This does not contradict their claim that the essence of mind is unconditioned. If something is unconditioned it, by definition, has no beginning or end.binocular wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:43 pmIn contrast, in Buddhism, we get a standard formula like this:
“From an inconceivable beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN15_9.html
All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
That would mean that liberation is unattainable.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
exactly the oppositeThat would mean that liberation is unattainable.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
1:1 correspondences between terms in different languages has little to do with whether we lack the mental tools or the language to deal with concepts from another language. My thesaurus gives dozens of terms for concepts associated with mind, perception, thought, etc., and by judicious use of multiple terms, I guess we can handle most of what other cultures present us with. If we can't, then I wonder how anyone (yourself included) made any progress in that direction.
The old problem of induction would suggest that this tells us little of whether such a thing actually exists, though; and far less of whether less detailed and subtle analyses are any bar to understanding those texts.I have not come across any detailed and analysis of mind like that found in Abhidhamma and Abhidharma.
Of course I can, but I'm also aware of the dangers of déformation professionnelle. Current clinical psychology is one thing, and "Western thought" is another.You cannot see why training, education and experience in psychology could give somebody an insight into how limited the work on mind is?
Ah, yes, there's that equation between what you know and "Western thought" again. Spinoza and Hume and James didn't use the term "neurological pathways" at all, so far as I can remember...Western thought tends to focus on material (ie neurological) pathways.
Mind is generally considered to be a consequence of the brain and brain function
So, as a Westerner, you failed to understand because you lacked the technical language? Or, by judicious use of concepts, did you somehow manage to get around the problem?I believe our technical language fails us. That is the piece of equipment we are lacking.
Last edited by Sam Vara on Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
If the ultimate (which implies unconditioned) nature of mind is suffering, that means that it cannot be altered since it is not dependent on causes and conditions. In which case suffering is/was/will be forever.
How is it that liberation is possible then?
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
If the ultimate (which implies unconditioned) nature of mind is suffering, that means that it cannot be altered since it is not dependent on causes and conditions. In which case suffering is/was/will be forever.
How is it that liberation is possible then?
[/quote]
Suffering would be forever only if the mind was forever. Liberation might be liberation from, as opposed to of, the mind.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
By using their terms since some of them are essentially untranslatable.
I am not interested in philosophical gymnastics.The old problem of induction would suggest that this tells us little of whether such a thing actually exists, though; and far less of whether less detailed and subtle analyses are any bar to understanding those texts.
I didn't/wouldn't say that clinical psychology is all that Western thought has to offer on mind and it's functioning. But I would say that it is pretty bloody central.Of course I can, but I'm also aware of the dangers of déformation professionnelle. Current clinical psychology is one thing, and "Western thought" is another.
I do not believe that Spinoza and Hume can even hold a candle to Buddhist analysis of mind function. They are too trapped in the realm of theory. Like I said earlier: Buddhism is not a philosophy in the Western sense, it is a praxis.Ah, yes, there's that equation between what you know and "Western thought" again. Spinoza and Hume and James didn't use the term "neurological pathways" at all, so far as I can remember...
No, mainly because I have just adopted Buddhist terminology and the conceptual elaboration of the terms, rather than just throwing around the terms mind.So, as a Westerner, you failed to understand because you lacked the technical language?
Atman/Atta is another term which is wrongly translated into "self" or "soul" for Western consumption, when neither of these terms adequately defines it. I prefer to use the term "atman" and then describe it's characteristics. If any Western concept comes close to describing "atman", it is the Cathar Gnostic interpretation of the soul.
But that is a whole other discussion.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
Sure. But now you are saying that suffering is somehow separate to "mind", while we still have not defined the woefully inadequate term "mind".
Last edited by Grigoris on Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
If the nature of mind is unconditioned, then it is impossible to change the mind, to cleanse it. Thus, it will be forever defiled. But precisely because mind is totally conditioned, it is possible to cleanse it, and once the mind loses its craving to existence and self-sustaining, it stops reproducing itself, completely ceasing on final cessation (which is nibbana). This is what Buddha taught. Anything else is false non-Dhamma, the shelter of eternalists.If the ultimate (which implies unconditioned) nature of mind is suffering, that means that it cannot be altered since it is not dependent on causes and conditions. In which case suffering is/was/will be forever.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
1. I did not posit that the nature of mind is unconditioned.Zom wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:50 pmIf the nature of mind is unconditioned, then it is impossible to change the mind, to cleanse it. Thus, it will be forever defiled. But precisely because mind is totally conditioned, it is possible to cleanse it, and once the mind loses its craving to existence and self-sustaining, it stops reproducing itself, completely ceasing on final cessation (which is nibbana). This is what Buddha taught. Anything else is false non-Dhamma, the shelter of eternalists.If the ultimate (which implies unconditioned) nature of mind is suffering, that means that it cannot be altered since it is not dependent on causes and conditions. In which case suffering is/was/will be forever.
2. We still have not defined what is meant by mind. 3. Name calling is generally not considered an effective form of argumentation.ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
But you did: "If the ultimate (which implies unconditioned) nature...".I did not posit that the nature of mind is unconditioned
This is something that cognizes. But doesn't matter, really, since everything is suffering, impermanent, and notself.We still have not defined what is meant by mind.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
See my earlier point about 1:1 translation of terms. Had you not been able to translate their terms into concepts that you could understand, then you couldn't have used them.
I appreciate that, but that's more at the level of gentle stretching than gymnastics.I am not interested in philosophical gymnastics.
Maybe the bits you are missing lie somewhat off-centre...I didn't/wouldn't say that clinical psychology is all that Western thought has to offer on mind and it's functioning. But I would say that it is pretty bloody central.
Yes, I understand that, but the question is not one of direct comparison, or who is better or worse, or more theoretical or practical; it is one of whether "the West" gives us (via these and hundreds of other thinkers) the concepts by which we can understand what Buddhists in other cultures have thought and said.I do not believe that Spinoza and Hume can even hold a candle to Buddhist analysis of mind function. They are too trapped in the realm of theory. Like I said earlier: Buddhism is not a philosophy in the Western sense, it is a praxis.
Yes, hence my point on the futility of looking for 1:1 verbal correlations. That's always going to lead us astray. We often use a bundle of different English words in order to grasp a Buddhist term or phrase, and rightly so. That's what I mean when I say that "the West" furnishes us with the words and concepts we need in order to do that.No, mainly because I have just adopted Buddhist terminology and the conceptual elaboration of the terms, rather than just throwing around the terms mind.
Agreed, at least the first part. I don't know about Gnostic Cathars, but I'm interested in historico-theological gymnastics, so I'll have a Google!Atman/Atta is another term which is wrongly translated into "self" or "soul" for Western consumption, when neither of these terms adequately defines it. I prefer to use the term "atman" and then describe it's characteristics. If any Western concept comes close to describing "atman", it is the Cathar Gnostic interpretation of the soul.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
No, I've not got a position on this one. I'm not capable of defining the English term, and as far as I understand the various Buddhist candidates are used inconsistently. I'm just pointing out that things might be different from the way you portray them.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
Still beating the straw man, huh? And cherry picking too...
Don't mind me, please don't let me interrupt your conversation with yourself.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.
Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.
Re: All attachment and suffering are fundamentally voluntary.
Please tell me how I answered my own question...that question being "why do you recommend I go study some?" I still have no idea why you made the unsolicited recommendation.Grigoris wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:05 pmI think you have already answered your own question....but I do agree that from what I have seen it probably is an extremely nuanced anaysis of mind....but I'm not sure because I've not read enough of it to make that determination credibly.....why do you recommend I go study some?
chownah
chownah