Luminious mind

[ground]

There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

[Sherab]

There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

I think the key word here is "appears".
Let's wait until someone actually reify something and we take it from there.

[ground]

There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

I think the key word here is "appears".
Let's wait until someone actually reify something and we take it from there.

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

It would seem to me that if defilements are not intrinsic to the luminous mind (the mind the meditator is trying to develop), then it is possible that the luminous mind is the same as/part of/aspect of the "consciousness without feature." Therefore the so-called development of the mind is not really development but merely named as such.

The question is: are you sure you can reasonably conflate all these "luminosities" to mean the same thing?

[Sherab]

There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

I think the key word here is "appears".
Let's wait until someone actually reify something and we take it from there.

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

[tiltbillings]

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

But that which is called 'mind [citta],' 'mentality [mano],' or 'consciousness [vi~n~naana]' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. - SN II 94-5

[tiltbillings]

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

Since this is in the General Theravada discussion section, let us keep this within a Theravadin framework, tying it to texts when possible.

[ground]

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

"Within a mind ..." Now that's postulating a difference of entity and reification

Kind regards

[Sherab]

It would seem to me that if defilements are not intrinsic to the luminous mind (the mind the meditator is trying to develop), then it is possible that the luminous mind is the same as/part of/aspect of the "consciousness without feature." Therefore the so-called development of the mind is not really development but merely named as such.

The question is: are you sure you can reasonably conflate all these "luminosities" to mean the same thing?

I don't know. That's one of the purpose of this discussion I guess.

[Sherab]

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

"Within a mind ..." Now that's postulating a difference of entity and reification

Kind regards

This is interesting. Please elaborate.

[Sherab]

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

Since this is in the General Theravada discussion section, let us keep this within a Theravadin framework, tying it to texts when possible.

Educate me. Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

[ground]

There is no difference between "mind" and "consciousness".
Applying the term "mind": Without object there is no "mind";
applying the term "consciousness": Without "being conscious of [an object]" there is no "consciousness".
Referring to the 12 links of DO:
"Mind" or "consciousness" are effected by ignorance and sankhara.

Kind regards

[ground]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

[Sherab]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked of Tiltbillings earlier:
Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

[tiltbillings]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked of Tiltbillings earlier:
Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

What do you mean by "a mind?"

[Sherab]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked of Tiltbillings earlier:
Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

What do you mean by "a mind?"

A complex of various consciousness. Now could you answer my earlier question?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sherab,

A complex of various consciousness.

Eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, body-consciousness, tongue-consciousness and mind-consciousness?

Metta,
Retro.

[Sherab]

Greetings Sherab,

A complex of various consciousness.

Eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, body-consciousness, tongue-consciousness and mind-consciousness?

Metta,
Retro.

Yes, at the very least, I think.

[ground]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked of Tiltbillings earlier:
Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

I cannot speak on behalf of Theravada. But what I am actually saying is that a valid assertion is based on direct perception.
Now the question is: What can be directly perceived?
Can "a mind" other than consciousness be perceived?
If "no", why assert "a mind" other than consciousness.
If "yes", can it be perceived through "being conscious" of it or not.
----If "yes", on what grounds is it asserted to be different from consciousness?
----If "no", why assert "a mind" at all?

Kind regards

[Sherab]

If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity.

Otherwise you would have to say something like "the meaning of 'mind' comprises/covers 'different consciousness'"

kind regards

Perhaps you could answer the question I asked of Tiltbillings earlier:
Are you saying that in Theravada, a mind = a consciousness at every moment?

I cannot speak on behalf of Theravada. But what I am actually saying is that a valid assertion is based on direct perception.
Now the question is: What can be directly perceived?
Can "a mind" other than consciousness be perceived?
If "no", why assert "a mind" other than consciousness.
If "yes", can it be perceived through "being conscious" of it or not.
----If "yes", on what grounds is it asserted to be different from consciousness?
----If "no", why assert "a mind" at all?

Kind regards

Because we need words/terms in order to communicate.

I have given the meaning of "mind" as I understand it namely that it is a complex of various consciousness.

However you said earlier "If you say "Within a mind, there are different consciousness." this is postulating different entities and reification of what you call "mind" as a separate entity." This seemed to imply to me that you are asserting that a mind = a consciousness at every moment. If you did not mean this, could you elaborate on what you actually meant?