"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

[tiltbillings]

Tiltbillings:

Out of context... who owns the context? Monks, priests, poets, scholars, governments, foundations, laity... there are so many claims on context I begin to lose track.

"I begin to lose track." So I noticed. Basically, you are giving us a make-it-up-as-you-go-along sort of thing. If it works for you, fine.

[Cafael Dust]

Now that was underhand, but good marksmanship.

I'm not making it up as I go along. My definitions may not be yours but I do read stuff. I'm also basing a lot on what I experience - I mean I have the luxury of being able to say to myself 'yeah, I know what you're talking about' when I read spiritual texts. And yes, about the odder things like Chi and different bodies and so on too. That doesn't really help with arguments though, which can be a bit frustrating; experience is not 'proof'. Hopefully I'll become more eloquent later on .

My point about context is that words don't just get defined by other words and opinions of words in some vast hypertext reaching all through time and space. They sometimes refer to real things too.

[Cafael Dust]

Oh all right, Manapa, a state free of sin. Talk about splitting hairs.

[Cafael Dust]

Ok, here you go, this says it better than prose, as well as I can say it at any rate. I'm off to bed now, but this has been fun, so merry Christmas and I'll see you all later.

no-doctrine

I tell you to think of onion skins furling
or rainforests like faces. I tell you the heads of pins
swarm with angels, and we are everything
that is neither metal nor Elohim. I tell you the jewel of the dance
is a pearl that everyone is running on
and one must not slip.

You ask what is life’s substance, its shape? I say
quicksilver or sand, labyrinth or symphony.
This tapestry tangles smooth, weaves past anew
as present glances by. Storm and eye
or not I and form no new words please

for what we cannot describe;
such words labour breath into barbed wire.

I cannot hear myself,
I will not listen, I do not desire to grasp the philosopher’s stone
or the unifying theory of hearts.

I must take these words to the river;
the water will make them its own.

[Cittasanto]

here are some thoughts on context had a look at my thesasaurus and thing the order is interesting and relevant in my interpretation atleast, although the order is going to be accidental.
we have to get what we mean across but at the same time this needs to be understood by others, or glaiket ken.

setting, where we are when using words
background, what it is referring to
circumstances, what we are replying to
milieu, what the words mean to us
situation, who we are with
environment what the words mean to others
framework, how the wording is put
perspective, our experiance or viewpoint

[tiltbillings]

I'm not making it up as I go along.

Okay, not making it up, but conflating things based upon what?

My definitions may not be yours but I do read stuff. I'm also basing a lot on what I experience -

I have read a lot and experienced a lot over the last 60+ years. An appeal to experience does not necessarily carry much weight.

When you state: Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light, I know what Tsongkapa mean by tathagatagarbha and I know what Tiantai means by Buddha-nature and what Dogen means by Buddha-nature, also I know how Quaker writings talk about the inner light, but I have no idea as to what you mean by these terms, and if what you mean has no relationship to how these terms are traditionally used by the traditions that developed them, it would be hard to say your questionable equation has any meaning.

[Cafael Dust]

Well, Tiltbillings, one reason I mention Quakers is that on a philosophy forum I participated in debates with a practicing Quaker and found that we agreed on every point of spirituality, though our vocabulary was different. For this reason, a great number of Quakers practice meditation.

http://apprising.org/2008/08/25/contemp ... e-quakers/

Check out this article for a rather nasty attack on Quakers for being too much like Buddhists.

In silence [meditation] which is active, the Inner Light [supposedly God] begins to grow ¬ a tiny spark. For the flame to be kindled and to grow, subtle argument and the clamor of our emotions must be stilled. It is by an attention full of love that we enable the Inner Light to blaze and illuminate our dwelling and to make of our whole being a source from which this Light may shine out.

Quote taken from a Quaker website itself quoted in the article linked to above.

So for Christians they're too Buddhist, for Buddhists they're too Christian.

P.S. all arguments aside, the guy who writes this article is as mad as a hatter.

[tiltbillings]

Well, Tiltbillings, one reason I mention Quakers ...

Okay; however, that does not, as I pointed out, supply a justifaction for your equation: Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light. Who knows what you mean by either Buddha-nature or inner light, and if what you mean is not connected to how the traditions, for whom these terms are central, understand and use the terms, your claim carries no weight. Also, Buddha-nature, for the most part, carries no weight for the Theravada.

[Cittasanto]

Hi All,
there are three forms of conciet
better than
worse than
same as.

[Fede]

aren't we getting a bit off-topic here?

Just a question, because I'm losing all sense of the thread, which was in essence, (eventually) a question on the compatibility and possibility of continuing to practice Buddhism whilst courting a person of Islamic faith....

The answer's no.
Simple.

[Cafael Dust]

Manapa:

Hi All,
there are three forms of conciet
better than
worse than
same as.

Good point but you must be annoying at dinner parties .

Tilt, we'll have to agree to differ; I've always seen Buddha Nature as convenient shorthand rather than a reference to a separate self. To me it means what we're like when we realise no-self, paradoxically. Saying 'we all have Buddha nature' doesn't mean there's this bright glowing thing deep inside, it means we can all achieve nibbana, which is only covered up by ignorance.

So BN is nibbana and Inner Light is nibbana. Essentially it's all nibbana, and I think that, taking the view that the nibbana element is real, the burden of proof is then on those who say that different traditions don't realise the same thing, because it seems ridiculous that they don't. E.g. different people living underground who describe the sun as 'warm', 'golden' etc, are obviously speaking of the same thing - or it seems obvious to us that they are, but that's only because we have seen and felt the sun.

[Cafael Dust]

Just a question, because I'm losing all sense of the thread, which was in essence, (eventually) a question on the compatibility and possibility of continuing to practice Buddhism whilst courting a person of Islamic faith....

The answer's no.
Simple.

Fede, I'm sorry but that's a rather patrician way of responding that doesn't really help much IMHO.

[Fede]

Doesn't help you, perhaps.
But this thread isn't about you.
It's about the OPs dilemma in being in love with an Islamic woman.

The situation is simple.
Open and broad-minded as Buddhists may be, Islam doesn't work that way.

Islam considers itself to be the true and only religion, and anybody moving away from Islam is considered to commit a sin punishable by death.
Anyone wishing to involve themselves with someone from Islam, and has the intention of committing to a full term relationship, has to convert to Islam and follow Islam as their one and only religion.

What the heck is 'patrician' about it?
It's a fact. It's Islamic law, and as such has to be accepted as such.

[Cafael Dust]

There is no Islam, there are only people who practice Islam as a set of teachings, as part of a society, as culture, Koran etc. The sentence 'Islam considers' is meaningless.

The religion has no centralised authority in the same way as, say, Catholicism. But I know people are going to trot out the same tired stereotypes and see their mental images of scimitar-wielding, turban wearing fanatics and suicide bombers. I was reading an account by some Christians in... where was it? Syria or some Muslim country, and they'd converted to Christianity from Islam thirty years ago or so, and they were saying 'I don't understand, we converted and there was no bad word spoken against us?'.

Agreed, it's punishable by death in several countries, but that doesn't mean said law represents the whole of Islam, any more than you can say all Buddhists believe that this age is too corrupt for people to be enlightened in, or that women can't teach, or another of the oddball notions.

[Fede]

There is no Islam, there are only people who practice Islam as a set of teachings, as part of a society, as culture, Koran etc. The sentence 'Islam considers' is meaningless.

So you say.
Try telling a Moslem that....

The religion has no centralised authority in the same way as, say, Catholicism.

Your point being?

But I know people are going to trot out the same tired stereotypes and see their mental images of scimitar-wielding, turban wearing fanatics and suicide bombers.

Again, what's your point?
Where has anyone done that?
You're inserting irelevant prejudices here....

I was reading an account by some Christians in... where was it? Syria or some Muslim country, and they'd converted to Christianity from Islam thirty years ago or so, and they were saying 'I don't understand, we converted and there was no bad word spoken against us?'.

Find it. We'll discuss it.
Until then, this is unfounded hearsay, and of no relevance to this discourse....

Agreed, it's punishable by death in several countries, but that doesn't mean said law represents the whole of Islam,

I'm afraid I think you'll find it does, certainly on an ever-increasing scale.....

The acid test of pluralism is conversion — the freedom to join a religious community or leave it. Yet across the Islamic world Muslims are either nervous about conversion or adamantly opposed to it.

“Soft” Muslim countries still have some pretty hard laws. For instance, tolerant Dubai has its limits in this respect: non-Muslims are free to pray as they wish, to build churches and temples, but trying to convert Muslims is a criminal offence. In Malaysia, changing religion used to be a formality, just requiring registration; now Sharia courts intervene to stop anybody from leaving Islam

any more than you can say all Buddhists believe that this age is too corrupt for people to be enlightened in, or that women can't teach, or another of the oddball notions.

Well, nobody here has ever said that, so this is pure trivia and not relevant.
Grasping at straws will get you nowhere....

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, we'll have to agree to differ; I've always seen Buddha Nature as convenient shorthand rather than a reference to a separate self. To me it means what we're like when we realise no-self, paradoxically. Saying 'we all have Buddha nature' doesn't mean there's this bright glowing thing deep inside, it means we can all achieve nibbana, which is only covered up by ignorance.

So BN is nibbana and Inner Light is nibbana. Essentially it's all nibbana, and I think that, taking the view that the nibbana element is real, the burden of proof is then on those who say that different traditions don't realise the same thing, because it seems ridiculous that they don't. E.g. different people living underground who describe the sun as 'warm', 'golden' etc, are obviously speaking of the same thing - or it seems obvious to us that they are, but that's only because we have seen and felt the sun.

You make my point. This has no connexion to any real tradition, which means you are essentially making it up as you go along. Seeing no value in that and that it does no justice to any tradition, I guess we will have to disagree.

[Cittasanto]

Manapa:

Hi All,
there are three forms of conciet
better than
worse than
same as.

Good point but you must be annoying at dinner parties .

Tilt, we'll have to agree to differ; I've always seen Buddha Nature as convenient shorthand rather than a reference to a separate self. To me it means what we're like when we realise no-self, paradoxically. Saying 'we all have Buddha nature' doesn't mean there's this bright glowing thing deep inside, it means we can all achieve nibbana, which is only covered up by ignorance.

So BN is nibbana and Inner Light is nibbana. Essentially it's all nibbana, and I think that, taking the view that the nibbana element is real, the burden of proof is then on those who say that different traditions don't realise the same thing, because it seems ridiculous that they don't. E.g. different people living underground who describe the sun as 'warm', 'golden' etc, are obviously speaking of the same thing - or it seems obvious to us that they are, but that's only because we have seen and felt the sun.

seams to be a contradiction here!

[Cafael Dust]

I'm not making it up as I go along, because I've held the same views for several years and I've based them on practice and the sutras, which agree with my practice. If I didn't have corroboration from the Sutras, I'd still be practicing but not debating. As I do have corroboration, I have something useful to add to debates.

This has no connexion to any real tradition

Statement 1. We can all achieve nibbana, it's just covered up with ignorance.

Statement 2. Nibbana is everything (viewed without ignorance).

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous

[Cittasanto]

Hi Cafael,
what you have put doesn't make every tradition the same, or your interpretation of a traditions means of expressing their concepts the same as a similar but distinctly different expression from another tradition, nor your interpretation the same as that traditions.

[Cafael Dust]

The quote explains the Buddha taught the mind is inherently luminous (nibbana) but covered with defilements (ignorance). Which is what I wrote previously - I think these are very basic Buddhist concepts held by pretty much all traditions. I don't think they're contentious assertions or that they don't make sense in the ideology of any tradition.