The entrance of wishlessness

[Malcolm]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

This is one root of your various misunderstandings. Cessations cannot be caused nor conditions. Causes and conditions do not lead to cessations, they only lead to further causes and conditions. A cessation is the absence of causes and conditions.

[ground]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

This is one root of your various misunderstandings. Cessations cannot be caused nor conditions. Causes and conditions do not lead to cessations, they only lead to further causes and conditions. A cessation is the absence of causes and conditions.

On the one hand you are right but on the other hand you are wrong.

You are right that in the correlate of what is called "cessation" there do not inhere causes or conditions or the workings of causes or conditions.

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

It is, in the Tathagatagarbha, but due to our ignorance we only perceive the "other side" of the coin: samsara. But this dichotomy: samsara and nirvana (cessation) also does not exist.

Hey! Give up
the lies that bind;

Be free
from what leads you astray!

In consciousness of that,
there is no other;

in realization,
everything is that.

Or to put it another way

Existence is Nirvana-
Indeed they can't be
considred apart;

one, lacking any nature -
to me they are completely stainless.

Saraha in the book Tantric Treasures: Three Collections of Mystical Verse from Buddhist India Roger R. Jackson

[ground]

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

It is, in the Tathagatagarbha, ...

Views ...

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

Views ...

Kind regards

Baseless and unsubstantited opinion...

[Sherab]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

So what do you think the "entrance" or "door" of wishlessness means?

It is a metaphor for a "cause" or "condition".

Kind regards

The entrance/door of wishlessness is a metaphor for a cause/condition? Could you be more precise?

[gregkavarnos]

Back to the OP, would it be (or it may be) valid to say that the brain is linked to the functioning of the conditioned mind because it seems to me that all of the experiences and effects reported have to do with the relative/conditioned functions of mind: perception (mind as sense organ fits into this category), thought, speech, imagination, sensation, feeling, emotion, etc...

Enlightenment, realisations, meditative absorption (after the second jhana) etc... are beyond conceptualisation and (maybe) do not rely on the brain? I would though like to see these experiments conducted on experienced meditators (during meditative absorption) before I could draw any valid conclusions (as a trained behavioural psychologist).

[Malcolm]

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

The consequence of your assertion is that the putative correlate of a "cessation" is conditioned, and therefore impermanent. Therefore, the correlate of "nirvana" would be conditioned and impermanent. Thus you are in contradiction with the Buddha's teaching that the correlate of the term "nirvana" is unconditioned and permanent. Since the putative correlate of a "cessation" ceases due to an absence of a cause, the correlate of a "cessation" cannot be predicated until such putative correlates of a "cause" are no longer present.

This use of language is cumbersome.

In plainer language, since you assert that a cessation is caused, cessations as a consequence would be conditioned. The negative consequence that you have to accept is that nirvana would be conditioned.

Accept the three wheels. Anything that arises from a cause is a conditioned dharma. If you assert that cessations are caused, you are asserting they are conditioned.

N

[ground]

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

The consequence of your assertion is that the putative correlate of a "cessation" is conditioned, and therefore impermanent. Therefore, the correlate of "nirvana" would be conditioned and impermanent. Thus you are in contradiction with the Buddha's teaching that the correlate of the term "nirvana" is unconditioned and permanent. Since the putative correlate of a "cessation" ceases due to an absence of a cause, the correlate of a "cessation" cannot be predicated until such putative correlates of a "cause" are no longer present.

This use of language is cumbersome.

So you preferred to ignore the "you are right" statement but preferred to project your ideas onto the "you are wrong" statement.

Language is not cumbersome but a means to express "aspects" or different perspectives.

Obviously you are seeing "more" in language than just this.

In plainer language, since you assert that a cessation is caused, cessations as a consequence would be conditioned. The negative consequence that you have to accept is that nirvana would be conditioned.

Accept the three wheels. Anything that arises from a cause is a conditioned dharma. If you assert that cessations are caused, you are asserting they are conditioned.

N

Your conclusions are not valid since you are presupposing the intent of my words to be what you are deciding at will.

You are actually insisting on your idea of reified "conditioned."

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Language is not cumbersome but a means to express "aspects" or different perspectives.

Your use of language is cumbersome and unnecessarily conceptually reified.

Obviously you are seeing "more" in language than just this.

No, I see language as an interference, and find your language use to more interfering than normal. Language is inherently conceptual.

Your conclusions are not valid since you are presupposing the intent of my words to be what you are deciding at will.

My conclusion is valid, since they suppose the evidence of what you have said.

You are actually insisting on your idea of reified "conditioned."

No, I am insisting that in common discourse there are accepted definitions of terms. If you try to redefine "conditioned" to mean something other than what people commonly understand, then you are only talking to yourself.

I conclude therefore, that you are not actually having conversations with people, but are merely engaged in a self-involved dialogue with yourself.

Oh, the misunderstood genius, Tmingyur.

N

[ground]

You are actually insisting on your idea of reified "conditioned."

No, I am insisting that in common discourse there are accepted definitions of terms. If you try to redefine "conditioned" to mean something other than what people commonly understand, then you are only talking to yourself.

I conclude therefore, that you are not actually having conversations with people, but are merely engaged in a self-involved dialogue with yourself.

Oh, the misunderstood genius, Tmingyur.

N

I have presented two contexts of linguistically dealing with "causes and conditions":

On the one hand you are right but on the other hand you are wrong.

You are right that in the correlate of what is called "cessation" there do not inhere causes or conditions or the workings of causes or conditions.

You are wrong in that if the correlate of what is called "cessation" whould not be caused then it would be manifest in the first place.

Kind regards

but you seem to insist on one generally valid context containing all other contexts. A sort of "absolutist" perspective often coinciding with the belief in some thought "absolute".

having conversation with you is not un-complicated but worthwhile nevertheless and good practice.


Kind regards

[Malcolm]

but you seem to insist on one generally valid context containing all other contexts. A sort of "absolutist" perspective often coinciding with the belief in some thought "absolute".

having conversation with you is not un-complicated but worthwhile nevertheless and good practice.


Kind regards

There is conventional language, and private language.

You prefer the latter, I prefer the former. It makes it easier to get across to people what they need to understand for their liberation.

[ground]

but you seem to insist on one generally valid context containing all other contexts. A sort of "absolutist" perspective often coinciding with the belief in some thought "absolute".

having conversation with you is not un-complicated but worthwhile nevertheless and good practice.


Kind regards

There is conventional language, and private language.

You prefer the latter, I prefer the former. It makes it easier to get across to people what they need to understand for their liberation.

That is another absolutist argument: To claim that oneself possesses authority of some "convention" while simply ignoring the variety of contexts conventional language can be applied and the impermanence of meanings.

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

TMingyur wishes to avoid "Dharma Language" or the conventional vocabulary in use (here and elsewhere) when discussing the Dharma, because he feels that such language all-too-easily allows for reification.

[Mr. G]

However he will now have to use a tertiary abstraction of language to avoid reification of his normal secondary abstraction of language. It's turtles all the way down.....

[gregkavarnos]

Reminds me of the early post-structuralists, nobody understood a single thing they were saying, not even they themselves, so everybody could use what they were saying to prove and deny their personal positions even if they were diametrically opposed.

I think the demotic phrase is "talkin' loud, sayin' nothin'"

[ground]

TMingyur wishes to avoid "Dharma Language" or the conventional vocabulary in use (here and elsewhere) when discussing the Dharma, because he feels that such language all-too-easily allows for reification.

No. It is about language, terms and terminology, manifesting mere fabrication or not.

However if one assumes that mere fabrication is liberating then it may appear appropriate.

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

No. It is about language, terms and terminology, manifesting mere fabrication or not.

Language terms and terminology can only manifest fabrications, that is the nature of language and the nature of (ignorant) conceptualising mind. The only way to avoid fabrications is through enlightnement, and this cannot be achieved by playing childish word games on an internet forum.

However if one assumes that mere fabrication is liberating then it may appear appropriate.

You are the only person here that is assuming this. Nobody has ever said that a term can be liberating. Language is there for us to attempt to communicate experience. If we cannot agree on the definitions of the terms then we may as well frabagle back to our hribatible in order to wrosipitate our quinsholible. Don't you agree?

PS One of the deadliest mistakes you make in many of the discussions here on this forum is to confuse a lack of agreement (by the disagreeing party) with a lack of knowledge/understanding (by the disagreeing party). You assume that everybody that disagrees with you is an ignorant fool.

[Malcolm]

That is another absolutist argument: To claim that oneself possesses authority of some "convention" while simply ignoring the variety of contexts conventional language can be applied and the impermanence of meanings.

Kind regards

Tmingyur: if you want to talk Italians, speak Italian. If you want to talk to Russians, speak Russian. If you want to talk to Thervadins, use their dharma terminology. If you have to speak to Mahāyānists, use their terminology.

Otherwise, you meet with little success in your attempt to corral others into understanding your point of view. People don't have the time, generally, do deal with each and every person's private linguistic hell.

N

[Malcolm]

TMingyur wishes to avoid "Dharma Language" or the conventional vocabulary in use (here and elsewhere) when discussing the Dharma, because he feels that such language all-too-easily allows for reification.

No. It is about language, terms and terminology, manifesting mere fabrication or not.

However if one assumes that mere fabrication is liberating then it may appear appropriate.

Kind regards

Your use of language has no less danger of manifesting "fabrications" than any other. Your theory of "correlates" does not save you from this.

You're just busy reinventing the wheel.

N