mikenz66 wrote:I really liked it. I found it an entertaining and engaging story that had some interesting ideas, characters, acting, and action.
In terms of depth, it's not Nobel Prize-winning art like Waiting for Godot (which toured Australasia recently). Neither is it a deep, internally-consistent, philosophical statement. Or particularly original. It's a movie. It's put together extremely well. What do you expect?
How is consciousness (i.e.mind ) capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action?
There is no art in the world more variegated than the art of painting. In painting, the painter's masterpiece is more artistic than the rest of his pictures. An artistic design occurs to the painters of masterpieces that such and such pictures should be drawn in such and such a way. Through this artistic design there arise operations of the mind (or artistic operations) accomplishing such things as sketching the outline, putting on the paint, touching up, and embellishing... Thus all classes of arts in the world, specific or generic, are achieved by the mind. And owing to its capacity thus to produce a variety or diversity of effects in action, the mind, which achieves all these arts, is itself artistic like the arts themselves. Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly. For that reason the Blessed One has said, 'Monks, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?' 'Yes, Lord.' 'Monks, that masterpiece of art is designed by the mind. Indeed, monks, the mind is even more artistic than that masterpiece.'
In a number of sermons we had to bring up the simile of the
motion picture. The simile is not our own, but only a modern-
ization of a canonical simile used by the Buddha himself. The
point of divergence was the question the Buddha had addressed
to the monks in the Gaddulasutta.
Diṭṭhaṃ vo, bhikkhave, caraṇaṃ nāma cittaṃ? "Monks,
have you seen a picture called a movie?" The monks answer in
the affirmative, and so the Buddha proceeds:
Tampi kho, bhikkhave, caraṇaṃ nāma cittaṃ citteneva cin-
titaṃ. Tena pi kho, bhikkhave, caraṇena cittena cittaññeva
cittataraṃ. "Monks, that picture called a movie is something
thought out by the mind. But the thought itself, monks, is even
more picturesque than that picture."
To say that it is more picturesque is to suggest its variegated
character. Thought is intrinsically variegated. We have no idea
what sort of a motion picture was there at that time, but the
modern day movie has a way of concealing impermanence by
the rapidity of projections of the series of pictures on the screen.
The rapidity itself gives an impression of permanence, which is
a perversion, vipallāsa.
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises [similarly with the rest of the six senses]. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes."
Based on what a person papañcizes, the perceptions & categories of papañca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses].
"You never really remember the beginning of a dream, do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on."
Registered users: Alex123, Bing [Bot], BlackBird, BuddhaSoup, convivium, cooran, Coyote, Doshin, EmptyShadow, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Lazy_eye, mettafuture, mikenz66, photonist, puppha, purple planet, retrofuturist