"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Yes, Manapa, mind is the ground of being, mind is God, mind is nibbana, when perceived correctly.

To say there is nothing separating the everyday from nibbana is like saying there are no waves on the ocean. A wave is nothing permanent or essential, it is the motion of water; at no moment is there anything that can be said to be a wave, there is only water, itself made up of waves of motion or vibration, as is all matter, though there is nothing in motion but motion itself. If we see consciousness in this light, when movement ceases, there is nibbana. It is what is beneath or beyond movement in my model, what is left when the waves flatline, it is what is irreducible.

We examine the movement of consciousness through vispassana meditation. Through examination, motion ceases of its own accord, not because we still it, but because we realise it is empty, that there is no such movement. Movement can only occur in relative terms; realising the ground of being is to realise that from the perspective of the whole, there is no movement. Then there is only the ease of falling in love.

This doesn't mean anything changes though - a lot of people imagine that everything goes white and merges in nibbana, but that's kind of missing the point. Experiences like this can be had, but eventually we learn not to cling to them or see them as special.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:Yes, Manapa, mind is the ground of being, mind is God, mind is nibbana, when perceived correctly.
When asked where the Buddha in the Pali texts claimed any of this, you simply ignore the question and continue with your make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff. Kind of hard to take your claims seriously
, though there is nothing in motion but motion itself. If we see consciousness in this light, when movement ceases, there is nibbana. It is what is beneath or beyond movement in my model, what is left when the waves flatline, it is what is irreducible.
Says who?
We examine the movement of consciousness through vispassana meditation. Through examination, motion ceases of its own accord, not because we still it, but because we realise it is empty, that there is no such movement. Movement can only occur in relative terms; realising the ground of being is to realise that from the perspective of the whole, there is no movement. Then there is only the ease of falling in love.
You claim that there is a ground of being, a term better suited for Hinduism, but you have not shown that it has any validity in terms of the Buddha's teachings or that what you are describing reflects the Buddha's teaching.

Why does your experience trump others? I see a lot of confusion coming from you, taking stuff to be other than it is, but I do not see the clarity of the Buddha's teachings in what you say.
>> 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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

Cafael,
please don't interpret outside of the context used.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

That's ok, Tilt. These things can be written a million different ways and not be adequate.

I used the luminous quote a long while ago 'the mind is inherently luminous'. I still see that as my argument won.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JAsCVE ... us&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha introduces the element in this way: “Then there remains only consciousness, bright and purified.” It’s just possible that he was referring here to mind’s intrinsically empty nature, or he may simply have meant that the mind has been brightened and purified by letting go of grasping after the other five elements.
http://www.tricycle.com/-practice/what- ... f?page=0,3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the difference, really, Tilt? If, and please consider this carefully, when a needle is sharpened, are we creating the point or revealing it? Both are conceptual fudges of the issue. Speaking of grounds of being or attainments to be achieved are the same approximations, just skillful means to the goal.

Buddha had no need to speak of a ground of being, it's only one way of interpreting things and not essential for the path. Besides, it had been discussed ad nauseam in his India.
34. As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara.

35. Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How is this not what I said in different word-clothing?
45. "Suppose there were a pool of water — sullied, turbid, and muddy. A man with good eyesight standing there on the bank would not see shells, gravel, and pebbles, or shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? Because of the sullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with a sullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is impossible. Why is that? Because of the sullied nature of his mind."

46. "Suppose there were a pool of water — clear, limpid, and unsullied. A man with good eyesight standing there on the bank would see shells, gravel, & pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? Because of the unsullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with an unsullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is possible. Why is that? Because of the unsullied nature of his mind."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Manapa, please be specific. In my experience broad criticisms are very effective at winning debates but not so effective at approaching knowledge.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

"See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:
"See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And you really have any idea of this text means? Don't think so. All too easy to mistake experiences along the way for what you think you are describing.
>> 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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

Cafael Dust wrote:Manapa, please be specific. In my experience broad criticisms are very effective at winning debates but not so effective at approaching knowledge.
Who is trying to win a debate?
in my experiance claims of achievement are best left aside.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:Manapa, please be specific. In my experience broad criticisms are very effective at winning debates but not so effective at approaching knowledge.
You have frequently gone out of your way not to be specific at all. You want to look at this as a debate, that is your choice, but if you are going to debate, then I would expect an actual debate, not just a vague appeal to your experience as the final arbiter of what is so about the Buddha's teachings.
>> 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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

Cafael Dust wrote:Yes, Manapa, mind is the ground of being, mind is God, mind is nibbana, when perceived correctly.
as my original reply was after this post it should of been a safe bet to assume it was this post I was referring to! fabricating what I had put into one thing when the concepts and their individual context are not one thing, without support for them being one thing.

claiming something to be correct does not make it correct.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote: As to how I define these things in a Buddhist sense: the soul is nibbana. Nibbana is dwelling in God's presence.
Not any Buddhist sense I heard or experienced
Essentially, there is nothing but nibbana, only beginningless ignorance, not itself an element, not itself real, keeps us in samsara.
This is simply Hinduism, and it makes no sense. If there is nothing but nibbana, then ignorance is nibbana.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

This bears repeating because it was not really addressed :
tiltbillings wrote:
Cafael Dust wrote:Tilt:

There is no such thing as Buddhism, there are just sounds that are perceived as sounding like 'Buddhism' and 'Buddha', people sitting cross legged on the floor and so on, even these can be broken down and shown to be empty, even concepts like 'sound', so how can something that is intrinsically empty of self nature, of essence, make claims of being the only path to enlightenment? How can Buddhists say on one hand 'there is no path' and on the other 'this is the only path'. It's ridiculous.
Ah, well, then there is no such thing as really killing someone; it is all empty. There is no such things rape; it is all empty, have no greater or lesser value as motivation and as an action than compassion and love - that is, following your line of thought. It would seem you have no idea what emptiness is either as a teaching or as an experience. You have made the classic emptiness blunder.
even concepts like 'sound', so how can something that is intrinsically empty of self nature, of essence, make claims of being the only path to enlightenment? Basically, you are claiming because something is empty, one thing is no different than another.

You have not shown that because all paths are supposed empty they can - do - lead to, talk about the same goal. You have claimed, but you have given a reason explanation as to why this is so.
>> 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
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Tilt:

Ignorance is not a 'real' thing, it's a conditioned thing and hence unreal. As I said, there's nothing moving but movement; 20th century physics confirms this.
not just a vague appeal to your experience as the final arbiter of what is so about the Buddha's teachings.
I agree, I have been at fault when I've appealed to experience in the context of debate. Buddha did the same thing though, and asked others to confirm his teachings through practice. I don't suggest that my discourse is anywhere near the same level though, but it may be useful in some small way. However you are right in that I should post my experience in the Personal Experience forum and not confuse it with evidence to support my assertions in debate.

Tilt: With regards to your last post, neither have you or anyone else i've ever read given a reasonable explanation as to why Buddhism is the only path to Nibbana. I've heard all the arguments and they are all in some way circular. The bottom line is that we can't know such a thing but it seems ludicrous to me to imagine that it is the only path.

Rather than go on arguing, I wonder if we could find common ground. What is your view of nibbana? I would like to hear a definition as close to what you feel is the orthodox position as possible. Also your view of love, what is love? (in a Theravada context).

Manapa:

What is the orthodox interpretation of that passage?

In all sincerity, when I read the Pali Scriptures I am at a loss to explain how I could agree on a deep level with so much text while misinterpreting all of it, but I am open to the possibility. I've disagreed with other Buddhist writers, I disagree profoundly with much of Eckhart Tolle's work, for instance, and a lot of Theosophical ideas, which I do think misrepresent Buddhism(only waded through Tolle's muddy ramblings because I had nothing else to read while travelling...), but I don't tend to disagree with the Pali Sutras, in terms of fundamental ideas I think I've never disagreed with them.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by alan »

Cafael, your posts are starting to worry me. They have long since passed rational and are starting to get prophetic.
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Oh dear... well in that case as I say above, better to start listening. I have requested explanations of some terms from a Theravada perspective, and I think that'll be useful to see where I'm going wrong in my interpretation.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Locked