I've provided references, but they do not convince you. Here are more supporting my statements:
"Just as, of all trees, the balsam is foremost in terms of softness and pliancy, in the same way I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, is as soft & pliant as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, is soft & pliant."
This is similar to the description I posted of the uncultivated mind as moving water. A cultivated mind is indeed soft and pliant, it doesn't try to go its own way against the grain of reality. All that I added to the descriptions was the zen idea that the mind only appears
to be unpliant and in turmoil.
"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
"When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
"When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
I posted earlier that vispassana dispels our ignorance as to our own essentially tranquil nature. As I asked before when people disputed the idea of 'essentially tranquil', 'when one sharpens a point, is the sharpness revealed or created?'. I tend to visualise this as 'revealed', whereas in the Theravada 'created' seems to be orthodox. I am open to arguments on this, and it does seem to be that the Buddha explained things in terms of the latter concept.
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.
"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
Samsara is fabricated, nibbana is unfabricated, as I argued earlier. It isn't a combination of relative objects, it is irreducible.
"Sir, those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. That's how it strikes me."
Every teaching of this nature is a good one, as I argued earlier. Where I differ from some people is that I expect that there are other such teachings, though I don't cling to this idea as I can't prove it. I do however disapprove of clinging to the opposite idea.
gabrielbranbury: I do agree absolutely that the Buddhist goal is the only goal, in fact the only thing worth having at all, since all other relative gains are in light of samsara's nature poisoned chalices. I'm a fundamentalist on this point. But I also believe that other words have described the same goal.
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication.
As I say, I was wrong to describe nibbana in the terms I used. I stand corrected in this. I suppose that rather than saying nibbana is love, I should instead say 'the highest happiness', as the Buddha said. I suppose I see 'the highest happiness' combined with 'benefitting other beings' as love, but that's just how I use words, I don't think it's a path breaker.
I can carry on providing references. I do know the Pali Canon fairly well in terms of having read most of it many times (scattergun though so there may be the odd sutra I've missed), though I've been in developing countries in South America without much internet access for the last year and a half and can't remember what I've read offhand as well as I used to be able to.