Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Goodie

64 mental states per finger snap contradiction

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek all!

 

It seems to me a contradiction that there is a limit on number of mental states in any given time period.

 

Because if we say that there are exactly 64 mental states per finger snap, what then is between these mental states?

1. We could say that there is something in-between but then only mind could be in-between and we would contradict our previous assertion.

2. We could say that there is nothing in-between, but that would be to say that the mind is partless in the sense of existing in indivisible instants. And this is a contradiction too, because it would mean that the mind exists self existantly.

 

Can you explain why do they teach then that there are exactly 64 mental states per finger snap or if you show the error in my reasoning.

 

Thanks,

Goodie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

There is no contradiction. One moment of consciousness is the cause for the next moment of consciousness. Nothing in between, and not partless! :lol:

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

One moment of consciousness is the cause for the next moment of consciousness.

I don't disagree with this :wink:

(I guess you mean moment of consciousness = mental state?)

 

Nothing in between.

Still ok with this...

 

and not partless!

...but I still don't get this part. :oops:

 

I understand that mind has parts.

But I'm still not sure how each mental state can have parts in time.

 

Let's say for the sake of debate that fingersnap lasts 0.64s.

Then each mental state lasts exactly 10ms and it is fixed, no more and no less than 10 ms and it is unchanging (rTag Pa) for 10ms!

So how can we divide a mental state then?

So we can't have a thought, emotion or a feeling which lasts less than 10ms?

 

Thanks,

Goodie

 

Btw, can mind in one mental state be aware of two of the six consciossnesses? For example, visual consc. + audio consc. or visual consc. + mental consc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

First of all, a moment is 1/65th and not 1/64th, as I might have said myself may be during a teaching... as that 64th or 65th anyhow doesn't disturb my daily practice ;)

I guess you mean moment of consciousness = mental state?
I would rather use "mental activity". What we would call the "mental continuum" or "mind-stream" (sems-rgyud), is a succession of those moments/mental activities.
I understand that mind has parts. But I'm still not sure how each mental state can have parts in time.
Why not?
Let's say for the sake of debate that fingersnap lasts 0.64s. Then each mental state lasts exactly 10ms and it is fixed, no more and no less than 10 ms and it is unchanging (rTag Pa) for 10ms! So how can we divide a mental state then?
I do not understand your question... When we have reached 10ms (for the sake of the debate only), or what would be 1/65th of a finger-snap, what should be devided more then??
So we can't have a thought, emotion or a feeling which lasts less than 10ms?
From what do you deduct this? Though a moment might be too short to determine clearly an object, it doesn't exclude its perception.

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

First of all, a moment is 1/65th and not 1/64th, as I might have said myself may be during a teaching... as that 64th or 65th anyhow doesn't disturb my daily practice ;)

Ooops, sorry :oops: I don't remember where I got 64 ... although it is true that it doesn't make much difference.

 

Why not?

Facts:

(1) Mind is a succesion of mental activities.

(2) There are 65 mental activities in one fingersnap.

(3) Each of these mental activities lasts exactly 1/65th of a finger snap.

 

If it is possible to divide mental activitiy in parts, for example in two equal parts, we would get two mental activities and each would last 1/130th of fingersnap. But this directly contradicts (3), therefore we can't divide mental activitiy in parts in time.

 

From what do you deduct this?

I deduct this from my reasoning above. Because if something lasts exactly 1/65th of a fingersnap then there can't exist any mental activity which lasts less than that.

 

Just to clarify why I'm interested in this topic, because I don't want this debate to look as a merely useless philosophical word fight: it's important because if I 'prove' :wink: that mental activity has no parts in time, then mental activities are self existant and higher school of emptiness can't be correct then when saying that nothing is self existant.

 

Thanks for your patience and your answers,

Boris Ngondrub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

if I 'prove'  :wink:  that mental activity has no parts in time, then mental activities are self existant
I still do not understand how you do reach that statement :? Because, one moment of mental activity being the result of a previously accumulated cause... it is therefore non-self-existant, of whatever amount of time it is, and even if it would be parted or partless!

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

I think that in a conventional world we can use a theory (or convention?) that there are 64 paralel mental processes in one finger - snap to imagine, how difficult is to "control" the mind.

Is it possible (on conventional level...) to control it all the time at all? I do not think so, but maybe I'm wrong. :?

Neverthenless: a finger?, a mind?, the mental processes?...where all those things are? I can not "see" any of this things with some independent self - existance... :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible (on conventional level...) to control it all the time at all? I do not think so, but maybe I'm wrong.
May be it depends what you are calling "on a conventional level". Does it means with an ordinary mind? Because Bodhisattvas and Buddhas can also function at a conventional level.
Neverthenless: a finger?, a mind?, the mental processes?...where all those things are? I can not "see" any of this things with some independent self - existance
Who was talking about "coventional level"? ;) Finger and all may not have self-inherent existence, they still do work conventionally.

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

I'm sorry, Ripoche, but I didn't make my statements clear enough, so:

 

May be it depends what you are calling "on a conventional level". Does it means with an ordinary mind? Because Bodhisattvas and Buddhas can also function at a conventional level.

I know that Bodhisattva can perceive a conventional level as well as the ultimate one, but not at the same time as Buddhas can. And it's clear, that Bodhisattvas (and Buddhas as well) somehow have to function at a conventional level, otherwise they will not be able to help or to teach...When I talk about conventional level, I talk about myself (and, if I can, about all of us on similar level...). I can not control each of 64 processes per sec. all of my time! In this case (so I think) I'll be a Buddha. For me this theory about 64 paralel mental states per sec. is a very good inspiration for better and harder practice. This is what I want to say, and for me it is not important if there are really so many states of mind in one fingersnap (as I've been told at University, there are maybe more - including all the processes, that control body functions...), but I believe it is so. :wink: As You know, sometimes I prefer to believe more than to investigate a topic, which is somehow traditional, AND IT WORKS!

 

Who was talking about "coventional level"? Finger and all may not have self-inherent existence, they still do work conventionally.

I was talking about conventional level, and I'm sure that fingers and all things do work on mentioned level... No problem. But even on a conventional understanding of Shunyata it is not so hard to understand, that "a finger" and "mental states" (and the like...) are just words...for some phenomena without self inherent existance. Our Karma makes them work. So I've been told.

8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...