Madhyamika and Time

[3bob]

Steve, Obviously you submitted a quote that leans HEAVILY on and uses the term "soul" within it, so what the hell (?) are you not an advocate of the quote you shared or are you just playing some kind of devils advocate with it?  (which is one way to skin a cat so to speak)

 

TI, Obviously you are and have been all over the map for a very long time with and between Buddhism and Vedic teachings...btw,  as you touched on in your post there are all sorts of interpretations regarding reincarnation - and again the Buddhist and Vedic interpretations are mostly or totally apart!

 

I don't care if you guys want to eat Buddhist cake with Vedic frosting or the other way around, (and I to appreciate aspects of both) I'm just suggesting that such differences supported by very strong doctrine and various teachers is made clear as possible to others when we get into these subjects.

Edited October 15, 2015 by 3bob

[3bob]

Rigdzgin, that was a good point you made earlier about extinction.  Sorry for side-tracking your op - I'll now take my leave from this sub-forum for awhile.

[doc benway]

3bob, if you want to be specific about my contradictions, please do.

If you are referring to the quote from O'Donohue, I posted that after you pointed out my contradictions so you must not have been referring to that.

Now I'm simply confused.

 

My own view is closest to madhyamika but that doesn't preclude me learning from, enjoying, and quoting other sources.

 

In my view, no view is perfect. 

[doc benway]

Well Steve to be more specific: In Buddhism there is no "soul" as mentioned and or as alluded to in your quote by John Donohue,

instead there is the dealing with aggregates and or composites that are often said to be nothing more than illusions.

 

Whether or not there is a concept of soul in Buddhism, I understand what John is pointing to and it has meaning for me. 

I acknowledge that it may not have meaning for others and that's fine.

[forestofclarity]

The thing about certain forms of Buddhism is that one is not married to a particular set of views. We can take on and put down views as needed. 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Well said forestofemptiness!

 

That's madhyamika as well - all views are relative

 

F.e.: The Buddha thought some brahmins to reach union with godhead in their language and symbolism

(That I read in the middle length pali canon)

 

He thought infinite vehicles and views, methods (our minds potential is infinite)

 

Madhyamika philosophy for me is also very much about getting unstuck

 

Showing how each attempt at explaining this moment can't produce an ultimate and valid philosophy of reality

--------------------------

 

Also

There are some interesting comments in this thread I want to pick up later

 

One example is the discussion about Atman or anatman. This is very strongly connected with time/reincarnation and madhyamika thought... Central almost

 

I would like to remind you on the example of the mala

 

Now is there an ego or not? If there is no ego at all how do we work or interaktiv with day to day reality(no madhyamikan would negate day to day phenomena completely away)? If there is an ego that is truly(ultimately) established how is reality possible?

 

Because if its truly ultimately established it can't have connection with anything (its alone), its permanent or unchanging

 

If ego is truly established - reality as we actually experience it doesn't work anymore

 

Yet ego also is arising in our experience or not? If not examined with ultimate analysis - it arises

 

Time is arising with it

 

And so is reincarnation

 

That's all relative truth - and as I understand Buddhist madhyamika philosophy you can't just negate that away - that's an extreme view

 

You cant say its actually there either - that's another extreme

 

And so on through the tetralemma

 

Great equanimity is then posited as the ground for the dreamlike accumulation of merit and wisdom to attain the twofold benefit (dharmakaya and the twofold rupakaya)

Edited October 17, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[3bob]

Steve, You have submitted many mellow, common ground type posts and I think that is way cool of you... (similar to #29)

 

although how such a stance fits in with Buddhism as originally based on the words and teachings of the historic Buddha, who btw. was not so cool in the liberal or democratic sense of this day and age, I see as being at least problematic because there are  strict definitions and pov's as given by the historic founder!    

 

. 

[doc benway]

Steve, You have submitted many mellow, common ground type posts and I think that is way cool of you... (similar to #29)

Thanks 3bob

I guess that makes me just a little bit like Jesus...

 

 

 

 

 

although how such a stance fits in with Buddhism as originally based on the words and teachings of the historic Buddha, who btw. was not so cool in the liberal or democratic sense of this day and age, I see as being at least problematic because there are  strict definitions and pov's as given by the historic founder!

 

 

Buddhism is a bit of an enigma to me.

Even Buddhists can't agree on what it is.

 

It is as complex as all the sutras and tantras combined.

It is as simple as dzogchen.

 

To make things even more confusing, I study and practice Bön which has its own separate canon consisting of over 300 volumes (possibly many more than that). The history is different, the iconography is different, the prayers and mantras are different, and yet when you boil it all down, it's exactly the same. 

 

I'm happy to discuss my views any time and I reserve the right to be wrong.

[RigdzinTrinley]

the discussion seems to go into the direction of what is this self? or no self? (and can there be a thing that is the negation of another thing? thats a big madhyamika topic as well - can you talk about an actual truly existing absence of a thing?)

 

like the statement there is the absence of an apple on this table

 

anyway back to some lists:

 

1) the inborn (or innate or co-emergent) self and 2) the imputed self

 

concerning 1) the inborn self, or inborn sense of self - this is something we carry with us since the beginning of beginningless samsara (whats that supposed to mean anyway?) - this sense of "I" and then from there this sense of "me and mine" is somewhat natural in the sense that we don't have to study certain philosophical tenet systems to get that sense of self (thats why it is labeled inborn, innate, coemergent - in tibetan of course its just one term "hlen skyed kyi dag")

 

this inborn self is the root cause of all suffering and all karmic visions of the six realms of existence

 

Birds have it, and all sorts of other beings as well. How do we know we have it? f.e.: through its expression, namely, hope and fear

 

concerning 2) the imputed self. Now that is connected with philosophical views and tenets - f.e.: the so called eternalist or nihilists (strange translation - the tibetan term means something like: someone who holds the view of cessation)

 

in the indo tibetan tradition they are usually termed tarka lnga or the five main non buddhist schools: Samkhya/Nayayika, Aishvara (followers of shiva), Jaina, Vinshanva, and the hedonists or nihilists (there is only one life, effects don't need a cause - let's party.... i.e.: rave culture, I tried that model of reality....didn't work too well)

 

the first 4 are eternalist views - and they are of more interest here. the hedonists can't be helped in this thread...

 

so these eternalist views basically boil down to an idea of a self that is singular, self sufficient (independent), and unchanging

 

and then depending on the different schools the self is a tiny spot of light in the heart chakra, or is all pervasive and extends as far as space, is the creator of everything etc. etc.

 

buddhists ask the question is this self you talk about one with or different from the five aggregates or not.

 

if it is different from the five aggregates then it is basically not existent (like the baby of an unborn woman, or the horns of a rabbit - to use the traditional examples) because all knowable phenomena are contained within the five skandhas -> so it could not be known. such a self is useless so to speak and has no power to do anything, and there is also no thing that could alter or have any effect on it - its like space (in short it would not matter at all if you have such a self or not)

 

if it's one of the five aggregates or two etc. or all of the five aggregates together then it is multiple (each of the aggregates has further subdivisions) and changing and dependently originated (the opposit of the above three statements: singular, independend, unchanging) - this we could say is in buddhist psychological terms a more healthy understanding of "self" thats of course not the last word on the matter...

 

a little further investigation into the self: if we say the self is the aggregate of form then we can ask is it one or different from our teeth? we have to start somewhere so why not the teeth? If it is the same then we suddenly have 32 selfs, and loose a self every time we loose a tooth, if it is different then why do we complain about toothaches (in the old days people would commit suicide because of tooth aches right? that makes no sense if the self is different from our teeth)

 

anyway to make things shorter - most buddhist systems would say the sense of self is mistaken a illusion (with a slight but important differene: the inborn self is arising like an illusion - the imputed self is an illusion, thats an important distinction!)

 

also the self as a lable is not refuted: that means you can use terms such as I, Me and mine to talk to people and refer to yourself.... as long as you know you just go along with concensus reality

 

most buddhist schools connect our sense of self mainly with the aggregate of conciousness (because the continuity of mind is a very fundamental experience - a lot happens but cognition of it always happens with it, except ordinary beings deep sleep state - but there is no subject or object duality so no need to worry about a self or no self or many selfs in one or whatever have you)

 

I get tired so another big jump all the way up to madhyamika

a big jump through alot of tenet systems that are important to understand before Madhyamika (its better to study the different buddhist schools because their insight into the true nature of reality gets deeper and more profound)

 

basically madhyamika points out that this multiple, chaning, dependently originated inborn self (that is like an illusion, the imputed self is long refuted by now) has not even a basis - because the 5 aggregates are unborn and unceasing; neither one nor many....

 

good night from the himalayas

Edited October 19, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

 

 

buddhists ask the question is this self you talk about one with or different from the five aggregates or not.

 

if it is different from the five aggregates then it is basically not existent (like the baby of an unborn woman, or the horns of a rabbit - to use the traditional examples) because all knowable phenomena are contained within the five skandhas -> so it could not be known. such a self is useless so to speak and has no power to do anything, and there is also no thing that could alter or have any effect on it - its like space (in short it would not matter at all if you have such a self or not)

 

if it's one of the five aggregates or two etc. or all of the five aggregates together then it is multiple (each of the aggregates has further subdivisions) and changing and dependently originated (the opposit of the above three statements: singular, independend, unchanging) - this we could say is in buddhist psychological terms a more healthy understanding of "self" thats of course not the last word on the matter...

 

a little further investigation into the self: if we say the self is the aggregate of form then we can ask is it one or different from our teeth? we have to start somewhere so why not the teeth? If it is the same then we suddenly have 32 selfs, and loose a self every time we loose a tooth, if it is different then why do we complain about toothaches (in the old days people would commit suicide because of tooth aches right? that makes no sense if the self is different from our teeth)

Very nice post, Rigdzin Trinley -

 

I've had very little formal Buddhist education but I've worked through some of this on my own.

The stickiest area for me was seeing how the self is not the same as the brain.

How do your teachers approach that specific question?

 

For me, it was a matter of seeing that if it is the brain, then it must also be the heart and the blood vessels, lungs,... because the brain is incapable of existing independent of the other major organs which keep it alive.

So if it is the brain, it is the entire organism.

And we can extend that to the environment of the organism because no organism has ever existed in the absence of environment, nor is it possible. Lungs are meaningless without air, etc...

So then the self is inseparable from the organism and its environment.

 

Another way of looking at it is, if the self is the brain and I have brain surgery and remove a portion of the brain, have I removed a portion of the self? Here it gets tough because, indeed if we remove parts of our brain we certainly do go through major changes to our perception of self and the perception of others but that depends in large part on which parts we would remove and to what degree. Also, if we destroy the brain we certainly destroy our self. 

 

Are there other, more skillful ways of excluding the brain as the "seat" of the self through Buddhist logic and debate?

 

I was looking at investing in a book on the subject - http://www.amazon.com/The-Course-Buddhist-Reasoning-Debate/dp/1559394218

 

Are you familiar with this book? If so, would you recommend it?

 

 

Thanks

[rex]

In his introduction to Entry into the Realm of Reality: The Guide Thomas Cleary gives an interesting explanation of the origin of doctrinal dispute within Buddhism and the source of teachings which do not have the weight of recorded history behind them.
 

According to Buddhist legend, the fullest extent of consciousness available to humankind was rediscovered by Gautama Buddha thousands of years ago and summarized in the monumental discourse known as The Flower Ornament Scripture (Avatamsaka Sutra). Finding this statement of complete enlightenment beyond even the most advanced minds of his time, the Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching people how to prepare themselves for this comprehensive understanding. At every step of the way, there were those who succeeded in absorbing, utilizing, and finally superseding each stage of preparation, as well as those who took the part for the whole, assumed they had realized all there was to know, and fell by the wayside.

After the disappearance of Gautama Buddha, those among his mendicant followers who had attained a certain stage of individual enlightenment gathered together to recite and systematize what they had learned from their teacher. Since the Buddha's teachings were adapted to the specific needs o findividuals and groups according to their stage of evolution, the result was a vast amount of material, a highly complex body of principles and practices.

Not having reached the full consciousness of the Buddha, however, these mendicants were unaware of the teachings beyond their own range, and some of them assumed that they had recorded the full dispensation of their master, even though all of them refused to say they had attained all that the teacher had attained. Eventually the followers of the followers of these mendicants, imagining themselves to be the elite of a new religion holding the authentic teachings of the Buddha, not only rejected the more versatile and expansive teachings left among certain lay adepts and communities but even organized themselves into more than a dozen competing sects, each with its own propriety interest in what it considered truth.

According to The Scripture of the Great Ultimate Extinction, the fragmentation of Buddha's teaching, with different factions using parts of the teaching as claims to their own authority, was to be expected as a characteristic degeneration. The Scripture on Unlocking the Mysteries, revealing certain advanced teachings, represents this as already happening to mentally isolated Buddhist groups in the time of Gautama Buddha and explains its technical inefficiency.

Legend has it that the comprehensive teaching of The Flower Ornamanet Scripture was under these conditions withdrawn for a time, until the advent of a major renewer, the great Nagarjuna, who studied all aspects of Buddhist learning and recovered the teaching of The Flower Ornamanet Scripture "from the ocean". Consistent with his role in revitalizing the comprehensive teaching, Nagajuna is also regarded as ancestor of all the major branches of East Asian Buddhism, including the Zen, Pure Land, and Tantric schools.

Turning from legend to history, it must be admotted that the terrestial source of The Flower Oranamant Scripture is unknown. This is a characteristic it has in common with the other great scriptures of the universalist Buddhist tradition ...

 

[Geof Nanto]

Are there other, more skillful ways of excluding the brain as the "seat" of the self through Buddhist logic and debate?

 

It's not Buddhism, but do you realise that this is directly addressed by Moeller in The Radical Luhmann? If not it's almost eerie in its synchronicity.   

Edited October 19, 2015 by Yueya

[doc benway]

It's not Buddhism, but do you realise that this is directly addressed by Moeller in The Radical Luhmann? If not it's almost eerie in its synchronicity.   

 

I had no idea.

It would be eerie if I had not just downloaded the other book!

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Just a quick reply for now:

 

If you want to study more buddhist philosophy and psychology and can't read tibetan then nitharta is one of the best places to start

 

Their publications are excellent - i would start with dudra (collected topics) then lorik (science of mind) followed by tarik(science of logical reasoning) and then start to study the tenet systems

 

After that or while you're at it (but finish some dudra study) read books like the center of the sunlit sky by brunnhoelzel and then miphams commentary on shantarakshitas ornament of the middle way (thomas doctors translation) and top it with miphams beacon of certainty

 

Why mipham for madhyamika why why?

 

Because he builds you a bridge between madhyamika and dzogchen

 

Btw I'm not finished with my studies at all many of the books i didnt start yet

 

This is bow i would do it and how most buddhist philosophical institutions in the tibetan nyigma tradition would go about

 

If you get a hang of pramana then george dreyfuss ‘recognizing reality’ is the book of choice (will split your head open), the book of pardue i dont know

 

anyway

Dreyfus is a powerhouse - I think the first western geshe

 

dude knows!

Edited October 20, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

I don't know if I can answer your brainself question fully (because obviously I stilll have clinging to the aggregates as the self), but I will try my best to give you some imput

 

I won't use actual madhyamika reasoning for now, I just try to share some basic teachings on the whole subject of the "brainself"

 

If it doesn't satisfy I will post some quotes and reasonings into the unreality of the self done by Shantideva or Chandrakirti

for now maybe this already can clarify some points for you:

 

(I also have chai so it should be productive)

 

first of course if you say that the self is the brain then also a brain in a glass jar is the self - that makes no sense right?

 

also the decaying brain of a corpse would be the self...

 

Ok something first, maybe that helps: buddhist logic and philosophy is a philosphy that is based on grammar and conceptual mind (it uses the shortcomings of conceptual mind and language to point to the enlightened non conceptual nature of mind - to use some dzogchen speak "you can't figure it out so just leave it as it is, don't fabricate")

 

so its not like western logic based on math, its based on grammar and language (a critique of thinking mind made by an enlightened mind using concepts) so the closest we have to Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, Aryadeva etc. and Buddha is Wittgenstein, not so much Plato or Pythagoras

 

another point is that matter and mind have two different cuntinua - our sense of self is an imputation based on the aggregates (they include all subjective and objective phenomena - mind and matter)

 

so there is merely a link betwenn mind and matter - they are dependently originated. Mind itself doesn't come from matter - thats the buddhist view (buddhism is not a materialist religion)

 

our western flatland view is something like: if you put some chemicals together in a certain way you create a mind - thats non sense

 

because if matter could produce mind then why is a stone not a person? because the way the chemicals are linked together is not correct so it can't create a mind? I don't know I don't know...

 

now a computer could simulate a being: its matterial form and even certain behaviour - if you hit that computer generated orc it will hit back if you leave it in peace the orc won't mind you ... something like that. The simulated Orc obviously has reactive patterns of attachment/aversion is build from matter and information - still doesn't have a mind in a buddhist sense because matter and information (I mean 10010010000001 kind of information) alone can't produce a mind that will reincarnate (but probably here we can have a long strange sci fi discussion... oi weh - I see it coming)

 

Also I feel that the idea: my self or mind is in the brain is an imputed sense of self, not the inborn sense of self (see my post above) why? because indians and tibetans say the mind comes from the heart - they point to their heart when speaking of "Me". Actually we do that too, but I feel because thinking is soooo important in our culture (we do way too much of it) we focus our attention on our brain - the prana goes out of balance (rises upwards) and some people in bad cases have tense shoulders, tense throats, migranes etc... and then yes suddenly our sense of self seems to be connected with our brain not with our heart

 

both are wrong - and an imputed sense of self: means we learned to connect our sense of self with certain parts of our body and that attribution is different in different cultures (its usually never the right nostril btw. I will research why it is never the right nostril later)

 

so is the self to be found within the aggregate of form? heart, brain, nostril what have you? like you said its not just one of those - it can't be - then maybe its a connection of those?

 

So is it in the connection of lungs, heart, brain + the outer environment air, food, warmths etc ?

 

lets say we have a nice corps (died unanatural death but still in a fantastic form), a relatively fresh one (blood is still liquid) - we prepare the lungs heart brain even big and small intestine - Oh what the hack lets just use the whole corpse and plug it into something that pumps in air, water, food - some little device that makes the heart pump etc.

 

would it create a mind stream? and based on that the inborn sense of self? highly questionable - I would say No

 

why? Mind and Matter have a different continuum. basically in indo tibetan buddhism what gives rise to your body is different things

the red bindu (blood) of the mother and the white bindu (semen) of the father plus the blue bindu of conciousness

 

not just the blood and semen of mother and father - also conciousness needs to be around to connect them to form a body

 

what gives rise to the mind then? well the previous instant of mind - its a mental continuum without beginning and end

the definition of this mental continuum is - luminous and cognizing

 

the definition of matter is different - matter isn't luminous and cognizing so it can't give rise to a luminous and cognizing mind

 

INTERLUDE:

if you then think oh wait wait a second - the mental continuum the most subtle mental continuum is my self - yes I found it... nope wrong again (see the example of the mala above)

 

back to the brainself -

a corpse or simple matter can't produce a mind

 

so how could the brain alone or in connection with other organs produce one?

 

the sense of self is shown to be merely imputed on top of hte aggregates (form up to consciouness) there is no such self in reality

 

neither one with the aggregates nor different from them

 

lets talk about the aggregate of form (visual form) for a second:

like we sit around a table you and me - I make a picture of the table and call it "Tisch" (I'm austrian so my mother tongue is german) you make a little snapshot of the table from another angle and call it a "table"

 

now where is the real substantially existing table? in your head or in my head? are there two tables that are substantially existing? or just one? obviously there is just one thing there that we name a table (but is there really?) - but does me naming the table Tisch make your table less real for someone who doesn't speak english?

 

what about a spanish guy coming along who doesn't speak german or english and says we are both wrong its a "mesa" (is that spanish for table? I don't remember)

 

could it be that without labels or names and the process of naming and labeling phenomena - that there wouldn't be phnenomena out there?

 

can we know the category of phenomena named "table" without the label? thats somethink to think about

 

prasangika doesn't even accept that the aggregates are mere labels (or like the cittamatrins would say the aggregates are merely mind - they don't exist outside - they are just like dream phenomena) - madhyamika goes further and says they are completely unborn (from the point of view of their true nature - relatively speaking there seems to be birth or arising abiding and ceasing of phenomena - but as soon as you use madhyamika reasoning the whole thing becomes like space, completely beyond the conceptual elaboration - you can't make any claims about the true nature of reality - that there is a true nature or not for example - no category, label, concept works)

 

so all phenomena contained withing the 5 aggregates (that means all of reality by the way, when buddhist say 5 aggregates they mean everything that arises) are unborn, unceasing neither one nor many - beyond all conceptual elaboration, the unity of the two truth and the great equanimity of samsara and nirvana (now we just went to nagarjuna country)

 

if you are into Non duality btw. I dare say (thats my opinon) Prasangika madhyamika is the most radical teaching on non duality on planet earth - nagarjuna was waaaaay out there

 

anyway in this and many other ways the aggregates themself are shown (if you use reasoning into the ultimate nature of reality, means prasangika Madhyamika reasoning) to be unborn, so they never came into being, they don't abide, so also they are unceasing

 

thats the result of madhyamika analysis - that phenomena are completely free of conceptual elaboration, all phenomena means the basis of the sense of self (the aggregates) the sense of self nothing can withstand ultimate analysis and is shown to be the union of apperance/emptiness (that takes couple of days if you would study a madhyamika text with a lama)

 

what does nagarjuna mean when he says Peace? he means all conceptual elaborations have been exhausted by meditating on emtpiness - so mind dies - wisdom shines

Edited October 20, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

Luhmann sounds interesting

[forestofclarity]

I have the same issue--- it is the disease of the Western educational system.

 

For me, the interdependency of the brain and its unfindability don't do it-- -the brain has a special relationship with consciousness. Manipulating the brain manipulates consciousness in a way you don't get by manipulating the air, the heart, or our hand. It is entirely possible that all forms of consciousness depend on the brain, or that consciousness is simply a form of energy. The luminous, cognizant aspects may very well be a background function of the brain.

 

Separating mind and matter fails for the same reason other dualities do: as Nagarjuna points out, if things are separate, they can have no relationship, and if they have a relationship, they aren't separate. So it is clear that mind and matter arise as a part of a continuum, and I think this is also supported by findings in quantum physics. But the question is how the dependency goes. Does the brain arise as a perception of consciousness, or does consciousness arise as an energy of the brain?

 

I haven't had a teacher answer this question in a way that stops my doubts. Two answers I've received are the interdependence argument from a Zen master that Steve makes above, and the section in Buddhahood without Meditation by Dudjom Lingpa in which he tears apart the body. Other teachers have said it is a question that arises due to faulty concepts.

 

Madhyamaka tends to tear apart all concepts, so I don't know if that's the place to look to establish an endless mindstream. 

 

Non-Buddhists like to argue that the brain depends on consciousness, so to say the brain produces consciousness is like saying a movie produces the projector, but I think this confuses epistemology with ontology.  

 

 

I've had very little formal Buddhist education but I've worked through some of this on my own.

The stickiest area for me was seeing how the self is not the same as the brain.

[doc benway]

Wonderful discussion Rigdzin Trinley - thank you for your time.

I've read some of the sources you reference.

The most challenging and fulfilling for me was Mipham's Beacon.

I really struggled with the original (John Petit's translation) and got a lot of assistance form the wonderful explanation given by Anyen Rinpoche in his book Journey to Certainty. 

I am more a practitioner than a scholar but I respect the importance of both and Mipham really does build that bridge beautifully. 

I try to put much more time into practice than study but I will make some time to look into some of the other readings you suggest.

 

I suspect you would find Lumann extremely interesting.

A big thank you to Yueya for recommending him.

 

I have only just begun to read Luhmann's theories through the interpretation and explanation of Moeller.

In the first section of the first chapter he already outlines the basis of his systems theory which essentially establishes the foundation for dependent origination and breaks down human experience into three major systems of body, communication, and psyche...  eg body, speech, and mind! And he proposes these systems to be autopoietic - essentially non-arising and non-ceasing, independent of one another and yet connected... It is shockingly consistent with your recent comments and my (limited) understanding of Buddhist ontology. But that said, I'll add the disclaimer that I"m not a scholar and know very little about philosophy.

[RigdzinTrinley]

I have the same issue--- it is the disease of the Western educational system.

 

For me, the interdependency of the brain and its unfindability don't do it-- -the brain has a special relationship with consciousness. Manipulating the brain manipulates consciousness in a way you don't get by manipulating the air, the heart, or our hand. It is entirely possible that all forms of consciousness depend on the brain, or that consciousness is simply a form of energy. The luminous, cognizant aspects may very well be a background function of the brain.

 

Separating mind and matter fails for the same reason other dualities do: as Nagarjuna points out, if things are separate, they can have no relationship, and if they have a relationship, they aren't separate. So it is clear that mind and matter arise as a part of a continuum, and I think this is also supported by findings in quantum physics. But the question is how the dependency goes. Does the brain arise as a perception of consciousness, or does consciousness arise as an energy of the brain?

 

I haven't had a teacher answer this question in a way that stops my doubts. Two answers I've received are the interdependence argument from a Zen master that Steve makes above, and the section in Buddhahood without Meditation by Dudjom Lingpa in which he tears apart the body. Other teachers have said it is a question that arises due to faulty concepts.

 

Madhyamaka tends to tear apart all concepts, so I don't know if that's the place to look to establish an endless mindstream.

 

Non-Buddhists like to argue that the brain depends on consciousness, so to say the brain produces consciousness is like saying a movie produces the projector, but I think this confuses epistemology with ontology.

dear brother from an empty forest,

 

I will try to have a chat with your doubts, I am not confident I can clear them - because of many reasons (one for example is that I don't get the utterly pure and perfect view of Lord Buddha totally)

 

So let's say instead of talking with me you hang out with a bad ass lama both a scholar a yogi and a gentleman - someone who spend 30+ years working with emptiness on all different levels from madhyamika up to dzogchen or mahamudra. so if that lama is teaching you madhyamika many of the doubts will melt away because there is a being who embodies the innermost meaning of these strange reasonings into reality - basically you see the transformation that happens through studying and working/meditating on emptiness in a correct way. the result of that sits inf ront of you and talks to you, and that can change a lot. I mean the words and reasons and treatises are incredible - its so good we have access to them, but there is also a living tradition - and thats even more incredible

 

(interlude: meditating - > tibetan sgom means to familiarize, so you never just sit down with this information in a nice 7 point posture straight back etc. you work with it as a reality model, a new set of sunglasses that will get rid of all kinds of conceptual sunglasses even the pair labeled "emptiness" sunglasses - and see what happens to you and your perception in the process)

 

OK - that being said I still feel its nice to talk about emptiness, and I feel I got enough teachings to talk about it in a way that won't create more misconceptions for you or me (I least hope that) and maybe we get into the "zone" through that as well

 

First part of your reply or doubt:

 

back to the brainself problem

 

lets talk about ordinary beings first and then I will also mention some "extraordinary" beings and their brainselfs

 

an ordinary beings personality or sense of self is not just altered through brain surgery, its altered also through heart surgery (a lot actually, so there is a special psychologist in austria - and probably in other parts of the western world, consulting with you if you happen to have a heart surgery - because your sense of self will be veeeeery different after)

 

but also lets say you are right handed - you are a tennis pro, you loose your right hand. what to say, I mean what would you do then? note to self: self grasping is nasty

 

what if the germans come and cut of my johnson!?!?!?! the result is a major freak out - and I will never ever be the same

 

that doesn't proof that the form aggregate equals conciousness, doesn't proof it at all, it just shows they are interdependent

 

also neuroplactisity (did I spell that right?) shows that through meditating you change the matter of your brain! So not just cutting a piece of "important" body away alters your perception of reality also changing your perception of reality changes the matter of your brain (and rest of your body by the way)!

 

Ok I edit this a bit later... I need chai!

----------------

 

that was ordinary beings now lets talk about two (in my view extraordinary beings) Ram Dass and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche

 

both had a stroke so there brain and speech box are completely different after that no? I'm not a Doctor so maybe I make this up

 

anyway there was a Ram Dass and a CTRinpoche before and after the Stroke, and those are two very different enteties - the way they manifest and interact with reality seems very different I mean. Now did it fundamentally alter their insight into reality? Not really no, doesn't look like it, I know students of CT Rinpoche and they basically said CT Rinpoche after the Stroke plus a liter of Sake was maybe the most powerful Buddhist teacher to dwell in the western hemisphere at that time.

 

Ok next step of your doubt:

 

brain and conciousness are interdependent - what is more important conciousness or the brain?

 

Lets talk about the Chittamatrin view(simple version, because the profound version I can't talk about). First the Shravaka schools: the Vaibashika and Sautantrika have differences but also share a similarity in how they establish the two truths and the Chittamatrins (mainly Vasubandhu) lets that collaps in a single verse composed of only four lines

 

but first how do the shravaka schools establish the two truths?

 

they talk of two levels basically: the coarse level and the subtle level of subject/object duality (both the coarse and subtle level is seen as substantially established)

 

the coarse level of objects is the relaitve or conventional truth (coarse forms, like a pillar or vase)

the coarse level of the subject is the coarse continuum of conciouness grasping at those objects

 

ultimate truth is the subtle level of objects and subjects

 

the subtle level of objects is the infitissimal partless particle - the smallest possible building block of reality - its said to partless, because there is nothing more fundamental or smaller -> thats the ultimate level of objective reality, the deep end

 

every form sound smell etc is composed of that

 

the subtle level of the subject is the shortest indivisble moment of conciousness

 

ALL OF THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY ESTABLISHED - the subtle and the coarse level is there, really there as a substance!

 

so the chittamatrins need four lines to get rid of the concept of outer forms being substantially established (I skip how they invalidate the subjectiv shortest indivisible moment of conciousness, becasue of lazyness and anyway we talk about brains being "really" there and being maybe, and only maybe the "real" cause for "real" conciousness to emerge...)

 

If six particles are joined to on,

this partless one acquires six parts.

If these six particles all coincide,

then even heaps become a single particle

 

Vasubandhu said that

 

It means basically that the central particle is surrounded by particles in the 6 directions and connects with some of them and some not

 

but if there are connections between particless - then they have parts (the directions of front/back left/right up/down) so they are not the fundamental constituent of reality because you can show that they have still parts - six at least then those six have again directional parts etc.... nothing is there to be found ultimately

 

if people still claim that these partless particles exist and are the most fundamental building block of reality and that they are indivisible and partless then no matter how many partless particles assamble the outcome can only ever be one particle - because they have no parts to connect and because of that fuse into one

 

so the chittamatra school says what we think of matter out there is just a dream - just a mental hologram WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE

 

prasangika goes further and also refutes the chittamatra claim that there are no outer objects as matter but they exist as aspects of mind (i.e.: chittamtra says that matter is actually a mental hologram made by karmic imprints and ignorance) - and that this minds nature is empty of subject/object duality and self-aware self-illuminating conciousness, thats the ultimate truth in the cittamatrin view - the rest like thoughts, concepts, outer phenomena is seen as the relative - dreamlike appearences that arise from grasping at this nature of mind (that is empty of subject/object duality) as being an inner perceiver and an outer universe that exists objectively, but all is in fact mind (hence mind only school, but you guys knew that)

 

doesnt there ultimate truth sound alot like rigpa? maybe but only if no one explained the difference between the chittamatrin view and the dzogchen view to you (that I won't do because I can't really and also because I fear the dakinis will cut of my Johnson, if I start talking too much Dzogchen speak on a internet forum)

 

Madhyamika also refutes the position of the chittamatra that there is something like a nondual self-aware self-illuminating conciousness (one that is truly established) - brings me to your last point about madhyamika and the beginningless mental continuum

 

no ultimately there is no continuum of mind (see previous posts on the meaning of "continuum" and hte example of the mala - and time/reincarnation) - but relatively there is an illusion like continuum of mind - also relatively there is time and therefore reincarnation (all that is happening like an illusory display - or like a hologram)

 

A friend of mine told me about a whole section of the Abidharmakosa that deals with the problem of saying coniousness comes from matter - its one of many chapters in a very old buddhist scripture. He said it blew his mind, and of course it doesn't answer or explain anything beyond the fact that its logically impossible to claim that consiouness comes from matter.

 

so where does it come from? where? where?

 

a quick madhyamika question for you guys:

 

is this self aware self illuminating mind that is empty of subject object duality one or different from the aggregates? and whats the problem with the claim no.1 and whats the problem with claim no.2?

 

P.S.: lets talk as if its all just in your head

 

I edited the post for easier comprehension - my english is a bit sloppy sometimes

Edited October 21, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

a quick madhyamika question for you guys:

 

is this self aware self illuminating mind that is empty of subject object duality one or different from the aggregates?

 

It may be a quick question, but I wonder how quick an answer I can come up with...

 

It's neither one with nor different from the aggregates. Either proposition runs into trouble.

I'll try to explain why but I suspect you or others can do this better...

 

 

 

and whats the problem with the claim no.1 and whats the problem with claim no.2?

 

1. If this "self aware self illuminating mind that is empty of subject object duality" [may I simply call this "self" for convenience?] is one with the aggregates then it must be impermanent and compounded as the aggregates are... it will come and go, it cannot be permanent, it can be broken down into constituent parts. As we discussed above, if this were the case and I had an injury, for example, is the self injured? When my perception or feelings change, does my "self" change? 

 

2. If this "self" is different from the aggregates then it does not have the characteristics of the aggregates meaning, as you described earlier, how could it be within the sphere of experience? If completely outside the realm of experience and awareness, what good is it? How could it influence anything or be of significance? If it were different from the aggregates, there would be no self clinging to life, clinging to health, and so forth. 

 

 

P.S.: lets talk as if its all just in your head

 

I think it is all in my head, otherwise I wouldn't be getting a headache!

[rex]

Isn't the only claim that madhyamika makes is that nothing definitive can be said about anything? So whatever proposition is proposed is wrong by default. In turn madhyamika offers no alternative propositions, apart from demonstrating how a proposition is never definitive.

[doc benway]

Isn't the only claim that madhyamika makes is that nothing definitive can be said about anything? So whatever proposition is proposed is wrong by default. In turn madhyamika offers no alternative propositions, apart from demonstrating how a proposition is never definitive.

 

 

That was a common criticism of madhyamaka philosophy - what is the point of criticizing philosophical systems if you offer nothing as an alternative?

in fact, that was a point of contention within the madhyamaka school and is the point that defines a division into two sub-schools: the Svātantrika school associated with Bhāvaviveka and the Prāsaṅgika school attributed to Candrakīrti.

 

Bhāvaviveka shared the sentiment that it isn't enough to simply tear down other positions and tried to assert a positive, independent (svatantra) position that all phenomena lack inherent natures.

Candrakīrti disagreed with Bhāvaviveka's position and advocated that it was enough to simply demonstrate the unsatisfactory consequences (prasanga) of all possible positions. 

 

Given that the view of madhyamaka is that, at the ultimate level, concept and language fail to be able to describe the nature of things, the effectiveness of madhyamaka at bringing all descriptions and discussion of positions to an end without proposing an alternative explanation really does satisfy its objective. 

 

Hopefully others will weigh in on this as my understanding is rudimentary.

 

Here's a concise discussion of the core madhyamaka writings:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/

[doc benway]

A few other thoughts occurred to me about this topic as I was practicing this morning. 

 

The principle discussed above seems to pervade other areas of Buddhism, the principle of letting go.

 

In meditation, the object is not to replace one thought or feeling with another, it is simply to let go.

No need to fill that space with anything

 

When we engage in charitable behavior, the object is not to replace what we are giving, in other words to receive compensation or notoriety, but rather to simply give. 

 

When we practice the preliminaries (ngöndro), every step involves letting go in one form or another.

 

I could probably go through other aspects of practice and training and find many other examples.

 

In formulating the view, the object is not substitute one view for another, it is to have direct experience of the non-conceptual basis that transcends all conceptual views. I think this is the insight Krishnamurti was trying to communicate when he advocated eschewing all paths and all methods. This can occur through the study of madhyamaka and through the practice of meditation.

 

In the case of madhyamaka, to see from the outside that the method simply negates all positions is not necessarily helpful as it can give the false impression of nihilism.  What the masters have pointed to is that we need to practice long enough and understand thoroughly enough to actually see the truth that it is pointing to, the inherent failure of all positions to capture absolute truth. We need to actually have an experience of what it means to negate all possible positions for ourselves, leading to a direct experience of that non-conceptual truth. 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Isn't the only claim that madhyamika makes is that nothing definitive can be said about anything? So whatever proposition is proposed is wrong by default. In turn madhyamika offers no alternative propositions, apart from demonstrating how a proposition is never definitive.

 

If you want to think of Madhyamika as a philosophy or ctitique of language then this is a true statement, but I feel (and I don't know for sure) that Madhyamika is no philosophy in the common sense, its a way to point out the nature of reality to be beyond all four ontological extgremes (existence, non existence, both and neither) -and what is the outcome of that (if ones mind stream would realize that)? the outcome would be to see all conventional phenomena as being utterly unborn and therefore unceasing on the ultimate level of truth and also on the relative level of truth - at that moment all conceptual elaboration ceases and the citadel of the dharmakaya is attained

 

so not really only a critique of other philosophical schools

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

the discussion goes into a very beautiful direction!

 

we should come back to the question if the negation of the true existence of a phenomena implies that there is then something left: the non existence of that phenomena

 

remember my little ironic statement about discussing the absence of apples on a table?

 

Ok I think it's time for some heavy hitters, so I will post three very important verses from the Bodhisattvacharyavatara and give a short outline of what they mean based on Ju Miphams commentary (shedrel ketaka) of the 9th Chapter from the Bodhicharyavatara

 

the verses (translated by padmakara - so poetic but not always true to the tibetan, the meaning is the same though so no problem)

 

Verse 32 (here aptitude in the first line and habit in the second line mean the same thing in tibetan: mental habit or karmic imprint; whylie: bag chags)

 

By training in this aptitude for emptiness,

the habit to perceive real things will be relinquished.

By training in the thought "There isn't anything,"

This view itself will also be abandoned.

 

That means that there is a ever deepening insight into the suchness of reality based on ones understanding of emptiness, also it means that not everybody can arrive at the correct and final view of the great madhyamika - the freedom of all conceptual elaborations - directly by being introduced to the view (through Maha Ati, Mahamudra or Maha Madhyamika). Most beings need to take some steps to reach this non place.

 

The first two lines talk about the initial stages of training in the three wisdoms of hearing, contemplating and meditating on

emtpiness for a beeing that doesn't have superior faculties (chik char - means you heard the teachings ones and are liberated on the spot. dzogchen mahamudra and maha madyamika has that power)

 

So first we have to work with the antidote to our clinging to phenomena as truly/substantially existent, that is of course to meditate on the absence of true/substantial existence

 

thats the initial phase - the understanding of the nominal absolute truth (a presentation mainly used in the nyigma school)

 

this nominal absolute truth is the conceptual realization that all phenomena from the form aggregates up till the omniscient mind of the Buddha are just illusion, like a dream etc. (the 8 similies of illusion - longchenpas "resting in illusion" is maybe the most beautiful practice manual for working with those 8 similies)

 

this first conceptual understanding is important and should be correct and varified by a lineage master in discussions with him or her.

 

then comes the next step - moving towards the actual absolute truth (the dharmakaya)

 

through familiarizing one self with the thought "this is just a dream, all is empty" and more importantly through confidence in this view (and confidence comes through using madhyamika meditations into the true abiding nature of phenomena) what will happen is that slowly this concept ("there isn't anything") also will be abandoned

 

the traditional example given is this: two wooden sticks - one of those stick is the concepts that things exist, the other stick is the concept that things do not exist

 

through rubbing the stick together the actual fire of nowness awereness (Yeshe or Jnana) will be born and consume both the sticks without anything remaining

 

Verse 33

"there is nothing" - when this is asserted,

No thing is there to be examined.

How can a "nothing", wholly unsupported,

Rest before the mind as something present?

 

now we move into the great madhyamika view - that is freedom from all conceptual ellaborations. If the yogi uses MAdhyamika meditations into the true abiding nature of conventional reality (the conventional reality is the method by which the absolute is realized, says a Quote, don't remember from where that comes)

 

such a yogi will see that the ultimate truth of a conventional entity (lets say a vase) is utterly unborn -then at that moment if the meditation is powerful enough this yogin will also see that even the conventional (appearing) level of this vase is utterly unborn.

 

"there is nothing" - when this is asserted

No thing is there to be examined.

 

thats roughly what those lines mean

 

so the last 2 lines say:

 

How can a "nothing", wholly unsupported,

Rest before the mind as something present?

 

lets talk about the absence of an apple on my table... is that really a thing or not? I mean its a concept maybe but is it a thing - can an absence be a knowable entity, does that make any sense to try to know an "absence" I mean?

 

the apple example is not so good here actually - why? because we can still conceptualize the absence of an apple on a table as a thought, but if the yogin penetrates to the actual abiding level of the conventional

phenomena under investigation (the vase f.e.) what he will find is "nothing" its unborn - if it is unborn how could it cease? where could it abide?

 

at that moment when the conceptual mind perceives this unborn nature of phenomena, then the conceptual mind itself becomes the nature of the antidote (emptiness) and dies (becomes unborn)

 

from chandrakirtis Madhyamikavatara

 

Suchness is unborn, and mind itself is also free from birth;

And when the mind is tuned to this, it is as though it knows

the ultimate reality.

For since you say that consciousness cognizes when it takes

the aspect of a thing,

It's right for us to speak in such a way.

 

(why is it right to speak in such a way? thats another very long discussion - in short the true nature of reality can't be spoken about - for one there is no subject/object duality so it can't be "known" in the ordinary sense of the word - yet from the point of view of an arya bodhisattvas meditative equipoise we can "speak in such a way" - OK that was the shortest version )

 

the last verse 34 one of the most famous verses of the Bodhisattvacharyavatara (its said that shantideva started flying into the sky and his disembodied voice finished the teaching, when he gave the transmission for this verse)

 

Verse 34

When something and its nonexistence

both are absent from before the mind,

no other option does the latter have:

it comes to perfect rest, from concepts free

 

and that is called attaining the citadel of the dharmakaya free from all conceptual elaborations

 

so Madhyamika is not just a strange philosophy without a view - it has a view: the freedom from all conceptual elaboration

 

now that view of course is inexpressible, unthinkable and beyond the ordinary mind, its the unity of the two truths, the great equality of all phenomena and their innate purity (the tantric term purity means the emptiness of phenomena)

 

 

P.S.: great masters like Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche say that Dzogchen is just a very beautiful way of packing the teachings of emptiness

Edited October 23, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley