“… I’m not dogmatic about the term ‘state’, but it is the most common way to address the thing…” - OM “That is all I am enquiring into. Is there another way to talk about it?” – e
The only accurate way I know of other than a most shallow overview would include much esoteric jargon. I am willing, obviously, to attempt to put such things into the subjectivity of words, but hold little to no hope in accurate communication during the process. “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.” – e All excellent questions and areas to explore e. And, I’m not sure I can answer them well. I will say that you appear to be taking a dialectical stance here…more accurately, using formal logic when it comes to permanent/impermanent. Tenets would include axioms of identity, contradiction and excluded middle. While this is one way to approach things that do not change…since we are dealing with citta, change is involved too. A perhaps too simple indictive here would to say one will not gain much wisdom in this context while looking for an either/or ‘thing’. Mind at once is relative/subjective (thoughts/ concepts) and absolute/objective (no components). Here I’m conflating different systems in order to share my understanding and not remaining tied to any one Buddhist tenet system. However, you might taste Mind Only school stuff. Continuing a commentary on your query, I will use some Socratic questions. When all is apprehended as being impermanent, what is apprehending? What is the nature of that mind that knows this? What is at the base (underneath) all words and concepts? If something is “conceived” as being permanent, is that conception itself permanent? “Yes but there is a state of mind that is permanent? Really? …” – e Yes. “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. “ – OM “I question this.” – e As you should e, as you should. “…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.” – e As I understand that tenet system, Gautama was talking about the GRASPING of those extremes. No? In fact, any attempt at avoidance is itself a tacit attachment too. And, even though I do appreciate your hyperbole in using the Germanic adjective, there is no time involved. Another analogy (sorry) is that of negative theology…even though we may not know what the eternal is, we can and do say what it is not. . . at least for philosophical convention and convenience here. “…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…” – e Well, that would fit wouldn’t it? One man becomes enlightened and non- enlightened people attempt to describe (codify) that which they do not grok! I find this an all too common experience…and not only in things theological and philosophical. And, what other option is there? IF I were there and doing my best to record the master’s words…I’m sure my efforts, while perhaps not altogether worthless, would fall short. In fact, I have had experiences that are somewhat analogous. So, in this way my empathetical sense is acute. “… Then a few centuries of reified (mis)understandings arise and someone like Nagarjuna has to come along and recenter the teaching…” – e Again, this could be seen as a contentious point depending upon who one talks to. “… I don’t think his or Buddha’s intention was to start a school etc…” – e I forget the exact words, but have heard that Gautama said exactly that, he wished no religious adoration nor blind following nor adherence to dogma. In his own way, he was quite the scientist. “…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. “ – e While I’m sure that some of that occurred, the simple Buddhist notion of ‘ignorance’ seems appropriate. And, not only appropriate for Buddhism! “…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!! “ – e The metaphor of exploring is quite appropriate and accurate. While one is ‘on the path’, differing levels of understanding will arise, stay for a bit and then recede… and finally disappear. And using such a questioning methodology is exactly what is demanded in this process. In current day parlance, this is a ‘dogma free zone’!!! Oh, and I appreciate the opportunity to review and refine my own views too! It has been said that one must first empty their cup to have room for more…an accurate metaphor as I see it. On Nov 5, 2:12 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > 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!!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
