Doris, IF your question is directed to me, I have no idea what 'medalua's' means. It doesn't even exist on god google! :-0
Sorry.... On Nov 11, 6:44 pm, Doris Ragland <[email protected]> wrote: > I want to ask you a question? Do you throw coins and draw medalua's-- > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > … > > What is the nature of that mind that knows this? - orn > > “Empty” – e > > Would you like to share anything about your experience(s) and/or > > direct apprehension of emptiness? Is this possible? > > What is at the base (underneath) all words and concepts? - orn > > “.Nothing (see * below). There is no base where consciousness lands. > > Consciousness releases. Buddha used the metaphor of fire unbound. When > > the fuel (of grasping) is exhausted, where does the fire go when it > > goes out? The question is nonsensical. In this unbound analogy, we > > cannot speak of luminosity et al.” – e > > > Here I am not talking about either a place ‘where consciousness lands’ > > nor the process of consciousness. I am looking at that which doesn’t > > move. And, while consciousness can be seen as a container, (see below > > ***) here too this is not exactly what I am pointing toward. So, as > > far as I understand it, the notion of grasping isn’t involved. > > > If something is “conceived” as being permanent, is that conception > > itself permanent? - orn > > > "Of course not, wait around long enough and it will disappear." - e > > > (I asked the question about ‘conceived’ due to your post of: “… > > 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, in case you were interested. ) > > > Overall, I agree with your analysis of non-permanence in this context. > > > “What in your experience is permanent Orn? “ – e > > > Specific states…again, words belie the experience. I’ve pointed at > > Gautama’s indictive to “Look for that which does not move.”, this > > would be one example. > > > “…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? - orn > > > “http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html > > Nagarjuna mentions this sutra in MMK XV. Is the permanent basis of the > > mind (the minds true nature) an eternal essence? If it is, are we > > still talking about Buddhism?” - e > > > e, as much as I appreciate this sort of comparison and analysis of > > cannons, since the majority of Nagarjuna is lost and the words of > > Gautama were not penned that we know of until hundreds of years after > > his death, I equate this sort of study with similar Christian studies > > and only observe and/or play it on occasion. In general, I don’t hold > > much importance when it comes to texts. There are exceptions however > > this is not one of them. And, as I’ve said, I’m not as keen on the > > middle way as I am on mind only. The latter appears to be more > > accurate to me. In any case, we both know how unmonolithic Buddhism > > is. As said, while I appreciate scholarship and do study some, I do > > not embrace revelation by using any ‘holy-text’. I more adhere to what > > I find in practice. This is a long winded “I don’t know.” To your last > > two questions above and have no interest in concocting an ontology > > around it. > > > I read the entire link and remain perplexed as to your intention in > > posting it. > > > When you said “ *Right but the way I see it, they just disappear, they > > don’t disappear into some large container called mind.” - e > > > Yes, that is one type of experience. I find they return on occasion > > too. *** I’m more talking about Alaya Consciousness. The notion of a > > container is quite compatible with some Buddhist Schools. > > > Again, thanks for the opportunity to learn e.!!! > > > On Nov 11, 3:11 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. - orn > > > > I am only trying to talk about Buddhism as clearly and simply as > > > possible. > > > > Continuing a commentary on your query, I will use some Socratic > > > questions. When all is apprehended as being impermanent, what is > > > apprehending? - orn > > > > Apprehension > > > > What is the nature of that mind that knows this? - orn > > > > Empty > > > > What is at the base (underneath) all words and concepts? - orn > > > > Nothing (see * below). There is no base where consciousness lands. > > > Consciousness releases. Buddha used the metaphor of fire unbound. When > > > the fuel (of grasping) is exhausted, where does the fire go when it > > > goes out? The question is nonsensical. In this unbound analogy, we > > > cannot speak of luminosity et al. > > > > If something is “conceived” as being permanent, is that conception > > > itself permanent? - orn > > > > Of course not, wait around long enough and it will disappear. > > > > - > > > > “Yes but there is a state of mind that is permanent? Really? …” – e > > > > Yes. - orn > > > > What in your experience is permanent Orn? > > > > - > > > > “…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? - orn > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html > > > Nagarjuna mentions this sutra in MMK XV. Is the permanent basis of the > > > mind (the minds true nature) an eternal essence? If it is, are we > > > still talking about 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. - orn > > > > *Right but the way I see it, they just disappear, they don’t disappear > > > into some large container called mind.- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
