Empty Mind

[Acchantika]

"Non-attachment" does not mean "detachment". One implies awareness, the other a lack thereof.

Er... no? Depends on which definition you're looking at. I believe you're talking about "emotional detachment" in psychology, whereas I was thinking of "philosophical detachment", which requires anything but "unawareness".

My point was pragmatic, not semantic.

Non-attachment, or "philosophical detachment", as you call it, in the context of Buddhist practice is allowing concepts to self-liberate into their own condition, i.e., neither accepting nor rejecting them as they arise. Right or wrong, that is my understanding of the term.

Therefore, it is not "detaching the intellect from conceptual constructions" as you stated, which is rejecting, and equivalent to trying to "use concepts to think oneself out of concepts" and thus a subtle form of the problematic thinking your opening post was concerning. It further implies that conceptual constructions and the intellect are seperate phenomena.

Thus my original point: one cannot use concepts to think oneself out of concepts.

Or not. Here we go again. This is a view diametrically opposed to Emptiness, as all views are, so: No, liberation is Only attainable by using concepts to think oneself out of concepts. Just like you're doing this very moment. ( )

I am not talking about a view of emptiness. I am talking about avoiding a view of emptiness without taking its negation as a view.

[LastLegend]

LL: Hint: There is no generalizable right answer to the question "In what manner is the mind empty?" that is communicable in conventional language. Even silence is a wrong answer. "Mind is not matter" is no more an expression of Emptiness than anything else you might say, including "Mind is matter."

1) That question you asked is a philosophical question. And therefore you will get a philosophical answer. Western philosophy is based on sensual senses and thinking (the 6th consciousness in Buddhism). I am saying you will have a problem trying to get behind emptiness.

2) Western philosophy seems to play with semantics. In this respect, I will respond "mind is not matter" means it is not tangible. And at subatomic level, you will not be able to find mind or consciousness in quarks. You cannot get behind mind or consciousness. But consciousness or mind is what we experience.

As for the rest, have you looked at the Apophatic Theology article?

I am all about the practical aspect, about experience. You seem to come from a philosophical view. So you are about playing with semantics and statements.

[Quiet Heart]

What mind is it that is empty?

Answer: that mind which contains no conceptualizations (using your term)

Inside each human being born that percieves the world there is a "mind" that wants to catergorise and conceptualise the world it percieves. From the very day of that human being's birth, a "sentient being", this mind which is called the "Ego Mind"...the mind that says "I am", "I want", "I like and I dislike"...categorises and classifies the perceptions fed to it by the senses. This "Ego Mind" becomes our "reality", our world view.
These conceptualizations and categorizations are not real, but merely illusions/delusions created by our "Ego Mind".
To open the student's mind to that reality the teacher uses a variety of tricks and methods to break the student away from his belief in that "Ego Mind" and it's illusions/delusions. When the teacher feels that the student has reached the stage where he/she has arrived at that place where he/she has begun to doubt his/her "Ego Mind", the teacher may challange the student....What mind is it that is empty?
If the student is at that point he/she may realise the answer..."It is MY "Ego Mind" that is truely empty".
Then the teacher may tell him/her..."that mind which contains no conceptalisations is empty"...in order to finalise his/her understanding.

What emptiness is it that is mind?

That's the 2nd part...but a lot deeper.
I'll leave that pafrt for you to figure out.

[devilyoudont]

So you are about playing with semantics and statements.

And having fun doing it, whereas you, from your words, appear to be unaware that you're doing the same. Praxis is not intrinsically free from the grip of conceptual polarizability.

Thanks, all.

[DarwidHalim]

What mind is it that is empty?

What emptiness is it that is mind?

There is neither mind nor emptiness.
There is neither no-mind nor no-emptiness.

So, what can you expect from your question?