"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:33 pm

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: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:02 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 5876
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:08 pm

Cafael,
please don't interpret outside of the context used.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:21 pm

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

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

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

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
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:24 pm

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
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:27 pm

"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
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:32 pm

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

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 5876
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:36 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:38 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 5876
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:49 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:50 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:02 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:15 pm

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: 2624
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

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

Postby alan » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:26 pm

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
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:36 pm

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.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:40 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:Tilt:

Ignorance is not a 'real' thing, it's a conditioned thing and hence unreal.

That is not what Buddhism - Theravada or Mahayana (Nagarjuna) - teaches. I have no idea of what you are talking about.

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 have seen no reason, based upon my experience and study that I should listen to you over any number of others who understand the Buddha’s teachings based upon their experience and study. What you are offering is fairly confused stuff.

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 have not seen any other path outlined or explained as the Buddha has done, or nibbana defined in the way it is done by the Buddha. You claim that other paths lead to what the Buddha taught. I am waiting for you to show us.

Rather than go on arguing, I wonder if we could find common ground. What is your view of nibbana?
Why should I answer your question when continue to ignore mine to you?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

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

Postby christopher::: » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:44 pm

Hey friends,

Seems like there's a cyclic deja vu quality to this discussion. :tongue: Hope everyone is well, and that greater familiarity with our mysterious "luminous" minds (as they are) awaits each of us, in the new year...

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: By the River Thames near London.

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

Postby Sanghamitta » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:52 pm

What luminous minds ? Where do they occur in the Khandas ? Unless we are Non Returners our citta is obscured by kilesas.
Last edited by Sanghamitta on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 5876
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:56 pm

Cafael Dust wrote: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.


which passage? if you are refering to the passage you quoted you should give your interpretation of its meaning first.

your making claims of being akin to the Buddha to some extent, and being a teacher here?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:58 pm

No, I'm not making any such claims and it's clear from my post that I wasn't. My point was that there is nothing to appeal to except experience, not mine but yours. That's a fundamental problem when dealing with inner life.

Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.

However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.

If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This commentary might help. I am in agreement with Buddha here and was mistaken before.

My meditative experiences led me to construe nibbana as a ground to being, but the Buddha explains the problem with doing so. 'Ground to being' is an unneeded inference.

I was aware when speaking that this is only a description, however, and thus inherently flawed.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." —


There is, monks, that dimension where there is neither earth nor water, nor fire nor wind, nor dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, nor this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis, nor passing away, nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests