catmoon wrote:Well, I'd go easy on Muni there.
That is what I am doing too. Our styles of expression may be different.
catmoon wrote:What he is doing is, his level best to express the nonconceptual verbally. He's pointing a finger, not offering the moon. And I think I see where he's pointing.
Can anybody offer the moon? Nobody does and certainly nobody has the idea of doing that.
catmoon wrote:I was clinging to, or a least craving "nature of mind". In the above quote from Dudjom Rinpoche, he simply lists off some concepts that fail to contain the "nature of mind" and leaves it at that.
The nature of mind is emptiness. And that emptiness is no different from the emptiness of an apple. Period.
But whereas we all can perceive the correlate of "apple" through our physical senses we cannot perceive a correlate of "mind" in that way but by convention we infere "mind" from experiences like e.g. thoughts. Actually our physical senses also (not exclusively) cause the experiences from which we infer "mind". You may - by the way - replace "mind" by "consciousness" if conventionally convenient.
But if you look closer we also infere "apple" from experiences that - by the power of convention - we ascribe to our physical senses.
So actually there are only experiences and inferences manifesting through labeling. That exactly has been called "emptiness": Phenomena do not exist from their own side, do not exist inherently. "Phenomena" of course includes "experiences" which also do only exist through the power of convention.
Now considering all this what is the use of specially emphasizing the "nature of the mind"?
Kind regards