Mind versus Self?

[oushi]

That is a simple misunderstanding, and I would categorize meaning in the same way as you did. I would even go and equate emptiness with meaninglessness.

You could just as easily turn around and equate meaning with emptiness. Meaning is empty and yet arises due to its emptiness. So where has your theorising landed you then? Smack bang in samsara again.

Any other takers?

You just stated that by choosing meaning, you end up in samsara. I agree. Tell me something about the meaningless.

[futerko]

I'll put my money on all 4 - from various perspectives..

Indecision, huh? That doesn't help much either.

lol, no, I'm spread betting!
I think all 4 are valid as a progression, a process rather than as ends in themselves.

[gregkavarnos]

You just stated that by choosing meaning, you end up in samsara. I agree. Tell me something about the meaningless.

You end up in samsara. Refer to option two of the tetralema I outlined. It's called nihilism.

[gregkavarnos]

lol, no, I'm spread betting!
I think all 4 are valid as a progression, a process rather than as ends in themselves.

How can grasping to any extreme view (or hypothetical non-view) help one progress?

[futerko]

lol, no, I'm spread betting!
I think all 4 are valid as a progression, a process rather than as ends in themselves.

How can grasping to any extreme view (or hypothetical non-view) help one progress?

If it were possible to simply not grasp - then it would be easy and we'd all be Buddhas.

There is meaning in realisation. - at first we believe there is some magical answer which will look like a content to thought which we can grasp.
Realisation is meaningless. - then we realise it's the opposite, no graspable content to thought, just letting go.
Realisation is meaningful and meaningless. - then we seen the value in the structure of having no substantial thought content.
Relalisation is neither meaningful nor meaningless. - then we let it dissolve.

rinse and repeat...There is meaning in realisation - we let meaning creep back in, this time with a lighter grasp...
and with subsequent cycles increasing sublety and less grasping.

[oushi]

You just stated that by choosing meaning, you end up in samsara. I agree. Tell me something about the meaningless.

You end up in samsara. Refer to option two of the tetralema I outlined. It's called nihilism.

This is a statement, not a proof.
Words point to meaning, that is their role. What does "meaningless" point to? Therefore it can be seen that it doesn't have a position, because even "meaningless", is meaningless. Very simple

Realisation is meaningless. - then we realise

Excuse me, but this is a paradox. When you "realise", you grasp meaning, don't you?

[gregkavarnos]

If it were possible to simply not grasp - then it would be easy and we'd all be Buddhas.

There is meaning in realisation. - at first we believe there is some magical answer which will look like a content to thought which we can grasp.
Realisation is meaningless. - then we realise it's the opposite, no graspable content to thought, just letting go.
Realisation is meaningful and meaningless. - then we seen the value in the structure of having no substantial thought content.
Relalisation is neither meaningful nor meaningless. - then we let it dissolve.

rinse and repeat...There is meaning in realisation - we let meaning creep back in, this time with a lighter grasp...
and with subsequent cycles increasing sublety and less grasping.

Rinse and repeat = samsara. No siree, Middle Way all the way to liberation!

Yes, it is not simple to not grasp, but everything we are doing is designed to get us beyond the dualism of attachment and aversion. Otherwise it just becomes another fetter (view) and I've got a closet full of those!

[futerko]

Realisation is meaningless. - then we realise

Excuse me, but this is a paradox. When you "realise", you grasp meaning, don't you?

That's why it's only stage 2 in the theory I just made up.

Rinse and repeat=samsata. No siree, Middle Way all the way to liberation!

Yes, it is not simple to not grasp, but everything we are doing is designed to get us beyond the dualism of attachment and aversion. Otherwise it just becomes another fetter (view) and I've got a closet full of those!

I wasn't suggesting this was an intentional process, more like an inevitable cycle due to the nature of our current embodiments.

[gregkavarnos]

This is a statement, not a proof.

You didn't ask for a proof.

Words point to meaning, that is their role. What does "meaningless" point to?

What does "nonsense" point to? What does "empty" point to, ad nauseum...

Therefore it can be seen that it doesn't have a position, because even "meaningless", is meaningless. Very simple

Dude, people can reify anything. Even emptiness. Actually reifying emptiness is quite a common flaw for Dharma practitioners. So be careful. Very careful!

[oushi]

You didn't ask for a proof.

Nor for statement. Still, opinions are always welcome.

What does "nonsense" point to?

Answering with question to a question won't bring any good result.

Dude, people can reify anything. Even emptiness. Actually reifying emptiness is quite a common flaw for Dharma practitioners. So be careful. Very careful!

As long as you see meaning in something, there is indeed a risk of reification. Can you reify something meaningless?

"Therefore, Subhuti, the minds of all disciples should be purified of all thoughts that relate to seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and discriminating. They should use their minds spontaneously and naturally, without being constrained by preconceived notions arising from the senses."

Bold mine, text by Buddha.

[gregkavarnos]

Answering with question to a question won't bring any good result.

This is a very weak attempt to ignore my point.

As long as you see meaning in something, there is indeed a risk of reification

What does meaninglessness mean? It means...

I guess that is the pitfall of signifiers.

But whenever you posit an opposite to something, for example: meaning vs meaningless then you have created a dualism. Even when you do not want to. You propose meaninglessness as being beyond dualism. Bzzzzzzt! Wrong! All you have done is present the opposite to meaning.
Another example: is cold the absence of heat or an independent condition? One could also posit that heat is the absence of cold. Or that heat is an indpendent condition. What ever you do it is a trap. A trap of language? A trap of cognition? Are these two seperate anyway? Obviously not. So as long as we are trapped in ignorance and dualism (mistaken cognition) whatever we propose will just perpetuate the cycle.

As long as you see meaning in something, there is indeed a risk of reification. Can you reify something meaningless?

Realisation is meaninglessness. What is realisation? It is... Oh look, I just reified meaninglessness! Gee, wasn't that hard!?

[oushi]

What does meaninglessness mean? It means...

Precisely. A way out...

But whenever you posit an opposite to something, for example: meaning vs meaningless then you have created a dualism.

No doubt. That's the nature of language. Very limited... by meaning.

You propose meaninglessness as being beyond dualism. Bzzzzzzt! Wrong! All you have done is present the opposite to meaning.

Yes, a finger that directly point to the moon. Meaninglessness as a concept is just a concept, but very unusual one that changes its meaning when applied. Like swinging doors. What is meaninglessness from the perspective devoid of meaning?
"Therefore, Subhuti, disciples should leave behind all distinctions of phenomena and awaken the thought of the attainment of Supreme Enlightenment. A disciple should do this by not allowing their mind to depend upon ideas evoked by the world of the senses - by not allowing their mind to depend upon ideas stirred by sounds, odors, flavors, sensory touch, or any other qualities."
Those ideas, what are they beside meaning? People do not attach to sound of world, but to their meaning.

So as long as we are trapped in ignorance and dualism

Where is the duality when there is no meaning?

What is realisation? It is... Oh look, I just reified meaninglessness!

I see no meaning in this, nor do I feel a need to reify it.

[gregkavarnos]

Those ideas, what are they beside meaning? People do not attach to sound of world, but to their meaning.

And as soon as you propose a word you set up a meaning. The word meaningless has a meaning.

Where is the duality when there is no meaning?

Meaning-meaningless. Full-empty. Sense-nonsense. Useful-useless.

PS I am now fed up and finished with this meaningless word game that I have been having with you.

[oushi]

Ok. It was nice talking with you.

[gregkavarnos]

Oh, just one detail, that may be important: in Sanskrit ignorance is avidya, lack of undersanding; while vidya is right knowledge or clarity.
So you go from not having something to having something.

[anjali]

If it were possible to simply not grasp - then it would be easy and we'd all be Buddhas.

Yes, it is not simple to not grasp, but everything we are doing is designed to get us beyond the dualism of attachment and aversion.

Apparently, the problem is that it is simple. In fact, it's too simple and we don't believe it! A long time ago I read a quote by an advaita sage that made a lasting impression on me, "A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts."

Here is the full quote, "There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now."

[gregkavarnos]

From the start
the sky is pure;

looking and looking,
you only block up the view.

Stopping up the sky
like that,

flawed in his innermost thought,
the fool is uncomprehending.

Saraha Tantric Treasures: Three Collections of Verse from Buddhist India

[Karma Dorje]

Apparently, the problem is that it is simple. In fact, it's too simple and we don't believe it! A long time ago I read a quote by an advaita sage that made a lasting impression on me, "A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts."

Here is the full quote, "There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now."

Yes, and those that are looking for a buddha outside Buddhism need look no further than this sage, Shri Ramana Maharshi. Anyone with the slightest experience of mahamudra or dzogchen understanding will immediately recognize what he is pointing to time and again.

[greentara]

Anjali, You're quoting Ramana Maharshi. He is often spoken of as an Advaitic sage but his devotion was just as pronounced. Certainly his love for Arunachala was total.
"What did it profit thee to choose me from all those struggling in samsara. Ocean of grace even to think of thee puts me to shame'

[oushi]

Oh, just one detail, that may be important: in Sanskrit ignorance is avidya, lack of undersanding; while vidya is right knowledge or clarity.
So you go from not having something to having something.

Do I? Or do You?
How much knowledge does an infant have? How much clarity, and how much Buddha nature?
A small quote here:

If you understand anything, you don’t understand. Only when you understand nothing is it true understanding. Understanding is neither understanding nor not understanding.
The sutras say, "Not to let go of wisdom is stupidity." When the mind doesn't exist, understanding and not understanding are both true.