Your Natural Condition

Originally posted by black beetle
Since the fleeting emotional and cognitive obscurations of mind are not the defining characteristic of the (pure) mental activity, mind’s absolute nature is emptiness. A universal mind that envelops all the individual minds of all the sentient beings and it can somehow be accessed by us, is turtle-hair. Our individual mindstreams merging with a universa ...[text shortened]... self-sufficiently knowable on its own.

So, first get to know clear light and then proceed
😵

"To say that our individual mindstreams merge with a universal mind, is not tenable."

Oh, really? Have you met Aunt Hillary?

http://www.lloyd-jones.net/J-zine/AntIntelligence.htm

"The idea of a colony as an intelligent super-organism is not new. Douglas Hofstadter in Ant Fugue (from his brilliant book Gödel, Escher,Bach) has the Anteater talk about Aunt Hillary, a colony of ants that the Anteater claims to spend many happy hours in conversation with. He likens the ants of the colony to neurons in our brain. At the ant level, they simply run around in panic when the Anteater comes near them. Aunt Hillary -- she's not anyone's aunt, "but the poor dear insists that everyone calls her that" -- exists only at the colony level."

It is just that we would not know it --> and in this epistemic sense you are right --> and of course this sense is the sense that matters.

(Could more nearly universal beings be talking to one another, through our great architectural achievements? Could there be a Salo, the Tralfamadorian explorer? Sorry, I'm drifting this AM.)

Nonetheless I heartily recommend the following section and the following book in general, particularly the part starting "TORTOISE: I am sure that we could learn much from a myrmecologist you, Dr. Anteater. Could you tell us more about ant colonies, from a reductionistic point of view?"

as at:

http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-ant-fugue.html

Originally posted by JS357
"To say that our individual mindstreams merge with a universal mind, is not tenable."

Oh, really? Have you met Aunt Hillary?

http://www.lloyd-jones.net/J-zine/AntIntelligence.htm

"The idea of a colony as an intelligent super-organism is not new. Douglas Hofstadter in Ant Fugue (from his brilliant book Gödel, Escher,Bach) has the Anteater talk about Au ...[text shortened]... "

as at:

http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-ant-fugue.html

Really🙂

He likens the ants of the colony to neurons in our brain, but this is not tenable merely because of the obvious anthropomorphism: dependent origination remains dependent designation, that is.
You see, a conventional description of this kind of supposed reality lacks of independent reality too, so this belief cannot go beyond the assumption of true existence because it is grounded on the assumption that truly existent entities form a specific foundation of a view of a holistic reality. So, since each formulation captures solely aspects of reality dependent upon context and levels of analysis, why do you propose that it is tenable to cling to a specific formulation of reality as if it were an exclusively correct description of a fixed ultimate reality?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Really🙂

He likens the ants of the colony to neurons in our brain, but this is not tenable merely because of the obvious anthropomorphism: dependent origination remains dependent designation, that is.
You see, a conventional description of this kind of supposed reality lacks of independent reality too, so this belief cannot go beyond the assumption ...[text shortened]... ion of reality as if it were an exclusively correct description of a fixed ultimate reality?
😵

The point is that the epistemic limits of the ants, and of our neurons, are not the ontological limits of the agents they could comprise, and so, this could conceivably allow for a being for which we are the neurons or ants. This is not anthropomorphic. IOW what the ants/we know about the higher order structured behavior they/we participate in creating, is not the limit of what it can be conceived to be.

Originally posted by black beetle
Since the fleeting emotional and cognitive obscurations of mind are not the defining characteristic of the (pure) mental activity, mind’s absolute nature is emptiness. A universal mind that envelops all the individual minds of all the sentient beings and it can somehow be accessed by us, is turtle-hair. Our individual mindstreams merging with a universa ...[text shortened]... self-sufficiently knowable on its own.

So, first get to know clear light and then proceed
😵

No, absolute nature IS nothing of the sort bb. You and I cannot say what absolute nature is. Thus when referring to the non-dual, settling on any of the dilemmas we are left in the air. With dreams OR words we are left suspended.

You appear to avoid the point about projection.

What of Mind Only? I have an issue with that term also as much as with tantric ideation, when we become too attached and defining. To know we are projecting as soon as we open our mouths is the first liberation.

To live in itself is a projection. But does that mean we do not live? Or do we not grasp our projections fully aware and play and live with them and seeking greater skill and joy therein?

Freedom is not holding fast onto anything, while still dancing with them - words or images. The sutric danger is too tight a hold on words, the tantric danger is too tight a hold on images.

The tetralemma does not mean we do not use and live with the relative, that is only relative in relation to the absolute and vice versa.

A Universal Mind is a "Self".
We can not say it is a self; we cannot say it is not a self; we cannot say it is both a self and a not self;we cannot say it is neither a self nor not a self.
You say it is turtle hair. Thus you negate it. And this underlines my issue with some steams of Buddhism on the issue of "Self". They do protest too much. They need to dance more.
What else do you negate, friend?

Anyway as to the usefulness of the imaginal as a means:
From the start the tantric way states all these ideations are not real at all, that they are a projection. Why do they not simply cut to the chase in verbal means as in the sutric way? [They do use that too of course.]
Because it enables the practitioner to desolidify his own sense of self, enables a letting go of the hard-edged intrusive distracting Samara. And while he practices his deity stuff knowing full well it is totally imaginal in all its very specific detail he learns too to let go of ""something"out there and see his own projections and its power. These mind projections do indeed have power.

Originally posted by JS357
The point is that the epistemic limits of the ants, and of our neurons, are not the ontological limits of the agents they could comprise, and so, this could conceivably allow for a being for which we are the neurons or ants. This is not anthropomorphic. IOW what the ants/we know about the higher order structured behavior they/we participate in creating, is not the limit of what it can be conceived to be.

I fail to see how your ascription of any kind of epistemic and/ or ontological limits of our neurons (and ants) allow for a single being for which we are the neurons or ants; to me, this is just a speculation based on anthropomorphism:
For one, ants are neither neurons nor do they behave like neurons -an ant colony is simply a superorganism consisting of individuals with limited intelligence and limited ability of encoding pieces of information that can accomplish a goal beyond the capabilities of the individuals, whilst this is not the case as regards neurons, so Hofstdater’s analogy is poor.
Furthermore, his analogy does not hold because a superorganism is not related to identity but to a distinction between the organic and the social.
Finally, to see our society as a social organism, it neither means that our megasociety behaves indeed like a single organism nor that the members of our society are by any means parts that they consist a single being;


Edit: "IOW what the ants/we know about the higher order structured behavior they/we participate in creating, is not the limit of what it can be conceived to be."

I cannot comment about what exactly the ants know, I can comment solely on what I believe they are aware of when I start evaluating their colonies.
As regards the higher order structured behavior we participate in creating, I neither question the effectiveness of the various cognitive skills, cognitive restructuring approaches, moral teachings and reasoning, nor I accept a limit in our expanding consciousness. How is this related to the idea that our individual mindstreams merge with a universal mind?
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
No, absolute nature IS nothing of the sort bb. You and I cannot say what absolute nature is. Thus when referring to the non-dual, settling on any of the dilemmas we are left in the air. With dreams OR words we are left suspended.

You appear to avoid the point about projection.

What of Mind Only? I have an issue with that term also as much as with tan ...[text shortened]... and see his own projections and its power. These mind projections do indeed have power.

Edit: “No, absolute nature IS nothing of the sort bb. You and I cannot say what absolute nature is. Thus when referring to the non-dual, settling on any of the dilemmas we are left in the air. With dreams OR words we are left suspended.”

Of course we can say what absolute nature is according to udana etc. I was talking about the nature of the mind (mind = mental activities). The nature of the man is the nature of his mind. The absolute nature of the mental activities is emptiness once you try to find a specific self that is the ground of the existence of the mental activities. The subtlest mental activity is, according to dzogchen, clear light. For both sutras and tantra, Samantabhadra (the realm of Dharmakaya) is the ultimate reality and hence the realm of sunyata where all phenomena are dissolved. However, these words remain all provisional, conventional pointers and have to be discarded from one’s own pure experience according to a specific point of attention.


Edit: “You appear to avoid the point about projection.”

No; I talked about mental activity that occurs without a concrete agent “Self/ I” making it happen, so there are no fleeting stains and projections that obscure this activity the way they arise and obscure the production and the engagement of our conventional mental activities with our conventional cognitive appearances.


Edit: “What of Mind Only? I have an issue with that term also as much as with tantric ideation, when we become too attached and defining. To know we are projecting as soon as we open our mouths is the first liberation.”

Yes.
You can use the notion "mind only" as a description of a mental activity. Our conventional mental activity is limited by fleeting stains, and in the dzogchen/ chan context the natural state of being of our conventional mental activity is mental activity devoid of all fleeting stains of obscuration. Two Truths.


Edit: “To live in itself is a projection. But does that mean we do not live? Or do we not grasp our projections fully aware and play and live with them and seeking greater skill and joy therein?”

When I speak of ultimate clear light, I am speaking on an individual level because this term is used strictly on an individual level. According to tantra all worlds appear out of clear light, and this source is never meant by any of the Buddhist schools as a unique entity the Taoist/ Brahman way but as the ultimate clear light/ absolute nature of each individual being. The manifestations of the potential of the clear light are projections, because clear light is the subtlest consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape -and in this context, yes, living becomes a projection. It is up to each individual to evaluate these projections; I evaluate them as empty.


Edit: “Freedom is not holding fast onto anything, while still dancing with them - words or images. The sutric danger is too tight a hold on words, the tantric danger is too tight a hold on images.”

Yes, but I hold nothing and I evaluate. Whatever I evaluate that it works, it works for me and it is provisional;


Edit: “The tetralemma does not mean we do not use and live with the relative, that is only relative in relation to the absolute and vice versa.”

Yes;


Edit: A Universal Mind is a "Self". ...What else do you negate, friend?”

To me for the time being, since I have no evidence, there is no such a thing as a Universal Mind. Also, I cannot see how things and phenomena can have svabhava;


Edit: “Anyway... ...power.”

Tantra is not my way and I said that it does not work for me –but I accept that it can well work for other persons. As regards my way, when I ‘m hungry I eat
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “No, absolute nature IS nothing of the sort bb. You and I cannot say what absolute nature is. Thus when referring to the non-dual, settling on any of the dilemmas we are left in the air. With dreams OR words we are left suspended.”

Of course we can say what absolute nature is according to udana etc. I was talking about the nature of the mind (m ...[text shortened]... ccept that it can well work for other persons. As regards my way, when I ‘m hungry I eat
😵

Thank you BB. I prefer no way to be 'mine' finally. All have forshortened view. I wander for longer with some and feel more at home from my individuality, but can walk freely a foreign path of the projections of others and see the clear light there too. When I am hungry I also eat. And when I am exploring with my imagination, I imagine.
Is there any difference between the clear light shining through a raindrop dripping off a leaf on a winter's morning (echoes of zen poetry) and its effect on your mind and clear light shining through the sharp lines of an imagined object and its effect on your mind? Are not the manifestations of the human mind as relatively real as a bowl of food waiting to be eaten? Each arises spontaneously in the absence and openness, all co-dependent, all a unity, yet not a 'thing'.

All are empty - meaning they cannot be ultimately grasped/defined in their entirety for they are dependently arisen. the impressions and imputations of our conditioned minds are part of what they are for us. But emptiness is a concept and we end up, as you know, with the emptiness of emptiness. And silence falls, but a most potent one.

Enjoy your bowl of food. I will enjoy my bowl of images. Both fulfil a need and hopefully neither are the same every day .

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you BB. I prefer no way to be 'mine' finally. All have forshortened view. I wander for longer with some and feel more at home from my individuality, but can walk freely a foreign path of the projections of others and see the clear light there too. When I am hungry I also eat. And when I am exploring with my imagination, I imagine.
Is there any differ ...[text shortened]... enjoy my bowl of images. Both fulfil a need and hopefully neither are the same every day .

I will evaluate solely what is mentioned at your OP🙂

According to Madhyamaka, Dharmakaya is empty solely in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization. Hence, Dharmakaya/ Truth Body of the Buddha is both empty and beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited neither the same nor equivalent to G-d, nor it is a Thing or a Being or a phenomenon because it is beyond existence and non-existence: “But in reality dharmakaya is merely a name, it is not something other than the natural condition”… The natural condition of What?
And according to dzogchen and Uttaratantra Shastra, Dharmakaya has qualities and its nature is the nature of Clear Light espousing a permanent unchanging Buddha Nature, inherent in all sentient beings, which is both the cause for their eventual enlightenment and the fruit of this specific enlightenment/ point of attention. Hopefully you will see that there is no contradiction between these two views.

You already know Emptiness; and the term Absolute Truth is the way everything exists -which is also Emptiness. This Emptiness is to be understood mainly in the sense of the "ultimate emptiness/ ultimate expanse". This is also the nature of mind or the way the mind truly exists (hence, the way we truly exist): the nature of the man is mind, and the natural condition of mind is the inseparable union of Spaciousness and Pure Awareness –in other words, the inseparable union of Emptiness and Clear Light as it is understood by all the Vajrayana paths.

Namaste
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I fail to see how your ascription of any kind of epistemic and/ or ontological limits of our neurons (and ants) allow for a single being for which we are the neurons or ants; to me, this is just a speculation based on anthropomorphism:
For one, ants are neither neurons nor do they behave like neurons -an ant colony is simply a superorganism consisting w is this related to the idea that our individual mindstreams merge with a universal mind?
😵

It is speculation. I fail to see that it is anthropomorphism, which is as defined somewhere Wikilike, any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

Contrary to that, I don't see the attribution as being to what is human, rather, humans may share something with other beings by virtue of structure and function. That is the point of Aunt Hillary. However, calling an attribution anthropomorphic has strength only if it is inaccurate. If the speculated Aunt Hillary of superbeing existed as described, it would exist despite having attributes like the ones we have.

But it is a thought experiment, no claim of actual existence is being made. If you are saying that it isn't the case, I agree that there is no basis to dispute you. If you are saying it can't be the case, I'd say we are counterexamples. I'd say that our neurons only do signal transmission and yet we do art.

I think what I suggest does not go as far as to say our mindstreams merge with a universal mind. The analogy fails to support that, in two ways. One, there is no universal ant hill. At most, one could imagine and analogize to a life-supporting planet "acting like" a being, with behaviors toward other such beings (embodied at other planets) that its "neurons" were unaware of. And the merge WITH a universal mind suggests some sort of awareness in our minds, that we are "partaking in" a merged consciousness. That is a sort of pie in the sky survival of the individual, an afterlife for you and me. I don't think that's how universal mind would work.

Originally posted by JS357
It is speculation. I fail to see that it is anthropomorphism, which is as defined somewhere Wikilike, any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

Contrary to ...[text shortened]... l, an afterlife for you and me. I don't think that's how universal mind would work.

Then methinks deep down we agree
(and the process of engaging this possible reality is indeed related to recognizing, exploring and expressing Reality/ Ultimate Truth/ The Source/ Pure Unborness; this process reflects both the subtle nature of the reality to be conveyed and the importance of our own personal experiential realization of this reality)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Then methinks deep down we agree
(and the process of engaging this possible reality is indeed related to recognizing, exploring and expressing Reality/ Ultimate Truth/ The Source/ Pure Unborness; this process reflects both the subtle nature of the reality to be conveyed and the importance of our own personal experiential realization of this reality)
😵

Sometimes your ideas are a little densely packed for me, but if I forge ahead on a hunch, my ideas usually benefit.

Originally posted by JS357
Sometimes your ideas are a little densely packed for me, but if I forge ahead on a hunch, my ideas usually benefit.

When we see that a reality on which our mental activities depend is established on the basis of the reality depending on our mental activities, our ideas usually benefit😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you BB. I prefer no way to be 'mine' finally. All have forshortened view. I wander for longer with some and feel more at home from my individuality, but can walk freely a foreign path of the projections of others and see the clear light there too. When I am hungry I also eat. And when I am exploring with my imagination, I imagine.
Is there any differ ...[text shortened]... enjoy my bowl of images. Both fulfil a need and hopefully neither are the same every day .

Edit: "I will enjoy my bowl of images."

OK; If you haven't already drink from this, I hope you will enjoy http://vajrayana.faithweb.com/Mahayoga.pdf
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I will evaluate solely what is mentioned at your OP🙂

According to Madhyamaka, Dharmakaya is empty solely in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization. Hence, Dharmakaya/ Truth Body of the Buddha is both empty and beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited neither the same nor equivalent to G-d, nor it is a Thing or a Being on of Emptiness and Clear Light as it is understood by all the Vajrayana paths.

Namaste
😵

Your words are clear and edifying, I do not dispute that fine statement. I think you give your own answer to "..natural condition of what?.. later using the same words that express it better than I would.
My principal point I am seeking to get at, I think, 🙂 is about the means of imagination and the means of words, and that words are still a hook for our ideations. I think you acknowledge the means fit the individuality but I also think you state more than that... something like - 'my means is better than that means' ???
I think I am reacting to that. Not 'better than' for you but 'better than' per se. On that I would disagree.

I bow.


Just reading again (one of my favourites)

The Cuckoo Song of Gnosis

"Hey Mahasattva, Magnificent Being,
Listen!

The nature of multiplicity is nondual
and things in themselves are pure and simple.
Being here and now is construct free,
shining out in all forms,
always complete, already perfected,
so exertion is redundant, spontaneity is ever arising."

http://www.keithdowman.net/dzogchen/eye_of_the_storm_excerpts.htm#The_Cuckoos_Song_of_Gnosis_

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "I will enjoy my bowl of images."

OK; If you haven't already drink from this, I hope you will enjoy http://vajrayana.faithweb.com/Mahayoga.pdf
😵

Just caught your offering. Thank you, I will enjoy.