When I look at my mind and my perceptions, they change all the time, attention moves all the time.
AN 1.48:
I do not see a single thing that’s as quick to change as the mind. So much so that it’s not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes.
SN 12.61:
that which is called ‘mind’ and also ‘sentience’ and also ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night. It’s like a monkey moving through the forest. It grabs hold of one branch, lets it go, and grabs another; then it lets that go and grabs yet another.
AN 4.157:
it’s very hard to find any sentient beings in the world who can claim to be free of mental illness even for a moment, apart from those who have ended the defilements.
Are you perhaps saying that the six sense-viññanas are all viññana and that therefore there is stability of an “umbrella” or “background” viññana because of continuity of viññanas? That the mind-base “behind” them is stable?
My understanding is that there is no such stable “background”, just the arising and passing away of various viññanas, there is nothing “behind” them. There is no “one who sees”, there is just seeing. Mental activity is always there, but always changing.
SN 12.35:
“What are the six sense fields, sir, and who do they belong to?”
“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha. “You might say, ‘What are the six sense fields, and who do they belong to?’ Or you might say, ‘The six sense fields are one thing, who they belong to is another.’ But both of these mean the same thing, only the phrasing differs.
[…]
“What is consciousness, sir, and who is it for?”
“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha. “You might say, ‘What is consciousness, and who does it belong to?’ Or you might say, ‘Consciousness is one thing, who it belongs to is another.’ But both of these mean the same thing, only the phrasing differs.
SN 35.95:
when it comes to things that are able to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.
Yes, i believe this is like seeing the projections upon a screen coming and going, movement, but not seeing the empty screen and non movement.
Do you believe there is no cause and condition for sense-vinnana’s to arise?
Those fragments about the minds characteristics, i feel, need interpretation. Because the mind can be perceived in different ways, dependend on the level of defilements. I do not believe that a purified mind has still the perception that it arises as one thing and ceases as another, but a grasping mind does.
The sutta’s also describe that the Tathgata abides or lives with a mind free of limits and free from
birth, aging and death.
Birth, aging, and death, and limited space are not the only things that constitute change. The Deathless does not put one into the changeless. Maybe you are thinking of the changeless that is always changing. But in Buddhism such a presumption is actually put into a Higher field of View, where you can observe Buddhahood, Nibbana, and Emptiness as something beyond the fabrications of the mind that we are given by human nature. And in a Transcendental sense these factors are beyond existence and non-existence, ultimately even beyond sameness and even also the change mentioned, because these are merely human considerations, and Buddhahood transcends human nature. The Bliss of Nibbana is immaterial.
As you yourself pointed out last week, my personal beliefs are irrelevant.
Well, my observation of people will no sense of self is that they can still carry on a conversation, still keep track of which individual said what and whose turn it is to talk. Since those are functions of self, I presume that it is only eliminated in an epistemic sense.
The doctrine I cited above effectively says that: motivation is karma. And it is thus central to Buddhist soteriology. So yes, of course it matters. While you have conscious intentions it’s better to cultivate good ones than evil ones, you need a (or a series of) fortunate human rebirth(s) to gain enlightenment.
Speculating about the magical properties of arahants is not my bag. But as I understand the doctrine, harmful actions are simply not possible for an Arahant. Whether you believe this or not is up to you.
No, that’s not what I meant by “nothing ‘behind’ viññana” — I think there is cause and condition. I meant something more like: there is no one looking at the screen, and the screen changes; there is no permanently stable empty screen—even using this metaphor of the screen is possibly inadequate, because it could be wrongly understood that there is this permanent unchanging mind/knower/screen/“thing” “behind” the movie.
P.S. but if you are talking about an ineffable Nibbana, then it is ineffable and can’t be properly objectified, is my understanding.
Do you have a mind? What is a mind? Is the mind to be found among the thoughts, beliefs, securities or insecurities that it brings and so on? There are so many factors that contribute to what is perceived as a mind, and each one of these factors have many contributions to what they are and where they come from, to the point of there being infinite causes and conditions for them, showing that everything, both small and great, Samsara and Nibbana, Human Being and Asura, are interconnected. In the same way there is no separate self in the midst of all this phenomena, it is a fabrication of infinite other parts. But perhaps the Bhagavan is outside of all of this phenomena, as Buddhahood is the true extinction, while Nibbana is not a true extinction, it is only a means to end suffering. So what we are all looking for here is the Bhagavan, and He has long ago let go of material conventions.
Precepts, in my point of view, are a guideline to help us how to interact with other beings. Everytime I am interacting with a being, I can recheck if I am on the right path. If not, I can correct it through the precepts.
This gives peace to other beings and as a bonus, gives me good Khamma.
Helping another being comes spontaneous and is not accompanied by the thought “if I am doing this, it will be good for me”.
