--- rubiolio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a tough challenge to prove that the brain, or
> anything else, is
> evident outside of the mind ;)
Also, it is a tough challenge to prove the otherwise
-- that there isn't anything outside the mind.
For example, the Buddhist Mind-only school (i.e.
Vijnanavada, or Yogachara, or Chittamatra, as this
school is often called) supplies the argument that we
should view everything just like it's a dream. Same as
when we're dreaming, we may experience and perceive
various objects, but they are not extraneous to the
mind, they are contained within the mind. So, upon
waking up, we find ourselves surrounded by many
extraneous objects that appear outside of the mind;
however, Chittamatrins claim that even in the waking
state, those seemingly extraneous objects are still
inside the mind, as only the mind itself is real.
Everything else is unreal.
In other words, what Vijnanavadins are saying is that
mind exists without objects of cognition. They support
this claim by the observation that when we stir from
our dreams and wake up, we can still recall our
dreams. That phenomenon is supposed to demonstrate
that the mind exists, as it is able to carry the
memory from the dreaming into the awake state.
Furthermore, the proponents of the Mind-only school
claim that it is an illusion to hold that perceptions
come from senses. In their view, perceptions come not
from senses, but from the so called mental seeds
('bija' in Sanskrit). These seeds are causing everyone
to experience perceptions and to interpret those
experiences as if they are coming from the outer
world, while in fact they are nothing but their mind.
And again, as in dreams the objects are not outside
the mind, as they appear throught the ripened potency
of the mental seeds, same goes for the waking life,
where the mind continues to exist without external
objects.
This theory has some serious loopholes and
consequently does not seem able to 'hold water'. To
begin with, we could examine the problem of blind
people. Just as when people with normal eyesight dream
with their eyes closed, and experience the mental
consciousness of various objects, why is it that a
blind man does not see without his eyes even though
this ripening of the mental seeds is working for him
as well as for anyone else?
The next problem deals with the claim that the mind
seems to carry the continuity, from the dreaming to
the waking state, since we can obviously recall our
dreams. However, if this recollection is the
qualifying factor, why don't we conclude equally well
that the objects of our dreams exist as well, since we
remember them too. We can remember the fact that we
had a dream, but we can equally well remember what
we've dreamed about.
Even more serious problem arises when we examine the
people with ocular diseases, such as the ones with
impaired vision caused by the cataract. If we show a
piece of blank paper to these people and ask them to
tell us what do they perceive, they may tell us that
they see a piece of paper with some black lines drawn
on it. These black lines, of course, do not appear to
those with healthy eyesight.
So, to people with cataract, both the perceived object
(i.e. the black lines), and the consciousness about
those black lines, are true. For the rest of us, both
are false.
Now, if we claim that the mind exists without an
object of cognition, then everybody, even people with
healthy unimpared eyes would see same black lines when
looking at that piece of paper. This is because the
mind produces those apparitions through the ripening
of the seeds in the 'storehouse consciousness' (alaya
vijnana in Sanskrit). However, no such thing occurs
and consequently this theory falls short.
Finally, it is a well known fact that different beings
can experience the same phenomenon in a different way.
What is pleasant and desirable to one person may be
repulsive and disgusting to another. Furthermore, even
the same person may experience the same thing
differently at different times. If it were the
Mind-only reality, such things couldn't occur, since
the mind, being the sole reality, cannot be swayed by
conditions, circumstances and causes.
Thus the Mind-only teaching boils down to nothing but
an untested hypothesis, a poor example of a half-baked
specimen of dogmatic speculation.
> But what is meant by the word "mind"? The thinking
> faculty?
> The experiencing faculty? Memory? Feeling? All of
> the above?
> I really don't see why it's necessary to posit a
> mind at all.
> Just existential experience.
Mind is the faculty that cognizes.
Alex
No karma was produced during the composition of this letter
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action,
Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
