I have to wonder what more there left to say?Ñāṇa wrote:Some people think that nibbāna should be experienced as a mind lit up with light. Some people think that nibbāna should be experienced as an utter blackout. But in each case, these are temporary experiences. They come and go. But nibbāna is the complete and irreversible elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. As such, nibbāna is an extinguishment which doesn't come and go. Moreover, if discernment were synonymous with a light nimitta (or however one wants to describe the phenomenology of a mind lit up with light), then discernment would be absent when this light is absent and noble disciples and arahants would be without discernment most of the time. . . .kirk5a wrote:So here it is paññā having light-like qualities. Radiance, lustre, light, bright.
Luminous Mind. - What is it?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
There was a question there and Geoff answered it, thanks Geoff. Maybe that has some relevance to the topic, maybe not. I simply noticed that it was pañña in the quotes Geoff provided had light-like qualities. Whereas previously you had been talking about a certain clarity to viññana. So - I wondered how to understand these terms, what the relationship is.tiltbillings wrote:Is there a point here?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
I took the quotes that Geoff gave as being indicative of the metaphorical use of the term luminosity, making the point that there is no need to take it literally with the text in question.kirk5a wrote:There was a question there and Geoff answered it, thanks Geoff. Maybe that has some relevance to the topic, maybe not. I simply noticed that it was pañña in the quotes Geoff provided had light-like qualities. Whereas previously you had been talking about a certain clarity to viññana. So - I wondered how to understand these terms, what the relationship is.tiltbillings wrote:Is there a point here?
It is an interesting question of what to take as being literal or to take as metaphorical. It would be quite possible to get oneself into big doo-doo taking something as literal that would be better understood as metaphorical. It is all too easy to fool oneself with meditative experiences, which, if you have not noticed, is something I harp upon here. This has been an interesting thread. I don't have much more to say here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
It seems to me like there are two conversations here. One leans more on the scriptural side and emphasizes what is necessary for nibbana while warning about assigning any qualities to "it", reifying and attaching to experiences on the way.
The other conversation is more about experience. The clarity and luminosity encountered in practice. To my ears it seems that the Sutta in the OP, as well as Ajahns Mun, Maha Bua and Chah are coming more from this side.
May be worth pointing out the two perspectives...
The other conversation is more about experience. The clarity and luminosity encountered in practice. To my ears it seems that the Sutta in the OP, as well as Ajahns Mun, Maha Bua and Chah are coming more from this side.
May be worth pointing out the two perspectives...
_/|\_
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
@Akuma and Tiltbillings,Akuma wrote:A citta cant cognize itself in Theravada.Sherab wrote:Does viññāṇa makes known itself, i.e. it illuminates itself?tiltbillings wrote:Also, "luminous" is a metaphor for the fact that viññāṇa makes known, illuminates it object.
In Theravada, what is the explanation for how one knows that one knows?
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
If you don't mind my interjection, I believe that the division between the individual and the knowing is a false dichotomy.
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
So are you saying that there is only the knowing, and no knowing of the knowing by that very knowing itself?Kenshou wrote:If you don't mind my interjection, I believe that the division between the individual and the knowing is a false dichotomy.
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
I think it suffices to say that when there is the eye and forms there is sight-consciousness and so on for the other 5, no reason to get into loops of proliferation about the knowing knowing the knowing.
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Agreed. Now let's shut this down. Nothing more needs to be said.
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Theres a case in Kathavatthu (314/315) which implies that it is done via retrospection, since self-cognition would lead to endless regress.Sherab wrote: @Akuma and Tiltbillings,
In Theravada, what is the explanation for how one knows that one knows?
I doubt that there is much detailed info on how it works from Theravada pov since theories of cognition were not available at the time Theravada formed.
- BrownRice (Element)
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:30 am
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Well explained. Well spoken.tiltbillings wrote:Being free of incoming defilement is awakening. Obviously the luminous mind, in and of itself, is not, given that it can be defiled.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Just a moderator note in response to others concerns about shutting down this thread. A thread would be shut down if it is contentious and is going over the same ground, repeatedly. This thread has been of interest, with varying opinions and is one of the better threads on the recurring topic here of "luminous" mind.alan wrote:Agreed. Now let's shut this down. Nothing more needs to be said.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Thanks Akuma.Akuma wrote:Theres a case in Kathavatthu (314/315) which implies that it is done via retrospection, since self-cognition would lead to endless regress.Sherab wrote: @Akuma and Tiltbillings,
In Theravada, what is the explanation for how one knows that one knows?
I doubt that there is much detailed info on how it works from Theravada pov since theories of cognition were not available at the time Theravada formed.
It would seem to me that if one knows something, besides the knowing itself, there should also be the knowing of the knowing. Without the knowing of the knowing, there can be no registration of anything by the knowing. If there is no registration by the knowing, there can be no retrospection.
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
I don't think so. Normally we set up the subject and object duality but it's artificial. There can be knowing and acting without the knower and actor in the sense of reifying and identifying. The usual divisions are gone, that's all. (Even now it's like this but we convince ourselves that it isn't by playing all these different roles as it were - ie delusions are delusory!)Sherab wrote:Thanks Akuma.Akuma wrote:Theres a case in Kathavatthu (314/315) which implies that it is done via retrospection, since self-cognition would lead to endless regress.Sherab wrote: @Akuma and Tiltbillings,
In Theravada, what is the explanation for how one knows that one knows?
I doubt that there is much detailed info on how it works from Theravada pov since theories of cognition were not available at the time Theravada formed.
It would seem to me that if one knows something, besides the knowing itself, there should also be the knowing of the knowing. Without the knowing of the knowing, there can be no registration of anything by the knowing. If there is no registration by the knowing, there can be no retrospection.
_/|\_
Re: Luminous Mind. - What is it?
Why should knowing of the knowing by the knowing itself require the setting up of subject and object duality?Dan74 wrote:I don't think so. Normally we set up the subject and object duality but it's artificial. There can be knowing and acting without the knower and actor in the sense of reifying and identifying. The usual divisions are gone, that's all. (Even now it's like this but we convince ourselves that it isn't by playing all these different roles as it were - ie delusions are delusory!)Sherab wrote:It would seem to me that if one knows something, besides the knowing itself, there should also be the knowing of the knowing. Without the knowing of the knowing, there can be no registration of anything by the knowing. If there is no registration by the knowing, there can be no retrospection.
What I was saying was that the reflexivity should be part and parcel of knowing itself because without the reflexivity, knowing cannot be knowing.