Please stay on topic of what is mind and please refrain from unnecessarily bringing in misogynistic content.
Hi,
I hope you have the patience to read this:
Words are used as pointers, right? In de Pali suttas words like the unmade, the not disintegrating, the truth, Nibbana, the unafflicted, purity, the deathless, asankhata and Nibbana dhatu, the desireless, undirected, i believe, point to same dimension as what later buddhist refer to as the nature of mind, dhammakaya, buddha-nature, tathagatagarba.
For a large list of pointers see SN43.14.43.
Why would the Buddha even speak about ‘the unafflicted’ if this cannot be known? I feel such is totally not in line with buddhism. If a Buddha speaks about purity, peace, the end of suffering, the unafllicted, the deathless we can assume he does not speak about concepts, prospects, conceivings or ideas. It points to something that is directly known. If we use the word pain we also do not point to a concept.
Buddha uses these words to point to something that is not a concept.
The nature of mind is also described in Iti43. It is called there ‘an everlasting stainless sorrowless state, the blissful stilling of all conditions’. He does not talk about a concept, or a prospect of never been born again, but a stilling that is known as blissful. That is how i understand this. Otherwise it makes no sense to me.
In MN26 this stilling is presented as one of two truths Buddha discovered, together with specific conditionality. He teaches them as hard to see. I believe it are two sides of the same coin. Because if one does not really know the stilling of all formations one also does not really know the conditionally arising of all formations.
In Ud8.3 it is also described as the escape from what is conditioned, produced, made.
Buddha saw all conditioned as unreliable (SN15.20) Why? Because this is liable to cease too, and therefor cannot function as island, refuge, protection. It is not the home he sought (Snp4.15) Nothing that is inconstant, disintegrating can really serve as safe refuge right? But that what is not-disintegrating, not liable to arise, cease (asankhata dhatu), is reliable. That is what the Buddha sought (MN26). This is only arrived at when grasping ends. One never arrives there as a Me, or with asmi mana, a notion of I am. Impossible.
Asankhata dhatu (DN34) is also a word that points to the nature of mind, i believe. Its characteristic is decribed as not seen arising, ceasing and becoming otherwise (AN3.47). It must be known too (MN115). And Nibbana, purity, the not-disintegrating can also be known (MN1, AN9.47)
What does not arise and cease, of course, cannot refer to khandha’s, because they are all liable to arise and cease. Also, IF we consider arahanthood as a special composition of khandha’s, a special but still temporary composition, or as a purified but ending stream, this is also invalid because, of course, also that will cease. And asankhata dhatu per definition does not cease.
Buddhist masters i like emphasize that asankhata and sankhata, i.e. that what is not liable to arise and cease and change, and that what is, are of the same nature; both empty, selfless and no possession of a self (atta). Like there is no final substance in the conditioned or what manifest, there is also no final substance in that what is not of a manifesting nature. I see this message too in the Pali Canon.
Desireless, signless, undirected and empty are also words, i believe, that point to the true undefiled nature of mind. Although the defiled mind constant has and experiences desires, and although its attention is constantly drawn to this and that sense domain (directed), and although in a defiled mind constant signs light up (this is me, this is mine, this is ugly, long, short, beautiful, repulsive, will make me happy etc.) this is not the nature of mind. TheBuddha taught this as empty, signless, desireless, undirected. All this other mess is adventitious (AN1.51). It might arise but is not its nature. To know it as adventitious is of crucial importance like AN1.51 says.
MN44 says then when someone comes out of sannavedayitanirodha he/she has only such contacts that are signless , undirected, desireless, empty. Meaning, i believe, abides in this dimension of the nature of mind. Not as a Me ofcourse. There is no notion of I am in purity, in Truth.
That certain words are not used by the Buddha, such as the nature of mind, or buddha-nature, i do not believe this must be problematic. We can all know that desireless, empty, signless, undirected are used to point to the nature of mind. To purity and its basic empty and stilled nature. The stilling of all formations lies within us. Never absent, but in endless lifes unseen, unnoticed because of our usual obsession with formations . I believe this is what the buddha expresses in the suttas.
The escape is there but do not see it. The Buddha teaches the Path to the Truth, constant, peace, etc (SN43)
The greatest problem seems to be that people conceptualize the word mind, and believe it is some kind of thing. But when we speak about the nature of mind we speak about something that cannot be grasped.How can one grasp the empty?
Forgive me, I’m a bit unclear.
Are you proposing the mind nature exist? And if so, is it being described as neither permanent nor no permanent? And if not, I did not understand. 
It seems to me that the passages you mentioned don’t directly address ‘the nature of mind.’ That specific expression does appear in later Buddhist texts, Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese, if my memory serves me correctly – though there’s certainly no problem with that, naturally.
Do words like the desireless, empty, undirected, signless, resonate?
I am not interested in debating positions about existence, not-existence, both, neither. I am interested to see what Buddha teaches about the nature of mind. He teaches it as desireless, signless, undirected, empty and i can relate to that. It resonates in me. I feel it is inspiring.
I do not care at all about these endless debates about tetralemma.
Or invoking someone into one of these positions and then attacking them as eternalist or something silly. This is not sincere and ill will.
I have been thorough in answering your question. You do not give me any feedback on it. You do not seem interested nor appreciating it. Oke, so be it.
I stop now.
I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to say in above paragraph. As my understanding, “the stilling of all formations” is definition of Nibbāna. So, from your above paragraph, my guess is, you are trying to say “the purified mind is Nibbāna” or “Nibbāna lies within us”? But read again all your posts above, I am still clueless whether this is really what you want to say.
Can you make a clear confirmation or a clear declination for “the purified mind is Nibbāna”/“Nibbāna lies within us”?
Yes, i have come to see the following:
The stilling of all formations is just a way to point to the desireless, the empty, the signless, the undirected. This dimension is never absent.
The stilling of all formations does not refer to a mere cessation as if there is nothing. It refers to a dimension that is empty but not nothing. It is not seen coming and going. It does not have the characteristics of a formations or composed state that will fall apart. This empty dimension cannot fall apart. It is not a result of construction, of tanha. Here is no building of a house taking place.
The stilling of all formations lies, as it were, at the root or is the womb of all experiences (movement/formations). Yoniso manasikara is having attention for this this stilled empty womb. Having attention for the womb from which experiences arise, is a very powerful and effective way to let them not establish and become confused that they are me, mine and my self.
But also the empty, desireless, undirected, signless dimension (the already stilled dimension in our lifes) must never be grasped as me and mine an my self. Just as formations must also not be seen this way.
When both the asankhata aspect (that what is not manifesting of nature and is allready stilled and empty) and the sankhata aspect (that what is manifesting of nature and is experienced as movement) are not grasped, there is an openess in which there are no boundaries found and there is also no sense of me and mine and my self. AN10.81
Speaking about a pure mind is not speaking about a certain phenomena, a certain formation, a certain thing. As not-concept, a pure mind points to an open dimension that is at the same time stilled, and with an ability to know (clarity aspect) and able to manifest phenomena. In this dimension phenomena light up but do not establish.
This dimension cannot be expressed in terms of me, mine, my self, not in terms of here and there, not in terms of exist, not exist etc, nor in terms of time. \
This stilled and open dimension is also never affected by culture, raising, conditioning. It does never become otherwise. It can never be an object of the senses.
When both the stilled and moving aspects are not grasped, the mind is called liberated. It is not some phenomena what becomes liberated.
Stilling of all formations is not something conceptual. In our lifes there is already this stilled, empty, desireless, undirected dimension. There is not only movement, fabrications, formations, desires and direction. There is also the asankhata element or aspect in our lifes. That what is not seen arising, ceasing or becoming otherwise.
The stilling of all formations points to this open and empty dimension that functions as a womb from where all phenomena, formations, are born, arise.
Very good! I’ll join Clarity in asking some follow up questions, if I may.
- Are you using “stillness of formations”, “pure mind” and “asankhata aspect” all interchangeably?
- If formations are phenomena, and phenomena don’t have to be formations, but non-phenomena cannot be known or cognized, what do you refer to “pure mind” (and the others per #1) as not-concept? Do you mean not-construct, not-phenomena or something else?
- Could you elaborate on how you see the non-arising of asankhata? Is that a phenomena non-arising but known (you also said it is not “nothing”) or are you saying that that is also a not-phenomena?
Thanks!
Can you name a teacher of the pure mind or rigpa that you have the highest appreciation for? Many advocates of rigpa that I’ve seen consider the handling of the tetralemma that you shun to be of the highest importance. Many of them identify what you call rigpa as completely empty in the sense of sunyata. Rigpa too is just a convention.
Rigpa does not ultimately exist. It doesn’t exist inherently. It is just a convention and not any kind of real thing. This can be terrifying to those who become infatuated with the idea of rigpa. It is best not to get infatuated with pure mind.
@Puthujjana @Clarity, I believe what is being discussed as ‘pure mind’ is what is known in some Tibetan buddhist circles as rigpa. It is important to understand that this is practiced in specific branches of Tibetan Buddhism, but is not universally practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. It is a teaching of the Third-Turning which emphasizes mind-only school.
The history of the different branches and hermeneutics of Tibetan Buddhism is fascinating. Knowledge of this is probably helpful as background understanding of what I believe Green is talking about and advocating for.
This is a good book IMO for anyone wishing to study more about this subject.
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
Agreed. I’m just trying to convey what I understood his words to mean re: rigpa. If Green disclaims that when he says ‘pure mind’ he is talking about rigpa, then I’ll delete my post and acknowledge I’m wrong - as I often am 
…the Tathagata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations (i think this is a wrong translation, see further, Green), for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbana (MN22)
I believe, these are different ways, expressions, to point to the same goal.
"I considered: 'This Dhamma that I have attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in worldliness, takes delight in worldliness, rejoices in worldliness. It is hard for such a generation to see this truth, namely, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana. If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and®troublesome for me.’ (MN26)
Two truths that are hard to see.
The second truth of stilling of all formations, i believe really refers to the stilling of sankharas as all constructing activities. The Pali seems to be “sabbasaṅkhārasamatho”. It is about sankhara. It is not about vedana or perception that still arise, i believe. Here, i believe it refers to the stilling of all that is able to construct. I believe it is not different from the cessation of tanha, detachment, Nibbana, bhava nirodha. It is not that the destruction of craving means that all is reduced to nothing, right? The destruction of craving (tanha) is just another way to point the same , i.e. the stilling of all constructing activities, Nibbana, bhava-nirodha etc. That is also detachment. These are all expressions that point to the same, right?
But where does this all point to? Not something conceptual of course. Do you believe this @yeshe.tenley ?
So, what is this pure detached situation in which there are no constructing activities, no tanha, no attachment at all? Where does it point to?
-it is without grasping, right? The absence of tanha means there is no habitual proces of constructing states taking place.
-there is not established a sense of me and mine in regard to arising formation but also not in regard to the empty, stilled, desireless, undirected nature.
-there is no unwilling involvement in the sense domains. This mind is not habitually inclined (no 7 anusaya) towards the eye, ear, taste, smell, tactile and mental domain. It tends to seclusion is the way the suttas refer to this situation. It is not drawn towards the world, i.e. the disintegrating, the All. The defiled mind is. In a defiled mind 6 kind of sense vinnanas alternately establish at such moments, and if not let go they grow also. In a pure mind such does not happen.
-there are no standpoints in this mind. How can there be involvement or preoccupution with tetralemma which merely represent passionate based standpoints, merely grasping at ideas? Involvement in tetralemmas is merely the result of not seeing and knowing. How can one ever grasp the two Truths? How can one think that the Truth is a standpoint? They are not of the nature of a standpoint. Dhamma leads to the elimination of all standpoints as the above MN22 fragment says.
But what does this all point to?
sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ
That is what we have to realise, right? That is what we have to discover.
The teachings of the teacher i very much appreciate are those of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. Ofcourse his teachings are very broad but teachings on the nature of mind i feel very inspiring. Ordinaire mind and nature of mind are distinguished.
Defilements distort the knowledge of what mind really is.
When these teachers teach about the nature of mind that does not point to a formation, phenomena, stream, concept, thing, but more to a dimension that is totally open, desireless, empty, stilled, undirected in which boundaries cannot be traced. This empty stilled dimension is not merely empty but it also has an element of light, of clarity, luminosity which cannot be seperated from its emptiness.
To be bothered by issues like ….does the nature of mind really exist, not, both, neither is a non-issue for me, and i also believe someone like DKR.
The goal is to see and realise it and not form standpoints and become obsessed by them.
1 Like
Thank you for your clear confirmation for “the purified mind is Nibbāna”/“Nibbāna lies within us”. In order to be as much clear as possible, I need to say that I don’t have the same understanding as yours.
As my understanding, the purified mind - no matter how pure it is - can NOT be Nibbāna. Also, as my understanding, we can NOT say such statement as “Nibbāna lies within us” due to what has been said by the Buddha in Mūlapariyāyasutta MN1 as quoted with bold emphasized for the Pali word below:
Having perceived extinguishment as extinguishment, they conceive it to be extinguishment, they conceive it in extinguishment, they conceive it as extinguishment, they conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they approve extinguishment.
nibbānaṁ nibbānato saññatvā nibbānaṁ maññati, nibbānasmiṁ maññati, nibbānato maññati, nibbānaṁ meti maññati, nibbānaṁ abhinandati.
Also, by logic, we will run into difficulty with such statement “Nibbāna lies within us” because it brings up questions like “Are there many Nibbāna in each of us? Or are they just one?” and “How does Nibbāna go through rebirth cycles with us?” and “The question of the Buddha after death among the tetralemma now suddenly has a definite “yes, exist” answer?” and maybe a lot more…
As you have explained your understanding of “the stilling of all formations”, I will also say clearly which one we have same understanding and which one we don’t have same understanding.
For these points above, I have similar understanding (not totally exact the same word by word but on the meaning level).
For these points below, I do not have similar understanding as yours.
I truly can not understand how 2 explicitly contradicting terms can be comprehended in a coherent way as above: “stilling of all formations” and “where all formations are born, arise”
The difference here in our understanding is quite huge.
I hope you can explain more to clear away any misunderstanding and contradiction.
Hi Clarity,
MN26 says… And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all constructing activities, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana.
These are all expressions pointing to the same, right. The relinquishment of all attachments is not different from the destruction of craving, and that is not different from Nibbana, nirodha, etc. Although hard to see, we can see or realise this right? This Truth. It is the ultimate goal of Dhamma to do so.
The destruction of craving, Nibbana, stilling of constructing activities, and all the above does not point to blacking out, being mindless etc. Right?
So, where does it point to?
The whole clue, i feel is…when grasping stops, it is not that the stilled, cooled, empty, desires, undirected dimension in our lifes (asankhata or Nibbana dhatu) suddenly arises. Not at all.
Like stilness does not arises when one removes sources of sound , and space does not arise when one removes furniture from a room. And water is not created when defilements are removed. Likewise we do not create that dimension that is cool, extinguished, stilled, empty, desireless, undirected, unburdened, peaceful.
But it only becomes more and more apparant/visible for us, when defilements are removed.
That is, i believe, also why the suttas talk about it as: the unmade, the unproduced, uncreated etc. We do not create the coolness of Nibbana dhatu but this cooled element becomes gradually more and more apparant in our lifes. It is always there, also even for a Hell bein on fire. But if the mind is very defiled it remains unseen.
The fires prevent to notice the coolness. That is why it is so important to become more dispassionate and take the doorway into this cooled extinguished dimension.
AN1.51 supports that we must always think about defilements as adventitious, like furniture in a room. It is not the room. If we do not see it like this, there is no development says the sutta. I also do not doubt that defilements are furniture. If you would loose the furniture of hate, it is not that the room now changes. It stays the same room but is freed from the oppression and agitating quality of the fire of hate and that is a huge relief. The All is burning. It does not mean the room is burning. Because IF that is true…THEN there is no escape. But Buddha does not teach this.
When there is no grasping in the mind, this empty desireless, undirected stilled and cooled dimension is always apparant, and even when formations arise, this remains visible. But it is ALSO crucial not to see the room as me, mine, my self and not grasp it!
By the way, stilling of all formations as translation of sabbasaṅkhārasamatho by Bodhi, or stilling of all activities by Sujato, shows, i feel, that translators have very great difficulty to understand the concept of sankhara. The stilling of sankharas is, i believe, here the stilling of all constructing activities.
Maybe there are buddhist who choice to see Nibbana as a concept, i do not choice for this. Nibbana refers to…the relinguishing of all attachment, the stilling of all constructing activities, bhava nirodha (no constuction no bhava), detachment.
These are not mere words of course They point to something that is realised.
If there is no constructing taking place, the knowlegde will arise that rebirth has ended.
By the way, the presence of Nibbana is not a controversial idea in buddhism at all.
That it is not our creation, not a product we make, is also not controversial. Also theravada teachers accept such. It is not that Buddha makes Nibbana, he re-discovers it. By eliminating all defilement one arrives at it but does not create, make, produce it. All we can do is make extinguishment, the cooled dimension, Nibbana dhatu, more and more visible by removing adventitious defilements.
1 Like
Thank you for trying to give detailed explanations (although you haven’t addressed the points that I raised about difference between our understandings). Also, it’s worth mentioning that when reading your whole post above which didn’t mention about “the purified mind is Nibbāna”/“Nibbāna lies within us” then I find that most of your post is similar to my understanding.
I will only address certain points where I think our understanding are different:
I think the critical point here is:
- about the analogy of sound and stillness/silence, it is important to note that we will have to make sure sound will not be able to arise anymore.
- about the analogy of furniture and room, it is important to note that we will have to make sure furniture will not be able to enter the room anymore.
- about the analogy of water and defilement, it is important to note that we will have to make sure defilement will not be able to mix into water anymore.
That very process/formation/saṅkhāra of “making sure XXX will not be able to arise/enter/mix into YYY ever again” is anicca and dukkha by definition. The only way out of such saṅkhāra is to forever changing “YYY” into something else irreversibly as “ZZZ”. That is the case with the liberated/purified mind. And also because of such change, a liberated/purified mind can not be Nibbāna. Another point to note is, the reason why “YYY” can even change irreversibly into “ZZZ” is precisely because of the existence of Nibbāna as asaṅkhata/unconditioned.
In my understanding, the room MUST irreversibly change. Also, when all furniture in the room are burning, by definition, the room is also burning.
The way I see it, our understanding are more or less similar but I don’t put liberated mind as the same as Nibbāna, I don’t put additional requirement on Nibbāna to have additional feature of “ability to know” or “knowing essence”.
To my understanding, knowing is a formation/process/saṅkhāra by definition. I think it is almost universally accepted that it is very dukkha to “keep knowing” when we want to sleep.
You said elsewhere among many of your posts that such ability to know or such mind does not stop when we are in deep sleep/coma/anesthesia/cessation of perception-feeling meditation. I am not sure who can testify for cessation of perception-feeling meditation but I think we can find scientific findings regarding the other cases of sleep/coma/anesthesia etc. where it can be proven beyond doubt that such ability to know or such mind stops in such case. Maybe another separate thread will be required for such topic.
Also, I would like to point to Tevijjavacchasutta MN71 where the Buddha declared he doesn’t have the ability to “constantly knowing” and in Sandakasutta MN76 where Ven. Ānanda explains about liberated mind can “only know about the status of ending defilement if directs there”
Lastly, I noticed that your current status won’t allow you to reply in this forum until 1 year later. So I hope what I share in this post will be helpful to you or anyone who holds such theory about mind and Nibbāna. Who knows, 1 year later you will come back with liberated mind and we will all cheer for you.
