Dzogchen: Visible evidence of progress!

[goldisheavy]

Guys, it's much simpler than that, GIH is a realist (Buddhist definition) because he advocates the primacy of "subjectivity" or "Mind". A realist (Buddhist definition) is: "Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc." -- Loppon Namdrol. Eternalism and nihilism, being two sides of the same coin (i.e. positing an existent entity), are subsumed under realism.

 

My position is a lot more nuanced than that.

 

For example, my position acknowledges that believing in objectivity is a possibility.

 

Holding anti-realist positions is a possibility.

 

Holding realistic positions is a possibility.

 

Because I acknowledge that the mind has infinite malleability in this regard, it's hard to call my position something specific, because if you do, you're narrowing down my claim from its originally broad scope. By the nature of my claim, it is very inclusive. My claim non-exclusively validates all possible claims when I say that under the right conditions any claims can be maintained as a matter of expedience. Because there is ultimately no neutral or objective standard to which one can measure claims, that means if you hold a belief in objectivity, there is no reliable way to correct that, precisely because genuine objectivity doesn't exist as such. And then if you believe that genuine artifacts do exist "out there," again, there is no reliable or fool-proof way to correct that either.

 

This is why I define the mind as a capacity instead of as something more specific. It follows that the mind is a primordial capacity after you investigate the mind, or you can take it on faith if you like, so sometimes I call the mind a primordial capacity. This is similar to talking about Samantabhadra.

 

The whole point of my system of thinking is to ask this question: what can I believe and get away with? What are the limits on experience? The whole enterprise is freedom-oriented from the start. That's the motivation that drove me to adopt my views.

 

Almost all other views contrary to my own seek to restrict things by describing what they would consider impossible scenarios or impossible modes of belief etc. In other words, it's the business of most views to reject possibilities and to delineate and narrow the scope of what should be considered. Mine is the only position that doesn't attempt any kind of narrowing. If you find a position that you think is like this, then you should know it's my own position but in different words, nothing more, nothing less.

 

For added clarity, I'll rephrase the above paragraph. It's the business of most systems of thought to determine what one cannot think/believe and what one cannot or should not do. My system of thought makes its business to determine what can the mind think/believe and what can it do.

Edited August 18, 2014 by goldisheavy