The necessity of thought.

[steve]

17 minutes ago, Apech said:

structures are made to be broken?  but what about indestructible truth?

 

Indestructible truth is only indestructible because it is empty - no structure at all, even unimputable.

The unique characteristics of "space" are what make it such an apt and useful analogy.

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Indestructible truth is only indestructible because it is empty - no structure at all, even unimputable.

The unique characteristics of "space" are what make it such an apt and useful analogy.

 

But ... even structured things are empty ... let's not get our shunyas in a twist

[steve]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

But ... even structured things are empty ... let's not get our shunyas in a twist

 

Touché!

[Limahong]

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

... let's not get our shunyas in a twist

 

 

 

 

[forestofemptiness]

I would say it really depends on the path. Part of the issue here is that there are many people on many different paths, so trying to cross-correlate different definitions leads to confusion.  

From a Buddhist point of view, what we are trying to do is become free. As the Buddha reputedly said, "Just as the mighty ocean has but on taste, the taste of salt, so too has my teaching but one taste: the taste of freedom." If we are Buddhists, then we are becoming free of thoughts and everything else. Accordingly, with this goal, certain thoughts can help point one to freedom, but other thoughts (probably the vast majority) lead to delusion, clinging and craving. 

 

 

23 hours ago, Apech said:

Going back to my OP - can I restate my original question which hasn't been answered yet:

 

"We have at least three types of cognition and therefore thought going on in our minds simultaneously, and with varying levels of energy. And if we are not trying to put a stop to this continuous process, then what are we trying to do?"

 

 

 

 

 

[ilumairen]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

structures are made to be broken?  but what about indestructible truth?

Perhaps it would be more fitting to say “structures are made to be recognized”? 

You make a pretty good Dakini, kitty cat..

 

More seriously some structures are quite conventionally useful, like the language we’re using here, and the traffic light I stopped at earlier - which shouldn’t negate their ultimate emptiness. Although as someone who is not even at a stage of a middling practitioner, I sometimes still get lost in my dreams - both day time and night. And while the intellectual understanding of the union of form and emptiness is generally present, it doesn’t always manifest as deeper realization.

 

[Apech]

13 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

I would say it really depends on the path. Part of the issue here is that there are many people on many different paths, so trying to cross-correlate different definitions leads to confusion.  

From a Buddhist point of view, what we are trying to do is become free. As the Buddha reputedly said, "Just as the mighty ocean has but on taste, the taste of salt, so too has my teaching but one taste: the taste of freedom." If we are Buddhists, then we are becoming free of thoughts and everything else. Accordingly, with this goal, certain thoughts can help point one to freedom, but other thoughts (probably the vast majority) lead to delusion, clinging and craving. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would say, if I was asked, that it is not the thoughts that are the problem but the attachment to them and even more the attachment of self to them.  When the Buddha talks of freedom he is speaking to the end of clinging, the end of wanting, or any attachment to outcomes.  So the problem is that we are all wooled up, like a tangled thread and we can't see the wool for trees.  Understanding how we think, how thoughts work, how the mind appears to function, getting to the root of it, seeing it how it really is, this is our path.

 

 

[Daemon]

Compare

 

27 minutes ago, Apech said:

Understanding how we think, how thoughts work, how the mind appears to function, getting to the root of it, seeing it how it really is, this is our path.

 

and contrast

 

28 minutes ago, Apech said:

When the Buddha talks of freedom he is speaking to the end of clinging, the end of wanting, or any attachment to outcomes.

 

☮️

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Daemon said:

Compare

 

 

and contrast

 

 

☮️

 

 

Do you see some contradiction?

[Daemon]

26 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Do you see some contradiction?

 

I see some circularity, possibily brought about by attempts by the mind to understand the mind by using the mind. Thinking about thinking is an infinite regression. It is similar to trying to think about infinity. However I am not asserting that it is a pointless endeavour because if you are able to persist without going mad in the process, it may convince you of the futility of that attempt and thereby provide an opening into directly knowing reality.

 

☮️

 

[neti neti]

15 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

I see some circularity, possibily brought about by attempts by the mind to understand the mind by using the mind. Thinking about thinking is an infinite regression. It is similar to trying to think about infinity. However I am not asserting that it is a pointless endeavour because if you are able to persist without going mad in the process, it may convince you of the futility of that attempt and thereby provide an opening into directly knowing reality.

 

☮️

 

 

 

[EmeraldHead]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

With respect, I have concerns regarding your usage of the terms Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, and (in previous posts) Dharmakaya.

It's a tricky subject and definitions may vary a bit depending on school and whether the instruction is in sutra, tantra, or dzogchen. I generally view the 3 kayas as the spontaneous expression of enlightened qualities in body, speech, and mind. I freely admit my understanding is limited. It's taken me years to develop a sense of what these terms point to and it's still a work in progress. I'd be interested in how you understand or define the 3 kayas if you feel like sharing.

Understandable, respectfully.

 

Sure. I mostly talk what I could confirm following experiences. I refer to traditional buddhism here. The trikaya is present in every traditions. They are 3 bodies present always, hence even a dog has buddha nature. Not sure what you mean by "spontaneous" or "expressions" . Calling them expressions sounds like a dzogchen view of them, to me. Like looking from the top of the mountain downwards. 

 

So Nirmanakaya is this body. In the traditional view of 3 kayas without breaking into 9 or 16 or 5 or whatever the 5 skhandas belong to the Nirmanakaya. The Nirmanakaya is the manifested universe or at least our essence / body here. As such it is bound to die earlier or later. Gotamas Nirmanakaya contracted as universal essence after 80 years and went on to reincarnate after some time or whatever...

 

Sambogakaya is the seed of manifestation, also part of the universe but not accessible to normal beings. Boddhisattvas, etc can access it / 'evoke' at this level of reality.

 

Dharmakaya is one to lead to cessation of reincarnation.

 

However even one stable in/as Dharmakaya will have the Sambogakaya somewhere in it's layer of the universe/existence and Nirmanakaya somewhere in the manifested universe. If not incarnated then as essence, essentially floating across time/space in the manifested time/space / universe... aka after death they don't extinguish but the essence of the Nirmanakaya remains with the universe, it is not a divine substance and won't 'ascend' or become Sambogakaya or Dharmakaya. It's like matter cannot become mind as some may think...

 

Is this clear friends?

 

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nirmanakaya " is defined as a rupakaya or 'form body' that arises from the ruling condition of the sambhogakaya "  " In Tibetan Buddhism : One is the manifestation of a completely realized Buddha ; another is a seemingly ordinary being  ; "

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sambhogakaya " is defined as a 'form body' (rupakaya) of a buddha, which appears only to bodhisattvas and is the basis for the arising of the nirmanakaya  " So Nirmanakaya is placed, at least in this traditional framework of Trikaya, as being under the Sambogakaya.

 

--

Now regarding what I said, I see 3 points in my previous post. I've asked on Buddhist forums before and people agreed in the traditional view at least, the 5 skhandas belong to or are part of the Nirmanakaya. The Sambogakaya does not have these skhandas. The Nirmanakaya like the 5 skhandas are eternally changing and non-permanent. Like the manifested universe ( /manifested anything ).

 

> Of course no comment made in the relation of the 5 skandas in relation to other views of kayas like vajrayana was it? has the Nirmankaya of Nirmanakaya, of Sambogakaya and of the Dharmakaya, then the Sambogakaya of Nirmanakaya, of Sambogakaya and so on....

 

Disagree?

--

Now, if you build prana or practice candle flame meditation your concentration improves right? So what does this mean that a sentient, normal being who does this will be able to evoke Sambogakaya which appears to boddhisattvas ? No. So I said, concentration belongs to Nirmanakaya.

 

While you will need a concentrated mind the concentration is not the Sambogakaya and Dharmakaya. It is the brain that concentrates. The brain of the body/Nirmanakaya.

--

Spoiler

§ 17. [A certain monk:] "Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness?"
 

[The Buddha:] "Monk, the four great existents [earth, water, fire, & wind] are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

— MN 109

So towards the end I talked about the 5 skhandas in a subjective, rather than objective practice/way. I said, in the terms of the stuff in the spoiler tag^: For the form skhanda (rupakkhandha) the 4 existents (elements) are the cause and condition for it.

Similarly for the 3 next skhandas contact is the cause and condition. Lastly for the consciousness skhanda Name-&-form is the cause and condition.

 

 

So Steve, how do you understand the 5 skhandas ? in Dzogchens at least

 

 

(If this is considered off topic, anyone just pm me to delete this post and I will subtly without leaving a trace on the thread.)

Edited August 23, 2020 by EmeraldHead

[steve]

2 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

Not sure what you mean by "spontaneous" or "expressions" . Calling them expressions sounds like a dzogchen view of them, to me. Like looking from the top of the mountain downwards. 

 

Spontaneous refers to the fact that we do nothing to create them or even cultivate them directly. If our view and practice are correct and we have faith and devotion, they manifest spontaneously, expressed as enlightened qualities in our body, speech, and mind. Yes, most of what I post is related to the dzogchen view, as I understand it.

 

2 hours ago, EmeraldHead said:

So Steve, how do you understand the 5 skhandas ? in Dzogchens at least

No different in dzogchen as compared to sutra or tantra, I suspect - the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. 

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, Daemon said:

I see some circularity, possibility brought about by attempts by the mind to understand the mind by using the mind.

 

Hi Daemon,

 

You have almost come full circle... 

 

 

 

- Anand

 

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

 

 

 WORSE THAN SERIOUSLY.. !?

 

 

[neti neti]

Mods: new thread, please:

 

The necessity of GMO's. 

[Limahong]

5 hours ago, neti neti said:

The necessity of GMO's. 

 

 

 

[dwai]

18 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I would say, if I was asked, that it is not the thoughts that are the problem but the attachment to them and even more the attachment of self to them. 

I’d say that even the “self” that attaches to the thoughts is essentially empty and dependently co-arising. But the clear light of awareness neither dependently co-arises nor is it swabhava-shunya. 

18 hours ago, Apech said:

When the Buddha talks of freedom he is speaking to the end of clinging, the end of wanting, or any attachment to outcomes.  So the problem is that we are all wooled up, like a tangled thread and we can't see the wool for trees.  Understanding how we think, how thoughts work, how the mind appears to function, getting to the root of it, seeing it how it really is, this is our path.

 

 

Nicely put. But it’s not possible to understand how the mind functions and how thoughts work without having a clear vocabulary and classification of the “mind”.
 

BTW that is not just the Buddhist path, but rather is the path of jnana yoga in all Indic traditions.  

[Apech]

57 minutes ago, dwai said:

I’d say that even the “self” that attaches to the thoughts is essentially empty and dependently co-arising. But the clear light of awareness neither dependently co-arises nor is it swabhava-shunya. 

Nicely put. But it’s not possible to understand how the mind functions and how thoughts work without having a clear vocabulary and classification of the “mind”.
 

BTW that is not just the Buddhist path, but rather is the path of jnana yoga in all Indic traditions.  

 

Yes I agree.  Although I tend to think Buddhist and technically am a Buddhist - as I was trying to say before I think it is the whole Indic tradition that provides our vocabulary for these subjects.

 

I did not intend this thread to be Buddhist in any way - but just to explore the necessity of thought - why we think, what it is for, what path it can take us on.  I suspect the reason for the facility of the Sanskrit is because we converse in language which is PIE based - and so even if it is very different has some of the same conceptual undertones.

 

And Jnana Yoga brings me nicely on to the next point - which is the role of thought in 'knowing' - as everyone knows I am sure the words are etymologically linked.

 

What does it mean to 'know' something??????

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

But it’s not possible to understand how the mind functions and how thoughts work without having a clear vocabulary and classification of the “mind”.

 

Hi dwai,

 

What is the relevance of a clear vocabulary when the English language is wishy-washy?

Can there ever be a clear classification of the "mind" when it is in parenthesis?

 

On 8/22/2020 at 3:01 AM, dwai said:

The problem is with the wishy-washy English language when it comes to the mind and it’s contents (aka thoughts).

 

Content only? How about context?

 

- Anand

 

[forestofemptiness]

That is why you're not a Buddhist. Emptiness is at the heart of Buddhism, IME. 

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

I’d say that even the “self” that attaches to the thoughts is essentially empty and dependently co-arising. But the clear light of awareness neither dependently co-arises nor is it swabhava-shunya. 

 

 

There is clear vocabulary in the Buddhist traditions, but, as with everything, it depends on what you're practicing. I have found that in practice situations, the terms have specific experiential components. The distinction between say, mind and matter in Theravada is something that is only fully understood in the context of meditation. Typically, the concepts are used in an attempt to point beyond concepts, although this point is often missed in my opinion. Giving up concepts is difficult, probably even more difficult than giving up sex and coffee. There are always concepts that we tend to treasure more than others. 

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

I’d say that even the “self” that attaches to the thoughts is essentially empty and dependently co-arising. But the clear light of awareness neither dependently co-arises nor is it swabhava-shunya. 

Nicely put. But it’s not possible to understand how the mind functions and how thoughts work without having a clear vocabulary and classification of the “mind”.
 

BTW that is not just the Buddhist path, but rather is the path of jnana yoga in all Indic traditions.  

 

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai,

 

What is the relevance of a clear vocabulary when the English language is wishy-washy?

There is clearly an opportunity to improve the vocabulary...import words and concepts which are missing  

6 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Can there ever be a clear classification of the "mind" when it is in parenthesis?

Why not? "Mind" comprises of four components --

1. field of thoughts
2. a storehouse of memories and impressions
3. intellect
4. identity affixer 

6 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

 

Content only? How about context?

 

- Anand

 

Context comes after we can understand content. For example, you've been given a big sealed bag and told to do something with it. You open the bag and see some white powders, some small crystalline granules, a big blob of yellow slick substance, two white oval objects which seem to have something squishy inside, and a rectangular pan. 

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Context comes after we can understand content. For example, you've been given a big sealed bag and told to do something with it. You open the bag and see some white powders, some small crystalline granules, a big blob of yellow slick substance, two white oval objects which seem to have something squishy inside, and a rectangular pan. 

 

Set up a crystal meth lab?

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Set up a crystal meth lab?

 

[Limahong]

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

There is clearly an opportunity to improve the vocabulary...import words and concepts which are missing

 

Vocabulary is alive - ever living and growing?

 

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

Why not? "Mind" comprises of four components -

1. "field of thoughts"
2. "a storehouse of memories and impressions"
3. "intellect"
4. "identity affixer"

Nothing else?

 

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

Context comes after we can understand content.

 

If context and content ~ coexist... how can... context comes after we can understand content...?