Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Coëmgenu »

Are you sure? Have you never, even as a youngling, did something that you knew was wrong but did it anyways?

You don't have to answer honestly. It's actually a very personal question.

I've done things as a child that I knew were wrong as I did them. Maybe I've done such things as a teenager and 20-something year-old too. It's possible.

Sometimes you know something is bad, but you either lie to yourself or are too deluded to realize that you knew it was wrong at the time.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:41 pm Are you sure?
For the unattractive there is no desire
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Coëmgenu »

cappuccino wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:47 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:41 pm Are you sure?
For the unattractive there is no desire
Many ugly men who wish for girlfriends would disagree, but I digress. I feel like we've communicated everything we need to. You are by no means banned from speaking to me on those grounds however. We'll maybe go back to topic, "we" meaning everyone reading the thread and posting.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

Joe.c wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:45 pm
pegembara wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:02 pm The way I see it is the pure citta which is pure knowing. But like pure water, it can be colored and obscured.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It is aware of the arising and the ending of all experiences.

Somewhat like space which must be present for objects to exist. And yet without the objects one would never have known that it was there all along.
I reviewed AN 1.49-AN 1.52 before and again, i didn’t see statement about Citta is the knowing.

On AN 1.51 and AN 1.52, this only compares between puthujjana mind vs ariya savaka mind. Nowhere it said Citta know or aware the arising and ending of all experiences. :shrug:
Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
What is the connection between this discourse with the one before? I’m confused. This discourse is just to described how to end the world. So Nibbana can be experienced here and now, no need to go anywhere.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

For the normal person, they are only aware of the contents of their mind and are usually identified with them. Eg. My thoughts and opinions. Through meditation practice say to a point of minimal thoughts there’s an awareness or knowing that is brought into the foreground when you withdraw your attention to the mind content. Becoming aware of awareness is the term. A “subject” that’s quite distinct from the content.

It’s confusingly called “the one who knows” in the Thai tradition. I prefer the term knowing. Like breathing is just breathing. Or peeing is just peeing.

Like oil and water.
https://www.lionsroar.com/like-oil-and-water/amp/

viewtopic.php?t=609
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by equilibrium »

xabir wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:25 pm
equilibrium wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:39 pm
xabir wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:10 pm …… There is no "The Unconditioned" or "The Unborn" or "The Deathless" as some sort of metaphysical essence. …..
….. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; …..
Contradictions above…..Many text provided but perhaps you have not understood the true meaning for most of them?
iti 37:

The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight.

The escape from that
is

calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.
AN 10.29:

"There are some brahmans & contemplatives who proclaim the foremost Unbinding in the here-&-now. Now, of those who proclaim the foremost Unbinding in the here-&-now, this is supreme: liberation through non-clinging, having known, as they actually are present, the arising, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks of, & the escape from the six sense-contact media. And when I teach that, when I point that out, some brahmans & contemplatives accuse me of being false, unfactual, hollow, vain, [saying,] 'Gotama the contemplative does not declare the full comprehension of sensuality, does not declare the full comprehension of forms, does not declare the full comprehension of feelings.' But I do declare the full comprehension of sensuality, I do declare the full comprehension of forms, I do declare the full comprehension of feelings. Unhungering, unbound, cooled in the here-&-now, I declare total Unbinding from lack of clinging."
Emptiness!
The quotes you provided does not support a metaphysical essence.

Nibbana is cessation of the three poisons, it is not a metaphysical essence that truly exists on its own.
In that dimension, the usage of words are limited, for obvious reasons (not obvious for most) ….. one must use extra care in the choice of words as it doesn’t apply here at the summit of knowledge. … eg. the red word “exists”.

For the words “metaphysical essence”, are mere words that points to something, it can be any other words in that matter, then as long one understands the usage to illustrate/point to, then word usage here isn’t an issue really.

The teachings are clearly “transcendent” per the above quotation already provided….. it’s a perfect illustration of the middle-way.

Notice on how we wrongly grasp and the difference on when it’s properly viewed:
SN 12.15:
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Joe.c
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Joe.c »

pegembara wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:37 pm For the normal person, they are only aware of the contents of their mind and are usually identified with them. Eg. My thoughts and opinions. Through meditation practice say to a point of minimal thoughts there’s an awareness or knowing that is brought into the foreground when you withdraw your attention to the mind content. Becoming aware of awareness is the term. A “subject” that’s quite distinct from the content.

It’s confusingly called “the one who knows” in the Thai tradition. I prefer the term knowing. Like breathing is just breathing. Or peeing is just peeing.

Like oil and water.
https://www.lionsroar.com/like-oil-and-water/amp/

viewtopic.php?t=609
Please refer to MN 43, maybe understanding this Sutta is better.
“Wisdom and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—

what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?”
imesaṁ dhammānaṁ saṁsaṭṭhānaṁ no visaṁsaṭṭhānaṁ kiṁ nānākaraṇan”ti?

Wisdom and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—

“The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.”
imesaṁ dhammānaṁ saṁsaṭṭhānaṁ no visaṁsaṭṭhānaṁ paññā bhāvetabbā, viññāṇaṁ pariññeyyaṁ.
Through meditation practice say to a point of minimal thoughts there’s an awareness or knowing that is brought into the foreground when you withdraw your attention to the mind content
There won’t be any thoughts after 2nd jhana onwards. When one is at 4th jhana the awareness/consciousness is pure. See MN 43.
“What can be known by purified mind consciousness released from the five senses?”
“Nissaṭṭhena hāvuso, pañcahi indriyehi parisuddhena manoviññāṇena kiṁ neyyan”ti? Variant: Nissaṭṭhena hāvuso → nissaṭṭhena panāvuso (?)

“Aware that ‘space is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’ it can know the dimension of nothingness.”
“Nissaṭṭhena, āvuso, pañcahi indriyehi parisuddhena manoviññāṇena ‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ neyyaṁ, ‘anantaṁ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ neyyaṁ, ‘natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ neyyan”ti.
Note: Im referring to jhana in Samma Samadhi. Not regular non-ariya jhana.

But if one is at this level, one should be at least at non returner level. I doubt even a stream enterer will know all this. I would think it is better to focus on entering the stream, don’t you think?
May you be relax, happy, comfortable and free of dukkhas from hearing true dhamma.
May you gain unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma and (Ariya) Sangha.
Learn about Buddha/Dhamma Characters.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:05 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:03 pm Precisely. There is a "you," but it changes. "You" is a self. A self that changes. That is why I presented your view as such. I'm pretty familiar with how you present your views, having read for posts for over seven years now.
somehow there is a you


on some level……
That is not the correct view.

For the correct view you should read Vajira Sutta and Walpola Rahula’s book, very important:


Vajira Sutta:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.


Excerpt from Walpola Rahula:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taug ... 0802130313

It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (viññāṇa) should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasized, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.
One of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name, held that the Master taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by ‘consciousness’. Sāti reply is classical: ‘It is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there’.

‘To whomever, you stupid one’, remonstrated the Master, ‘have you heard me expounding the doctrines in this manner? Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions: that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions’. Then the Buddha went on to explain consciousness in detail: ‘Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises: on account of the eye and visible forms arises a consciousness, and it is called visual consciousness; on account of the ear and sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises consciousness, and it is called olfactory consciousness; on account of the tongue and tastes arises a consciousness, and it is called gustatory consciousness; on account of the body and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and it is called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness, and it is called mental consciousness.’
Then the Buddha explained it further by an illustration: A fire is named according to the material on account of which it burns. A fire may burn on account of wood, add it is called wood-fire. It may burn on account of straw, and then it is called straw-fire. So consciousness is named account to the condition through which it arises.[57]

Dwelling on this point, Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explains: ‘… a fire that burns on account of wood burns only when there is a supply, but dies down in that very place when it (the supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has changed, but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate of sense organ (i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the condition) is no more there, because then the condition has changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become auditory consciousness and so on…’[58]

The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says:

‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭham), and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means… or perception as its means… or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its objects, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.

‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’[59]

Very briefly these are the five Aggregates. What we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccaṃ tam dukkhaṃ). This is the true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha’. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

‘O Brāhmaṇa, it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on flowing and continuing. So Brāhmaṇa, is human life, like a mountain river.’[60] As the Buddha told Raṭṭhapāla: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’

One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self (Ātman), individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any one of those mental activities, nor consciousness can really be called ‘I’.[61] But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine,[62] we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
These five Aggregate together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha itself (saṃkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:

‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

pegembara wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:37 pm
Joe.c wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:45 pm
pegembara wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:02 pm The way I see it is the pure citta which is pure knowing. But like pure water, it can be colored and obscured.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It is aware of the arising and the ending of all experiences.

Somewhat like space which must be present for objects to exist. And yet without the objects one would never have known that it was there all along.
I reviewed AN 1.49-AN 1.52 before and again, i didn’t see statement about Citta is the knowing.

On AN 1.51 and AN 1.52, this only compares between puthujjana mind vs ariya savaka mind. Nowhere it said Citta know or aware the arising and ending of all experiences. :shrug:
Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
What is the connection between this discourse with the one before? I’m confused. This discourse is just to described how to end the world. So Nibbana can be experienced here and now, no need to go anywhere.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

For the normal person, they are only aware of the contents of their mind and are usually identified with them. Eg. My thoughts and opinions. Through meditation practice say to a point of minimal thoughts there’s an awareness or knowing that is brought into the foreground when you withdraw your attention to the mind content. Becoming aware of awareness is the term. A “subject” that’s quite distinct from the content.

It’s confusingly called “the one who knows” in the Thai tradition. I prefer the term knowing. Like breathing is just breathing. Or peeing is just peeing.

Like oil and water.
https://www.lionsroar.com/like-oil-and-water/amp/

viewtopic.php?t=609
As a preliminary realization, that is ok, even important. But the next step after that will be to contemplate and penetrate anatta.

Ajahn Brahm who has gone through what my blog calls the “I AM realization” or poo roo realization has this to say:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/ ... avada.html

Yu
Ajahn brahmavamso criticising teachers who get stuck at I AM:
From Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond
The Buddha’s Word on the One Who Knows
Even some good, practicing monks fail to breach illusion’s last line of defense, the knower. They take “the one who knows,” “the original mind,” “the pure knowing,” or some other descriptions of the citta as the ultimate and permanent reality. To be accurate, such concepts belong to the teachings of Hinduism and not to Buddhism, for the Buddha clearly refuted these theories as not penetrating deeply enough.
For instance, in the first sutta in the first collection of Buddhist scriptures, the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Buddha described in detail sixty-two types of wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi). Wrong view number eight is the opinion that the thing that is called citta, or mind (mano), or consciousness (viññāṇa) is the permanent self (attā)—stable, eternal, not subject to change, forever the same (DN 1,2,13). Thus maintaining that “the one who knows” is eternal is micchā diṭṭhi, wrong view, says the Buddha.
In the Nidāna Saṃyutta, the Buddha states:
But, bhikkhus, that which is called “mind” [citta] and “mentality” [mano] and “consciousness” [viññāṇa]—the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: “This is mine, this I am, this is self.”…
It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self [attā] this body…because this body…is seen standing…for [as long as] a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called “mind” and “mentality” and “consciousness” arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. (SN 12,61)
However, just as the hard scientific evidence mentioned earlier cannot dislodge the view that it is oneself who is the doer, so even the hard scriptural evidence of the Buddha’s own teachings is unable on its own to dislodge the view that “the one who knows” is the ultimate entity, the attā. Some even argue that these Buddhist texts must have been changed, solely on the grounds that the texts disagree with their view!
Such irrational stubbornness comes from bhavataṇhā, the craving to be. Bhavataṇhā is so strong that one is prepared to let go of almost everything—possessions, one’s body, and one’s thoughts—as long as one is finally left with something, some tiny spot of existence, in order to be. After all, one wants to enjoy parinibbāna, thoroughgoing extinction, having worked so hard to get there. Bhavataṇhā is why many great meditators are unable to agree with the Buddha and make that final leap of renunciation that lets go of absolutely everything, including the citta. Even though the Buddha said that “nothing is worth adhering to” (sabbe dhammā nālam abhinivesāya) (MN 37,3), people still adhere to the citta. They continue to hold on to the knower and elevate it to unwarranted levels of mystical profundity by calling it “the ground of all being,” “union with God,” “the original mind,” etc.—even though the Buddha strongly refuted all such clinging, saying that all levels of being stink, the way even a tiny speck of feces on one’s hand stinks (AN I,18,13).
One needs the experiences of many jhānas, combined with a sound knowledge of the Buddha’s own teachings, in order to break through the barrier of bhavataṇhā, the craving to be, and see for oneself that what some call “the citta,” “mind,” “consciousness,” or “the one who knows” is only an empty process, one that is fueled by the craving to be and blinded by the delusion of permanence, but which is clearly of the nature to cease absolutely and leave nothing at all remaining (...)



1d

Soh Wei Yu
Ajahn brahmavamso on anatta insight:
Excerpt from
https://www.dhammatalks.net/.../Ajahn_Brahm_BAHIYA_S...
The Final Part of Bāhiya's Teaching
"Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen, ... in the cognized will merely be what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that'. When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
What does it mean "you will not be 'because of that'"? The Pāli is na tena. Tena is the instrumental of the word for 'that'. Na is the negative. It means, literally, "not because of that, not through that, not by that". It means in essence, you will not assume that there is a self, a soul, a me; because of, through, or by; the seen or the heard or the sensed or the cognized. The Buddha is saying that once you have penetrated the truth of sensory experience, by suppressing the Hindrances through Jhāna, you will see that there is no 'doer', nor a 'knower', behind sensory experience. No longer will you be able to use sensory experience as evidence for a self. Descartes' famous "I am because I think" is refuted. You will not be because of thinking, nor because of seeing, hearing or sensing. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be because of that (any sensory experience)".
When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life. In the words of the doctor in the original series of Star Trek, "It is life, Jim, but not as we know it"! There is no longer any sense of self, or soul, at the centre of experience. You are no more 'in that'.
Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape non-existence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world). The last phrase comprehensively confounded the sophists!
In summary, the Buddha advised both Bāhiya and Venerable Mālunkyaputta to experience the Jhānas to suppress the Five Hindrances. Thereby one will discern with certainty the absence of a self or a soul behind the sensory process. Consequently, sensory experience will never again be taken as evidence of a 'knower' or a 'doer': such that you will never imagine a self or a soul at the centre of experience, nor beyond, nor anywhere else. Bāhiya's Teaching put in a nutshell the way to the realization of No-Self, Anattā. "Just this", concluded the Buddha "is the end of suffering".
DHAMMATALKS.NET
Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING
Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:11 am That is not the correct view.

Vajira Sutta
"Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"


Yamaka Sutta
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 12:12 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:11 am That is not the correct view.

Vajira Sutta
"Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"


Yamaka Sutta
If you had understood Yamaka Sutta you will see how it is completed consistent with Vajira Sutta.

As I explained to you earlier, and you did not seem to understand:

Annihilationism is the belief that something existent becomes non-existent. Since I do not hold that a self/Self/Pure Consciousness has an inherent existence to begin with, how could I say that 'it' later becomes non-existent?

This is also the 'position' of Buddha:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/ ... elf_1.html


Buddha in Yamaka Sutta:
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, friend.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?””

Buddha in Anuradha Sutta:
"Then, Anuraadha, since in this very life the Tathaagata is not to be regarded as really and truly existing, is it proper for you to declare of him: 'Friends, he who is a Tathaagata... can be described otherwise than in these four ways...'?"[5]
"No indeed, Lord."
"Good, good, Anuraadha. As before, so now I proclaim just suffering and the ceasing of suffering." - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .wlsh.html
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:24 pm As I explained to you earlier, and you did not seem to understand:
Nothing is what it seems
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:40 pm
Citta. The citta is the mind’s essential knowing nature, the funda- mental quality of knowing that underlies all sentient existence. When associated with a physical body, it is referred to as “mind” or “heart.” The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows.” The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies. Ultimately, the “knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesas) within it.

Uncommon Wisdom
Ajahn Pannavaddho
Excellent Advaita Vedānta, poor Buddhadhamma.
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya wrote:In Hindu philosophy, turiya (Sanskrit: तुरीय, meaning "the fourth") or chaturiya, chaturtha, is pure consciousness. Turiya is the background that underlies and pervades the three common states of consciousness. The three common states of consciousness are: waking state, dreaming state, and dreamless deep sleep.
wrote:Not inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive,
not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive,
unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark,
non-thinkable, that cannot be designated, the essence of assurance,
of which is the state of being one with the Self
the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second,
such they think is the fourth. He is the Self (Atman). He should be discerned.

— Mandukya Upanishad 7, [4]
wrote: Advaita also posits the fourth state of Turiya, which some describe as pure consciousness, the background that underlies and transcends these three common states of consciousness.[web 1][web 2] Turiya is the state of liberation, where according to the Advaita school, one experiences the infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), that is free from the dualistic experience, the state in which ajativada, non-origination, is apprehended.
notice that in that state(turiya) a non-origination is apprehended. Whatever that means, turiya is an actual state.
wrote:According to Candradhara Sarma, Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized, it is measureless, neither cause nor effect, all pervading, without suffering, blissful, changeless, self-luminous, real, immanent in all things and transcendent.[11] Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the Jivanmukta.[12][13][14]
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

In the final analysis, Hui Neng was right in stating that there was originally no mirror, so where can the dust alight.

This is also the point of Ajahn Brahm
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajah ... Things.htm

When we say it rains, we simply don’t assume that “it” points to anything. It’s the same with the use of the statement I see, think, experience, know.

There isn’t a real screen(of consciousness) on which a movie is shown. That so called screen could be virtually anything. The screen is a function that allows a movie to play. Without the movie there’s no screen to speak of! Dependently arisen. Not two.

In the seeing just the seen… no you here, there or in between.

Bahiya Sutta

In fact-
There isn’t anything that inherently exists. All are mere constructions from parts, themselves also constructions. From the whole universe to the tiny atoms- nothing is indivisible. Existing only by convention, a sum of parts. Empty, coreless, without essence. Without self ie. without an atta.
Last edited by pegembara on Sat May 07, 2022 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

pegembara wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 2:38 pm
Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around
:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of consciousness
each is here brought to an end.


Kevatta Sutta
Last edited by cappuccino on Sat May 07, 2022 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

pegembara wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 2:38 pm In fact-
There isn’t anything that inherently exists. Without self
Do you want annihilation?
Post Reply