neither dependent or independent.

 

Anyway, like I put in bold for you, dependent arising is NOT "some-thing." It is a process. Like impermanence.

 

Mind is not a thing or a non-thing.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I wouldn't even being saying the word "non-sequitor" if I were you.

 

Nope. Stil not it. You say mind is all that exists. Fact is, if you state this, everything must be mind. Transformation or not, it's all still mind according to you. Things never really change because there all just mind. Just admit that you think mind is the creator. Or take back your statement where you said that it is all that exists.

 

To say that mind is all that exists means to say that beyond the state of mind changing nothing else changes.

[goldisheavy]

Mind is not a thing or a non-thing.

 

Define mind more precisely.

[thuscomeone]

To say that mind is all that exists means to say that beyond the state of mind changing nothing else changes.

Ok. The state of mind changes. And nothing else changes. But every transformation or change is still of the same mind, according to you. Because mind is all there is. Now we have the states of mind which change and the mind itself which never changes. Even in this formulation, nothing can change. The states of mind and the mind are both the same mind.

 

Change would only be possible if there is something which is not mind which is changing mind. For example, a thought changes because there is something which is not thought which has made it change. It only changes if there is something outside of it which it is dependent on. For change to take place at all, there must be something outside of mind. There must be multiplicity.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Define mind more precisely.

Awareness, knowing, intelligence.

[goldisheavy]

Ok. The state of mind changes. And nothing else changes. But every transformation or change is still of the same mind, according to you. Because mind is all there is. Now we have the states of mind which change and the mind itself which never changes. Even in this formulation, nothing can change. The states of mind and the mind are both the same mind.

 

The mind is ultimately the same mind. To understand why so, you have to understand the role of infinite potential.

 

Do you agree that infinite potential is one and the same potential for every conceivable mind?

 

Change would only be possible if there is something which is not mind which is changing mind.

 

You're lying. When I imagine an apple in my mind, what is it that's not my mind that's causing the transformation in appearance?

[thuscomeone]

The mind is ultimately the same mind. To understand why so, you have to understand the role of infinite potential.

 

Do you agree that infinite potential is one and the same potential for every conceivable mind?

 

 

 

You're lying. When I imagine an apple in my mind, what is it that's not my mind that's causing the transformation in appearance?

I understand infinite potential. But as emptiness. Not as a self existent mind. Proposing a self existent mind is the very negation of infinite potential.

 

I'm not lying. I'm using a little thing called logic.

 

When you go from a state of not imagining an apple in your mind to imagining an apple in your mind, that change in imagination has resulted from not only your consciousness. That change in imagination would not be able to take place if some outside influence did not come in. Dependent arising IS change. It also resulted from the apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, the person that picked the apple from the tree, etc.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I understand infinite potential. But as emptiness. Not as a self existent mind. Proposing a self existent mind is the very negation of infinite potential.

 

Infinite potential is self-existent though. It doesn't depend on anything. And whatever shows up in our conscious awareness only has meaning in relation to this infinite potential of whatever else there could be showing up but is not showing now. In this sense the mind is indeed primordial. It doesn't depend on anything to exist and there is nothing beyond mind.

 

I'm not lying. I'm using a little thing called logic.

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

When you go from a state of not imagining an apple in your mind to imagining an apple in your mind, that change in imagination has resulted from not only your consciousness. But also the apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, the person that picked the apple from the tree, etc.

 

You're saying that apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, all these exist outside your mind?

[thuscomeone]

Infinite potential is self-existent though. It doesn't depend on anything. And whatever shows up in our conscious awareness only has meaning in relation to this infinite potential of whatever else there could be showing up but is not showing now. In this sense the mind is indeed primordial. It doesn't depend on anything to exist and there is nothing beyond mind.

 

 

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

 

 

You're saying that apple, the store the apple came from, the apple tree, all these exist outside your mind?

Of course they exist outside of my mind. My mind state only changes because it is dependent on all these factors which are outside of it. All these things which are not my mind are coming in and influencing my mind. My mind's changing proves there are things outside of my mind. If my mind were all there was, if it were independent or self existent, it would never change or need to change.

 

 

Infinite potential is not a "thing." Not a "self." It's a potential. A potential which is beyond extremes.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Of course they exist outside of my mind. My mind state only changes because it is dependent on all these factors which are outside of it. All these things which are not my mind are coming in and influencing my mind.

 

How do you know these things exist outside your mind?

 

Infinite potential is not a "thing." It's a potential. A potential which is beyond extremes.

 

Just like mind. Mind is not a thing.

[thuscomeone]

How do you know these things exist outside your mind?

 

 

 

Just like mind. Mind is not a thing.

I just told you. My mind changes. I experience change. If there were only mind, it would never change. Change only takes place because of dependent arising/multiplicity. Outside influences.

 

If mind is not a thing, why do you assert that it is independent? Unless you are using "mind" and "emptiness" as synonyms.

[goldisheavy]

I just told you. My mind changes. I experience change. If there were only mind, it would never change.

 

How do you know that if your mind was all that existed, it would never change?

[thuscomeone]

How do you know that if your mind was all that existed, it would never change?

I've explained this to you about six times now. Guess you didn't read it.

 

If mind is all that exists, there is nothing outside of it. It is independent. Being independent, there is nothing outside of it which can influence it or alter its state. A self existent, independent mind would not be able to do anything or interact with anything. There would be nothing for it to interact with. Nothing outside of it. However, if it did interact (with something else), it would have to change. Changing would mean that it is dependent on something else for what it is. Which would mean that it is not all there is.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I've explained this to you about six times now. Guess you didn't read it.

 

If mind is all that exists, there is nothing outside of it. It is independent. Being independent, there is nothing outside of it which can influence it or alter its state.

 

Why can't mind alter its own state via intent?

[thuscomeone]

Why can't mind alter its own state via intent?

It's never a simple as "mind altering its own state." It takes a bunch of things which aren't a mind to alter a mind state.

 

You're basically saying, "why can't mind change itself?" Because all change occurs because of dependent arising. Mind only changes because it is dependent on a bunch of things which aren't mind.

 

"Mind changing Mind" is not really a change in anything. Matter plus Mind changing mind is a change.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

It's never a simple as "mind altering its own state." It takes a bunch of things which aren't a mind to alter a mind state.

 

You're basically saying, "why can't mind change itself?" Because all change occurs because of dependent arising. Mind only changes because it is dependent on a bunch of things which aren't mind.

 

"Mind changing Mind" is not really a change.

 

Is there anything internal to the mind? If yes, what?

[thuscomeone]

Is there anything internal to the mind? If yes, what?

"Internal"? As in like inherent characteristics? Well mind appears to be an inherent, continuous "knowing." So, yes, at one level, it is valid to say it has something internal. On another level, we can't find anything at all that is independent and individual called "Mind." These two levels are not divided. One leads to two. And two leads to one.

 

And with that, I'm going to have to call it a night. Off to bed with me.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

"Internal"? As in like inherent characteristics? Well mind appears to be an inherent, continuous "knowing." So, yes, at one level, it is valid to say it has something internal. On another level, we can't find anything at all that is independent and individual called "Mind." These two levels are not divided. One leads to two. And two leads to one.

 

And with that, I'm going to have to call it a night. Off to bed with me.

 

I was asking if any experiences are internal to the mind. You said the apple, the apple store, the apple tree, all these are external "things." I was asking if some similar "things" are internal to the mind.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.