First of all nice discussion, but please do NOT use Wikipedia!
On 27 okt, 22:24, e <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Orn,
>
> > Hi e – Yes, all concepts are relative in nature. However, the obverse
> > is also being imputed if not overtly stated, that of the absolute.
>
> Can the absolute ever be stated?
>
> > While Gautama did talk about dependent arising, Allan mentioned the
> > Buddha's notion of ‘brightly shining mind’ in his paper. Note
> > carefully the words that follow from it:...
>
> Yeah the luminous mind shows up in a couple short sutras. So out of 45
> years of teaching Buddha mentioned it a few times. If it refers to the
> 4th meditative jhana then it is mentioned many more times. If that was
> what he was referring too, then some of the later traditions made a
> bigger deal out of it then Buddha. The jhanas were meditative states
> that predated Buddha, he just used them in a different manner. They
> became one fold of the path. They were not the end but an integral
> means.
>
> > Here we are approaching the absolute…something that is not relative
> > nor is it dependent. He specifically and, in my opinion saliently,
> > said (above) that:
>
> > “…When we go into that ground from which thoughts,
> > emotions, memories, and so forth emerge, there is a substratum
> > that can be accessed through meditation. Its very nature is
> > luminosity, it makes manifest appearances…”
>
> > The operative words as I see it are: “ground from which…emerge”, and
> > “it makes manifest appearances”.
>
> Buddha never predicated a causal ground of manifestation. Specifically
> he said he looked back as far as he could in time and could discern no
> beginning to samsara. If Buddha couldn’t discern the cause of the
> manifest, what makes Alan think he can? And lo and behold the cause is
> in his own mind. That must make one feel pretty powerful! :-) All
> kidding aside, there was only 1 unconditioned “thing” and that was
> Nirvana (and it was not considered causal). ALL else was conditioned.
>
> > So, if anything, Allan appears to be talking relatively about ideal or
> > objective emptiness (the absolute) rather than the obverse.
>
> IMHO emptiness is qualitatively a different animal then the luminosity
> of an “exalted” conditioned state of mind achieved during meditation.
>
> BTW for anyone interested, the wiki is pretty good on the Luminous
> Mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
