On Nov 3, 1:49 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m not dogmatic about the term ‘state’, but it is the most common way
> to address the thing.
That is all I am enquiring into. Is there another way to talk about
it?
>> “…Now I am not asking you to let go of your mind only beliefs, just
> trying to look afresh at what the heck it is or isn't, etc. BTW you
> said the luminosity as conditioned state of mind was not emptiness but
> it is now Nirvana?...” – e
> Add to this the differing schools of Buddhist thought, things can
> become confusing. So, I will quote something that seems to be
> nonsectarian and simple:
>
> “I don't know how many people understand what the difference between
> Samsara and Nirvana. The difference between Samsara and Nirvana is
> just mind training outwardly and mind training inwardly. To reach
> Nirvana we must use mind training to look inward to recognize the true
> nature of our mind. On the other hand, Samsara is also mind training,
> but one that looks outward, which causes you to not to recognize the
> true nature of our mind. What really happens in Samsara is that even
> though we want to have happiness, but we actually run away from those
> true causes of genuine happiness.”
This is a pretty good perspective and sort of what I am getting at. Is
true nature a state of an impermanent mind? In what way is it not (if
any)? If the true nature is empty and impermanent, how can there be
eternalism? It seems Buddha proffered a radical impermanence so that
EVERYTHING is seen as impermanent and let go of. Not to then land on
some other thing that is conceived as permanent but just let go at
grasping for permanence.
>> >And, this base of mind does not change (come and go). It is omnipresent. -
>> >Orn
>> “…Right and so we hit on another issue I see with calling it a state
> of permanence that exists in (my) mind. Buddha felt that all
> conditioned things were impermanent and human beings by definition are
> impermanent. So how can (my) mind have permanence? Now please don't
> think I am being dogmatic here referring to Buddha in my posts, it
> just seems to me if we stretch the thread in the yanas too thin then
> it breaks and are we then still talking about Buddhism?...” – e
> I’ll accept your question about ‘(my) mind’ at face value. Here you
> have said something that is true and that is that (I’ll use the terms
> I’m more comfortable and familiar with) all relative things including
> all appearances are impermanent. Here we are talking about things
> comprised of components. Perhaps you know of the phrase “Look for that
> which has no components.” This implies that during this lifetime, we
> should look for something other than appearances. And, to do this, we
> use ‘mind’. We even use “(my) mind” in the process even though the
> brain itself is impermanent as are the thoughts and concepts that
> arise therefrom.
Yes but there is a state of mind that is permanent? Really? Is
Buddha’s state of mind hanging out in the Pure Land with Jesus and the
Patriarchs sipping green tea? :-)
>This is why I have been pointing, as sort of an
> analogy, at the base of ‘mind’…at that void that is the natural state
> of mind.
This is what I have been pointing out. That it is only an analogy.
>Again, the term state is appropriate because such a state can
> be and is permanent when achieved.
I question this.
>A quick analysis and extension of
> looking at the Buddhist notion of reincarnation…an eternal continuum,
> one knows that there is an aspect of the eternal within us all. If
> this were not the case, much proposed by Buddhism just would not be
> able to even be suggested. So, say for Gautama, who it is said was
> omniscient, omnipresent etc., there would have to be a ‘place’ (state)
> that is changeless – has no components that is illuminated with this
> ‘light’. Call it enlightenment. Call it being aware of the eternal…and
> a pure state that is non-changing. Obviously such a ‘state’ is not
> thinking. It is something else.
I agree it is not thinking. However, I don’t know about this
eternalism. Buddha was emphatic about the 2 extremes of eternalism and
annihilationism to be avoided for the middle way to be found. He did
not say they needed to be avoided to then find some other kind of uber
eternalism.
>> “…FYI, I love all the yanas. However, I don't see three turnings but 3
> broad commentaries that arose as Buddhism spread thru other cultures.
> I think this 3 turning stuff is sort of silly, it is not like
> Nagarjuna found anything new within the teaching. He just clarified
> and recentered the teaching as folks went astray. Which was/is
> inevitable. …” – e
> OK. Even within different schools of Buddhism this is a contentious
> issue. Also, what you call ‘clarification’ is not accepted by many. If
> so, there wouldn’t be differing schools. This is not an attempt at
> negating your thinking…more of a recognition and expansion.
You have been very gracious and tolerant of my meanderings, thanks
Orn. The way I see it is, Buddha found some sort of radical freedom
and the teaching was codified by well meaning but deluded human
beings. Then a few centuries of reified (mis)understandings arise and
someone like Nagarjuna has to come along and recenter the teaching. I
don’t think his or Buddha’s intention was to start a school etc.
Again, that comes later when “politics” enters the scene and the
teacher is long since dead and gone. Positions are then taken, words
are worshiped and argued over, factions emerge, etc., etc.
> When it comes to consciousness…we can say it exists because we are
> aware of it, yet, when looked for, it is nowhere to be found. There is
> the “Neither being nor not-being, nor both nor neither.” …that one can
> contemplate that is applicable and even directly to our current
> discussion.
Yeah I guess there were a few ways Buddha spoke about mind. One is as
the 6 consciousness (vinnana) concomitant with the 6 sense bases. Mind
(citta) was within a different context and so the luminous et al
flowed from that context. I really am just exploring and looking for
some new meaning and not trying to destroy any old ones, etc. Lately I
have come to see that everything is an interpretation so I am only
questioning the old interpretations and seeing if they still hold up,
etc. Thanks for going along!!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
