But perhaps if you or anyone could show me an argument that Buddha puts forth in any of the Suttas that conventions are a necessity for Enlightenment, I would be obliged, and would change my position. I know that there is the sense of Skandhas and identity, but I see this all created to uproot the tree of ignorance, not keep it going.
Not a necessity for enlightenment, but being able to communicate with people.
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,with defilements ended, bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,with defilements ended, bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,with defilements ended, bearing the final body:is such a mendicant drawing close to conceitif they’d say, ‘I speak’,or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,the ties of conceit are all dissipated. Though that intelligent person has transcended substantial reality, they’d still say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.” SN1.25
1 Like
Thank you Dogen, that clears it up a little for me. But would you, or anyone else, say the model for the Five Skandhas, for example, is also a convention, and how Dependant Origination ties into this? Sorry if it’s too complicated of a question.
I think everything before complete Buddhahood or Enlightenment is provisional or conventional. But I am mostly talking about perception. If we use terms such as “me” or “mine” with the proper Anattic influx, I believe the convention is only in language, and not in perceptual delusion. I think on the Path to Enlightenment, it is possible to adapt to what Buddha-Nature we all have equally from the start. Of course it is difficult to think like this. But possible!
2 Likes
Thanks,
But how can it be that when mind has ceased or is absent, still perceptions and feeling can re-arise?
Such as with mindless beings? How do these perceptions re-arise without mind as forerunner?
I personally do not see mind as the same as vinnana (awareness of something sensed) and its mental factors of vedana, sanna, sankhara etc. I do not understand why you still do. Because i know you also do not want to say that under narcosis there is no mind, or in deep dreamless sleep. Right?
So how can one ever conclude that…no knowledge, no experience, no concepts, no language, no conception of self, no awareness of anything does ever point to the absence of mind?
No black out, no unawareness, no unconsciousness, no absence, no cessation of all experiences, can ever function as a proof that mind is absent. At least i do not see how. One just cannot equate vinnana with mind.
This cannot be true. The Buddha did not even want to teach because he saw that this would come with trouble for himself, would be tiresome for him self. You know that.
That shows a Buddha had still a normal understanding like any being that his choices will effect his body and mind en he will also feel that, experience that. He is also concerned with this.
It would be sakkaya ditthi to see body and mind as literally not me and mine. Because that means that one sees something else as me and mine. For example, one thinks about oneself as being something that is seperate from body and mind. That is part of the first fetter. Sakkaya ditthi.
Already quote the sutta and you still say cannot be true. What do you want? Create your own version of Buddhism?
Your “mind” is just an empty word then without even awareness to know that it’s there. We can replace it with non-existent word like “Jkde” and say without knowledge, awareness, perception, you cannot say jkde is not there.
These are only for the case of the beings falling away from the Brahma realm of unconcious beings and those emerging from cessation of perception and feelings. For both, time in the mind, subjective sense is not there when mind is absent, so the causation in the mind follows the mind before the rebirth into that state (or before that) or the one before going into cessation. So for the rebirth case, there are still fetters uneradicated which causes further rebirth into new mind and body. For the cessation emerging case, there’s the lokuttara mind of non-returner or arahant and then bhavaṅga mind. Both cases have continuity also of the body having life faculty, maintaining the mind/heart base and thus serves as physical support for mind to rearise.
For the parinibbāna case, there’s no more living body to support any mind rearising. No fetters to generate rebirth.
Actually it’s all very technical and I haven’t read into very much detail. So sorry that’s basically my limit to answer this, I cannot entertain further inquires into this. Go read the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga yourself.
I feel it is just irrational to think of mind as something that is equal to being aware of something sensed (vinnana). Not beings conscious does not at all mean there is no mind.
Mind has more layers. Its basic function does not disappear when we are unconscious. Its basic function is to receive info, detect it. That is not the same as…we being aware of all this!
It is not rational to think mind is absent while we are unconscious nor is it rational to think mind does not proces sense-info while we are unconscious. All such things no rational person will see as true, wise. Also science does not at all learn such things. It is just not rational to equate vinnana with mind.
Where are these anusaya, these fetters, if there is no mind for these beings?
And where is this heartbase and life facutly? Is is just in some place in space?
Abhidhamma does not teach that vinnana is mind. Also when there are none of the 6 sense vinnana’s there is still mind. Abhidhamma introduced the concept of bhavanga. In fact this just comes down to: introducing mind before we become aware of something (vinnana).
In the mind moments before they cease. And in the new ones when they arise again.
In the physical body. There are materiality caused by consciousness and kamma, these are not accessible by our science, thus science doesn’t know these.
I see your misunderstanding now. Consciousness used in Buddhism doesn’t just refer to the state of being awake. It includes what modern psychology call the unconscious, and subconscious, it only disappears in the Brahma realm of unconscious, where there’s no mind, the cessation of perception and feeling, and parinibbāna. It is understandable that people can take this consciousness (what you call mind) to be eternal as long as their disappearance is not “experienced”. As there’s basically no was for an unenlightened person to know it as a human to disappear, except by seeing Nibbāna, one can know it is gone in parinibbāna.
I recommend you just read even a basic beginner’s book on Abhidhamma before trying to misrepresent it.
Abhidhamma divided the 4 aggregates of mind into viññāṇa (sutta) = citta (Abhidhamma), best translated as consciousness for viññāṇa or mind for citta. And feeling, perception and volitional formations are grouped under cetasika.
In the citta of Abhidhamma, as mentioned above, includes the sleeping mind, which is bhavaṅga, it’s nothing profound here, in meditation we are not encouraged to go into bhavaṅga as it’s just sleeping in meditation.
If your claim for Nibbāna without remainder is eternal bhavaṅga (since there’s no active sense base receiving objects), it’s just basically endless sleeping. Not a very profound or inspiring thing.
Whatever is citta, they are all conditioned, impemanent, subject to change. To sense things, the bhavaṅga mind has to cease for cognitive process to happen. Then the mind falls back into bhavaṅga and so on. It is impermanent. What’s impermanent cannot be clung to as safety, or unconditioned.
It seems many may mistaken mind for consciousness or citta vs vinnana .
Makes no sense.
You all the time say that mind and vinnana are the same, while vinnana in the sutta’s are of six kinds and never arise without sense-object as condition. Being unconscious there are no 6 kinds of vinnana’s. Point. That is fact. But still you treat vinnana and mind as the same. That is your misunderstanding of the sutta’s.
I never take consciousness or vinnana as eternal. I have no eternalist view. I explained this in detail and please stop slandering me and forcing upon me an eternalist view.
The only thing i do is to study the sutta’s and not neglect, ignore, reject asankhata…what has not the characteristics to arise and cease. I do not reject asankhata. Ofcourse asankhata does not cease after death of an arahant. Does this mean eternalism?..NOPE
The last are just an intrincic part of any sense moment, vinnana. They are not a real seperate category.
There is no person in the entire world who can say that mind as knowing ability is impermanent. Impossible. There is no experience that confirm this. All experiences are based upon mind.
and what is the nature of mind? That what is itself not an experience!
I believe too. Vinnana is of six kinds and is according the sutta’s as six sense vinnana’s nothing else but these moment we sense this or that. We sense a sound, smell, arising thought, plan, tactile sensation etc. We become aware of that
This sensing moments are vinnana moments. But this is not the same as mind.
When there is no sensing there is still mind but there can be no sense vinnana’s.
In fact the whole idea that there is only knowing while being conscious is delusion.
Abhijāyati
[abhi + jāyati, Pass. of jan, but in sense of a Caus. = janeti] to beget, produce, effect, attain, in phrase akaṇhaŋ asukkaŋ Nibbānaŋ a. D iii.251; A iii.384 sq. At Sn 214 abhijāyati means “to behave, to be”, cp. SnA 265 (abhijāyati = bhavati).
I guess the Pali Text Society Dictionary does not count then?
It counts, of course, but has a number of older translations compared to Cone and DPD.
The point is, how much does one wish to rely on the translation of a word which is not supported in several other dictionaries, to make a point?
Not saying it’s wrong, just debatable.
I think you are arguing at cross purposes. Clearly, when each uses the term “mind”, you are not talking about the same thing. It may help if you could at least agree on what you are referring to when using the term “mind”.
I will say that when @Green refers to the Knowing nature of the “mind”, he is copying this from translations of the Thai teachers works. It may be worth noting that several translators have now moved away from using the word “knowing” and are now using “Knowingness”. In other words, the pure nature of the Citta is described as the “capacity to know” or “the quality of knowing” rather than knowing anything in particular. The knowing quality is definitely NOT the same as Vinnana ,although Vinnana is an expression of this quality (see post on the Citta is Like Plasticine thread).
The Pali has not changed, to the best of my knowledge, and neither has the reality being described by the words, so how can the meaning change? What has changed is the view of the translator(s). This is why arguments based on interpreting words is always going to be problematic. I prefer to consider the meaning that underpins the words. Those with the experience of these Dhamma are the best interpreters and it is from such teachers that I get my guidance.
1 Like
By modern scholarship and correlations with the texts.
Agree.
As do others who also rely on their experiences and teachers.
1 Like
I am introduced to all this in a vajrayana lineage, kamma kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Long before i met the works of Maha Boowa. In this lineage the use of the words the nature of mind is very common.
This phrase…the nature mind…is introduced to establish that there is a huge difference between how we perceive the nature of mind and seeing what mind really is. We perceive the nature of mind through the eyes of delusion. Defilements hinder us to to see that this nature of mind is …no ego, for examle.
It is empty of ego.
Their ideas is, and that appeals to me, the nature of mind has remained unknown in endless rebirth. It is wrongly understood. And life after life these distorted perception about the nature of mind grow.
Defilements hinder us to see that mind is essentially empty, no ego and it cannot even be traced. It can also not be located as here or there. It has no colour, no shape. But mind is not only empty but also this emptiness of mind cannot be seperated from its ability to know.
In the book of Maha Boowa i think i see a similar attainment/realisation of this nature of mind which he called citta.
As a by the bye, you may like to know that, as I understand it, the Pali Text Dictionary was updated in 2021 so it shouldn’t be too out-of-date. Metta.
Can you clarify your stance that asankhata=mind=the ability to know for you?
If not, what’s the difference between them?
How do we define knowing ability? That it is capable of producing knowledge?