What is this Mind?

The Watercooler
1

It is not for the first time… but it think it might still be useful to have a discussion on what the Buddha considered to be the mind, consciousness, mentality. What did he really understand to be the mind?

To start a discussion I have selected some texts and commented upon them:

-“ All things are preceded by the mind, surpassed by the mind, created by the mind’ (Dhp1)

I think this is true. There must be some basic ability to receive, detect and process raw sense info before the awareness of a sound, smell etc. can arise. The mind as this basic ability to detect and receive raw sense-info, precedes sense vinnanas, I believe. It is a prerequisite. I do not believe vinnanas can arise in air, space, with only rupa as base.

It also means that even unconscious, blacking out, under narcosis, in deep dreamless sleep there is still mind as this ability to detect, receive and process sense-info. It still happens but it does not lead to sense vinnanas.

There are also these sutta’s:

-“With the origination of attention there is the origination of phenomena. With the cessation of attention there is the passing away of phenomena.” (SN45.42)
-"Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into being through attention. (AN8.83)

Maybe this also relates to MN28 in which is said that for the manifestation of a sense-vinnana, there must be 1. an intact sense-base, 2. an external sense-object, and 3. a corresponding conscious engagement. This last might refer to this element of attention in the mind. Somehow the minds attention must also be drawn to something, right? This also shows, I feel, that when vinnana manifest, and a sense moment arises, there is more going on than merely sensing. Also our attention is drawn towards something and etsbalished upon it. There is something that directs the mind towards it.

-“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?” It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.” (MN43)
-“And why do you call it consciousness? It cognizes; that’s why it’s called ‘consciousness’. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, hot, mild, salty, and bland. It cognizes; that’s why it’s called ‘consciousness’ . (SN22.79)

These suttas, I believe, do not mean to say there is no cognition and cognizance on a deeper level, as I suggest above, but as sense vinnana the cognizing refers to a well developed discriminating moment of awareness of something. Our attention has established upon something.

I believe sense-vinnana is a more advanced stage of cognition arising with a more rudimentary stage of cognition as bases. A rudimentary stage of detecting, receiving, processing raw sense info. I think this can be seen as the base and basic function of mind.

In this respect, I do not believe that vinnana covers all cognition or is equal to cognition. There must be cognition on a deeper level too. For example, also in sleep, there is still a cognitive process going on and mind is still informed, but no sense vinnanas arise. In other words, vinnana cannot be equal to cognition. I feel that is safe to say and in line with what the suttas teach.

- "And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention - these are called mentality. (MN9)

I think this is correct. The most important characteristic of mentality to me seems to be this element of intention. Mentality is not a bare awareness of something, but there is also an element of volition towards what is sensed. An attitude. I do not believe we can call this mind. We cannot equal mind and mentality. Mentality is more a mindset. When there is mentality there is also an awareness of something (vinnana).

- 'Previously, my mind was limited and undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed . (AN10.219)

The mind can be limited and it is surely limited when there is a mentality of like and dislike regarding what is sensed (MN38). We must conquer our limitation (MN137).

-“Bāhuna, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives detached, liberated, his mind free of limits. What ten? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness … rebirth … old age … death … suffering … defilements … Suppose there was a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Though it sprouted and grew in the water, it would rise up above the water and stand with no water clinging to it. In the same way, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives detached, liberated, his mind free of limits.” (AN10.81)

Mind free of limits, I believe is the nature of a purified mind. Free of limits means: it cannot be seen, detected, pinpointed, found, traced. When seeking this mind we cannot find it.

When vinnanas would establish in the mind and grow (the effect of grasping and clinging) one might experience mind as being something coarse, as if it is tactile, as if it can be felt, detectable, has a location. But I believe such perception can only arise in a defiled mind. A pure mind is more like a total empty openness and cannot be traced.

In this sense I believe it is also very normal that there are all kinds of ideas about the nature of mind. Because the emotional mind, the mind with grasping, a restless mind, a purified mind, they are very differently perceived. I feel all these perspectives are present in the suttas.

-“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, how many kinds of contact do they experience?”
“They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.”
“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, what does their mind slant, slope, and incline to?”
“Their mind slants, slopes, and inclines to seclusion.” Again, here the higher sense of “seclusion” is meant, namely Nibbana . (MN44)

Apparently mind can experience contacts that are signless, undirected and empty. My gut feeling says that this mind has no tendency at all to get involved in the 6 sense domains. It does not direct towards the senses. It is undirected.

I believe this is also what tanha in essence represents. Mind becoming directed. Kama tanha, vibhava tanha, bhava tanha also respresent that mind is directed towards…And this is enforced life after life. If mind is without the tendency to direct towards the senses, no sense vinnana establishes and can grow.

If the mind has these contacts what does this mean in regards to sense contacts?
Are there not really sense contacts anymore? I only try to understand what these contacts mean. Does sense contact require a mind with direction? A mind that directs towards the sense-domains? But then, if mind is without any inclination to get involved in the sense-domains, is there still sense contact? Or is this also the end of sense-contact?

These were some first thoughts about this. Maybe we can discuss this. I support the idea of the Tibetans that we must distinguish the defiled functioning mind and how this appears to us with certain characterisics (even a coarseness) and what the nature of mind really is when there are no distorting influences anymore. I feel all perspectives are present in the suttas. I believe, there is not one consistent description of mind, and that makes sense from the perspective that the knowledge of what mind is, very much depends on the level of defilements.

That the nature of mind is a stream, I believe this is the perspective of defilement. Grasping causes that vinnanas establish and grow, alternately eye, ear—mental vinnanas. And from this perspective mind appears to be a stream of vinnanas. But when sense vinnana’s do not establish and grow, the perception of mind as stream of vinnana also changes. From a raging waterfall it becomes a tranquil lake and deep as the ocean, immeasurable.

2

Okay, you always seem to ignore this part. :slight_smile:

SN 12.61

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.

1 Like
3

Not ignored at all. You are always judgemental Dogen. Please for once stop.
Where do i say that we must regard mind as me, mine myself or be passionately grapsing mind? There is nothing i have said that is in conflict with what you posted.

I flagged your post. It is ad hominem.

4

It is not an ad hominem, nor an attack.

The suttas describe mind as something to be repulsed towards, which is not the nature of your post. Something always impermanent, and I’m pointing out that your deductions are in conflict with this point.

If you don’t want to engage with these I’ll stop replying to you again, as you don’t seem interested in a discussion.

But that which is called ‘mind’ and also ‘sentience’ and also ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.

Be at ease. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
6

What this sutta expresses is that it would be more rational to relate to the body as me, mine, myself because it has some lasting quality in stead of relating to vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana as me, mine and myself because that is very fleeting.

This last (vedana, sanna sankhara and vinnana) is here refered to as mind. And we generally do call that mind. It does not mean it IS mind. Mind is also not used in the suttas to only refer to vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana, because even when that ceases there is the abiity to know. You know all these suttas that are endlessly posted here earlier to illustrate this.

So mind is here just used to refer to the mental aspects. I support that these are fleeting. I do not support your idea that Buddha has no other understanding of mind. The sutta probably also intentionally says that what is Called mind…and not …what IS mind.

See my opening post.

7

I’m not sure I’m onboard with repulsed as anything other than a preliminary teaching. :joy:

Certainly, mind is not something to be:

  • grasped
  • desired
  • craved
  • adulated
  • worshiped
  • elevated
  • cherished
  • enshrined
  • relied upon
  • longed for
  • praised-to-the-hilt
  • mesmerized by
  • obsessed with
  • considered a precious jewel
  • striven for coupling with
  • a place for refuge
  • mistaken for nibbana

… as either a preliminary or final teaching. But repulsed by? I think that must be preliminary :joy:

Mind is hollow, void, insubstantial when examined and thus not worthy of any of the above including repulsion. Dispassion is the name of this game or so it seems to my limited mind! :rofl:

:pray:

1 Like
8

After studying the suttas, for me the pieces of the dhamma puzzle of cognition fall in place this way:

When there is a mentioning of mind (citta), discriminating awareness (vinnana), mentality (nama) it is all about awareness, about cognizing, about knowing. It is not referring to different phenomena but to different stages or ways of cognition or knowing. It is all mind, all cognition, all knowing, but in different ways.

Defiled mind

The characteristic of a defiled mind is that awareness, knowing, becomes habitually (out of force of habit) directed upon something that presents itself at a sense door. It is, as it were, dragged to it. Like a curious person who wants to know and see who knocks on the door and directs his head towards the door. In the same way, the mind directs towards what presents itself at a sense door. This happens on a deep level. This is not really a choice we consciously make.

This directing of the mind is refered to as the mental activity of cetana. Cetana is not only refering to plans, intentions but also to tendencies or inclinations (SN12.38). A mind with a plan, intention, tendency is a directed mind. Cetana is that kind of volitional mental activity that directs the mind towards a sense door. Like turning the head when someone knocks on the door. This is also called kamma. (AN6.63).
The three tanhas feed this again. The mark of the three tanhas is also that mind is directed upon…So, consciously we can feed a deeper level of mind becoming directed.

When the mind directs towards something that presents itself at a sense door, awareness establishes upon that. That is called: sense vinnana manifest.
So, these cognitive vinnana moments are marked by: direction, engagement, discriminating awareness. It discriminates for example a certain taste (sour, sweet etc, SN22.79) , sound (etc), or a painful, pleasurable or neutral feeling (MN43). The main characteristic of this cognitive moment (vinnana) is : it is directed. Mind, awareness is not undirected now. So, in this cognitive situation (a manifesting vinnana) there is also always an element of direction and engagement/attachment (MN28). So, when a vinnana manifest there is a lot going on.

When there is passion the mind constant develops into this defiled stage of cognition, being caught alternately by something that presents to the sense domains of the eye, ear….mind. There is always an element of passion in this mind. It becomes scattered and all over the place. It is not that we choose for it, right?

Purified mind

When there is no element of passion at all, the mind, awareness, will not become unwillingly directed towards and involved in the sense domains. It is secluded (MN44) of nature. It stays at its place, as it were. But is also not stuck! Mind cannot be stuck when there is no attachment.

It does not engage with the senses and sense objects. It does not develop a direction, it does not direct towards…. It is undirected or uninclined. This is the language the suttas use for the nature of pure mind or a pure awareness.
It abides, as it were, in a dimension that is desireless, signless, undirected. But it is, of course not a me, I that abides. Mind is about knowing not about an atta that knows.
Of course there is still the ability to direct the mind and use it as wished. But the habitual (fettered) way the defiled mind becomes directed upon this and that is gone.

The mind that does not habitually (in a fettered way) become directed is liberated.
The heart is now dispassionate. This is a very different cognitive (knowing) situation compared to the situation that sense-vinnanas manifest. Vinnanas manifesting always comes with a certain load to the mind because such cognitive moments are also always passionate, energized.

So it makes sense to me.

I can become enthousiastic about Dhamma. And my feeling is that its very important to see these differences between vinnana and pure mind. It really refers to very different ways of knowing. If suttas are used to ‘proove’ that there is no difference between mentality, pure awareness, vinnana, discriminating awareness, that is, i feel, a mistake. The sutta really make this distinction. It are very different ways of cognition or knowing.

And i feel that it is helpful to make this see.

Your idea is that i use the suttas selectively and ignore certain suttas. That is not true. And i do not see why this is all not ad hominem. It really is. Please stop.

Great buddhist teachers of many tradtions share from experience that we must not think about the nature of mind/knowing as something personal, as an atta, not as local, not as a perspective, not as a sense vinnana, a discriminating sense moment, but more like a dimension that is not desintegrating, is empty, totally undirected, unaffected too, it cannot be grasped. It is unmade, unproduced. Even when you are unconscious this open dimension is not absent. It is never absent. But the knowing here is no vinnana!

You think this describes an eternal mind. No…it describes that there is a dimension that is totally empty, unestablished and there is also an element of light, of knowing there.

As far as i know teachers do not teach an eternal mind or consciousness. Also not Maha Boowa. This is a misunderstanding and reifies mind in a wrong manner. This all cannot be conceived but must be directly seen.

It is not that these teachers teach that after death the arahant is in some state of being an eternal conscious witness. There is not even a personal perspective in parinibbana and certainly no sense vinnanas. But there is also not nothing. That is what they teach.

The problem is really this reification and conceptualisation of terms like mind, consciousness, awareness, while in fact we talk about different modes of knowing.
It is like water. It can manifest in different ways but it is water. Awareness, discriminating awareness, mentallity or mindset, it is are likewise just different manifestations of knowing.

When sense vinnanas manifest this just represents a knowing moment with certain characteristics that are absent in a purified mind. So, the pure mind knows things differently, it is not engaged, does not add me and mine-making etc. And when vinnanas manifest due to an element of engagement with the senses, always with direction, things are already known in a distorted and burdened way.

9

Mind is the sense-making, conceiving, conscious, sensing, feeling, and thinking aspect of a form (body).

If the body is the candle wax, the brain is the wick, then the mind is the iridescent flame that shines - the ‘burning’ is the spark of life which brings the system to life.

This mind in relation to body is that which is endowed with the capacity of ‘knowing’. It is an integral aspect of an individual in conjunction with the body. This mind in relation to body is that which has a sense of being aware of its own awareness or aliveness which is the basis of the sense of self.

The whole system together is formed of the 5 aggregate aspects which give rise to conscious experience. The orb around the head of art of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is a representation of mind. The orb with glimmers or full golden colour are an expression of the enlightened or enlightening mind. The orb is spherical and with symmetry in Buddhas, Arahants and Bodhisattvas because of discipline. The orb is coming into shape amongst the stream-enterers, once returners and non-returners. There is little to no symmetry amongst those in the grips of ill-will, sloth, greed, lust, envy, wrath, excessively sensous, restless and excessively doubtful as they lack discipline to restrain the mind, so their attention is ‘pulled in’ to the world without control in a reactionary way, where as the four pairs, have learned or are learning to respond to experience and able to prevent becoming saturated without control by sense phenomena, external or internal troubles. This is the capacity to direct one’s attention where as the prior group have difficulty doing such.

Feeling, perceiving, and thinking are to what is called the mind, enabled by form fashioned through elemental factors and the procreative act of man/woman (in the human realm) and consciousness is the life spark, electricity and heat which renders the form animate.

That which is aware of the breath,
That which consciously counts at the end of each breath or before the breath,
That which senses a pleasant or unwanted sensation in the body,
That which sips tea,
Which takes actions to nourish the body,
That experiences satisfaction or unease,
Is that which knows.

That which grasps a cup with its hand is also that which counts to ten in the mind. Whatever ‘that’ is, is that which seeks discipline and training in the Noble Way. Due to natural ignorance, human beings become lost in their faculty of thought (mental abstraction) and experience pain/folly due to lack of insight into the four mindfulness factors.

10

@PjYuktavadin, I think this question is relevant here.

The idea that there are buddhist teachers who teach an eternal sense consciousness is, i believe, really a mistake. It arises from starting to conceive what cannot be conceived. I will do an attempt:

If there would be a permanent sense vinnana this would come down to the situation that we are permanently perceiving a certain sense-object…permanently seeing a certain form, smelling a certain smell, permanently aware of a certain idea, view, impulse, emotions, thought etc.

I do not believe there is a buddhist teachers who teaches such permanent eye-vinnana, ear-, nose-, tongue-, tactile/bodily nor mental vinnana (mano vinnana).
Happily for us they do no exist. A permanent sense vinnana is the ulimate prisonhood! The ultimate fettering. Mind would be totally stuck and having a lasting attention for only one thing! Pure Horror, right?

All six sense Vinnanas refer to moment we become aware of something. These sense moments (sense vinnanas) are taught as impermanent. I believe this is not an issue

But many buddhist teachers teach that all that is perceived, felt, known by the senses must be seen as the manifestations of mind and not as minds nature. Mind is the forerunner (dph1). No intention can arise without mind as forerunner, i believe. Intention is never first. You can also see this in the Path. It is also never intention alone that determines the result of an action but always the combination of understanding and intention (AN1.314)

That mind precedes all phenomana, i believe is true, in the sense that feelings, perceptions, emotions, intentions, thougts, desire do not arise without mind.
All we see, hear, sense, smell, tactily feel, taste, and also all our mental observation moments of intentions, desires, emotions, thought etc . would not arise without mind. It are manifestation of mind. Its projections as it were. Rupa alone cannot produce them.

This also means that when, for example, thoughts cease, mind does not cease.
That is also not what we experience, right? When emotions and desires cease mind does not cease.
It is also said that mind can even be empty of perceptions and feelings related to the sense domains of the eye (eye vinnana), ear, nose, tongue, body (empty) tactile vinnana but still mind has not ceased.

So what is mind? It is like mind can empty of content. Its usual manifestations can cease but still mind does not. So, then, what is mind?

Great meditation masters share that they have seen the deathless, a not desintegrating dimension. I see the Buddha in the suttas also refers to this dimension and even shares that he teaches the not desintegrating and path to the not desintegrating, to the Truth, to the ageless, deathless etc.

What is disintegrating represents for the Buddha the world.

“It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world. And what is disintegrating? The eye, bhikkhu, is disintegrating, forms are disintegrating, eye-consciousness is disintegrating, eye-contact is disintegrating, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … that too is disintegrating. The ear is disintegrating . . . The mind is disintegrating . . . Whatever feeling
arises with mind-contact as condition … that too is disintegrating. It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world.” (SN35.82)

By the way: Here you also see that ‘mind’ is used in the meaning of a mental conscious moment. Here it refers to mano-vinnana. Ofcourse this is a sense moment of what is not of the domain of the eye, ear, body, tongue and nose but of the mental domain. This is what we generally refer to as a mental consciousness moment. But, when the awareness of a certain impulse. thought, emotion etc ceases, (the cessation of a mano-vinnana moment), does mind cease?

Of course, when mind is used in a way to point to such a mental sense moment, the moment we are aware of a thought, an arising emotion, etc. of course such discriminating moments of awareness are also impermanent, they have, happilly for us, no lasting quality. These moments of mental awareness are also seen as manifestations of the mind.

As you also know, probably, Buddha teaches the not disintegrating and the Path to the not disintegrating, to the Truth, to Nibbana (SN43)

Great buddhist meditation masters have come to see, and teach, that when the mind has no inclination and obsessions at all anymore to become involved in her own projections, in what it usually manifest, and there is nothing anymore to support a personal perspective, it can come to a point that it returns to her own innate naked nature, stilled, empty, boundless, all pervading, without personal perspective (unlike in jhana) and with an element of clarity. It is like mind becomes stripped from all her clothing and sees herself in all nakedness. It is absorbed now in her nature.

People tend to think about this still in terms of vinnana, in terms of sensing something, but this is wrong. There is no sensing happening because the mind is cut of from the sense faculties. There is direct knowledge of their cessation. Direct knowledge of the cessation of all six sense vinnanas.

There is also no sense of me, mine, nor personal perspective. It is taught as the not desintegrating, the Truth, the constant, the deathless. Such things as birth, sickness, decay, death are not present. Such, ofcourse cannot be real for the not disintegrating.

The clue seems to be that knowing is not the same as sensing something. Also one who leaves sannavedayitanirodha has contacts that are empty, desireless, undirected. This is also said to illustrate, i believe, that mind does not become involved in the sense domains, It stops to function as sensing something. It just knows what is present and not.

So, what is taught is: there is always this pure knowing quality of mind. It is called desireless, stilled, empty, signless. It is always in us. It is not of a sensing nature but a knowing nature. It is secluded, meaning, it does not incline to the sense domains. Does not become involved, at least not unvoluntairy. This empty dimension is never seen arising, ceasing and becoming otherwise. Unlike all perceptions and feeling it is not known as a manifestation. Manifestation we see coming and going but this dimension we do not see coming and going.

What also is taught is that all manifestation and also this stilled unaffected dimension in our lives are of the same nature, insubstantial, empty, empty of atta or anything belonging to an atta.

In general mind is just considered as @dhammapala says, as the faculty of thought or maybe conceiving. But Buddha says that it goes further. People do not realise they talk about the projections of mind and not of its nature.
We people are almost all the time lost in what mind manifests, in its projections. Like a dog chasing her own tail.

It is for me very clear that the Buddha shows us the Path to end this and develop a deeper understanding of mind. Buddha says…make an island and refuge of oneself.
Meaning…i believe/…the end of suffering is already within us. We must only see and discover this. Absorbed in the manifestation of mind, in the perceptions, feelings, thoughts, conceivings, we are just totally lost, deluded, blinded. Buddha wants to make us see again what is home.

The world around was hollow ,
all directions were in turmoil.
Wanting a home for myself,
I saw nowhere unsettled. (Snp4.15)

He found home. He came home.

11

Discerning the suchness of mind and reeling it in is the work!

It isn’t easy, but is the most rewarding!

The sweet aroma of freedom!

12

Mind is just a convention. It is empty, void and hollow under analysis just like an illusion or magic trick. It ain’t suchness. Better to be infatuated with the body than the mind. :pray:

13

The term ‘mind’ is a convention but what matters is the meaning of the word and the connection the word implies.

From here, one can see it is connected to: mental abstraction (thinking), feeling (sensing), perceiving, and consciousness (conscious as in wakefulness, and consciousness as in aliveness).

This is in relation to form (body, a chariot) endowed with mouth, nose, ear, eyes, trunk and limbs.

Without what is called mind there would be no conscious experience of an individual, no co-ordinated movement or even sentience - but a random sensuous fleshy blob. Without a body to process sensory data there would be no capacity to sense and so mind couldn’t take root either.

When I hear the word ‘empty’, I hear interrelated and depending on other elements to take root - like what is called a body being a fusion of elements in a cohesive form. Though I can agree with mind being transparent - I do not take it to be illusory as when what is called mind is seen for what it is there is no element of deception or ‘mind’ appearing to be something it is not but cognising of what is actual.

In my understanding, the root of mind is within the aggregated elemental body born of procreation between male and female. The bodu provides the opportunity for mindfulness as well as headlessnrss. Grneration of mindfulness takes one to the Deathless where as heedlessness leads to great pain. Without the body, there is no mind, and without the mind, there is no conscious control, directing or navigating of the body.

Whether the mind is an illusion or not is a view that I do not ascribe to it. Instead, within wakefulness is the flow of present nowness happening. There is the capacity to feel, perceive, think and move. Because of conscious wakefulness the capacity for dukkha has arisen, but with conscious experience there is the capacity to release dukkha through knowing its cause and end. Whatever recognises dukkha is that which seeks its cessation.

It is wise to not be infatuated either mind or body but to see them for what they are outside of abstraction. There is the idea of ‘wiggling the finger’ and then the act of doing so. Without thinking of ‘wiggling the finger’, the capacity to wiggle the finger is still there. In that pre-abstracted place I seek to return to and dwell. In that place, the capacity to generate conscious calm is there, and so I return to that the goal. Whatever that is, is what becomes entangled in thickets of views. It is also that which enables picking up a cup. It is that which senses the breath, counts to ten, and answers to a name when called.

What is it? For lack of a better word, I call it ‘mind in relation to body’. It is that which names, is named and bolsters form.

14

It is just a fabricated thing and a conventional existent. No more real nor less real than the body. It is illusory in that it appears to be more than just a convention, yet it is not.

People get infatuated with the mind thinking it is the foundation or state upon which the illusion of form is playing out. However, this can be a barrier to progress because in actuality the mind is just as illusory as form. It isn’t any more real than form.

“Form is like a lump of foam;
feeling is like a bubble;
perception seems like a mirage;
choices like a banana tree;
and consciousness like a magic trick:
so taught the kinsman of the Sun.”

SN22.95

:pray:

15

The idea of ‘mind’ is a convention but the capacities of thinking, feeling, perceiving, moving and being consciously aware in themselves are not conventions, but the words about them are conventions.

I do not call mind or body illusory or not-illusory or ascribe the belief that they are real or false. What matters is the meaning of the terms and the connection they imply. I simply take the mind-and-body as they are without speculating regarding them and are what the sense of ‘I, me, myself’ are founded on. I know there is stress and I know there is the cessation of stress within conscious experience.

A large portion of stress comes from a lack of controlling the mind and the defilements.

:wheel_of_dharma:

1 Like
16

Well, I disagree. :joy: To me they are just conventions and this can be seen with analysis as described in the Phena sutta I quoted above. :pray:

17

Thank you for your message, @Green. :pray:

I`m curious about a question: do you see this distinction between the “nature of mind” and “mind” in the suttas? If so, please, where?

18

Sure, you are free to disagree and we can leave it at just that.

Though I will share my understanding so far.

A convention is a mental abstraction fashioned into a word. Wakefulness and being alive is more than just a word but is the happening which has enabled us to word and thingify about. Because mind-body are due to an act I could not control (parents procreating), this receptacle of experience ‘Dhammapala’ has come to be and so I now have to deal with waking up every morning & navigating experience. I can only control my response to life but not the fact that I was born due to the act of others.

2 Likes
19

Here I am using “convention” to mean a simple agreement constructed by sentient beings. Perhaps the easiest way to discern what I mean when I say “convention” is to give an example. The President of the United States is a convention. When analyzed we can understand that this convention is void and hollow. It is simply an agreement and doesn’t exist without dependence upon this agreement.

This is what I mean when I say that mind is just a convention. It is no more real and no less real than the President of the United States. I’m saying the referent of the word “mind” is no more real nor less than the referent of the words “the President of the United States.” :pray:

20

Sure. I can see that but also add in that the agreement is fashioned by 1) sensory data which is then 2) made sense of by the mind (sense-making, meaning), 3) imputed into a word (samskara) and then 4) communicated between beings.

I see a distinction between the suchness of the mind-body in itself and then the conventions i.e. view making, mental products, that are generated as a result of the activity of mind-body in relation to sense data.

1 Like