Question about "location of mind"

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby dharmagoat » Fri May 31, 2013 4:12 am

monktastic wrote:
Saraha wrote:To realize this, rest in unstructured ease without meditating on anything. When all that needs to be done is to rest in yourself, it is amazing that you are deluded by seeking elsewhere!

I sometimes like to ask myself: are these seeming conceptual knots real things that can really be "too tight" to untie? Or is it only that repeated designation that gives them their seeming power? Truthfully, when I look, I cannot find anything that is an obstacle "from its own side."

As I understand it, it is these conceptual knots that prevent us from resting in unstructured ease in the first place. By "conceptual knots" I refer to ingrained concepts (self, permanence, existence, etc.) that hold us back from accepting the true nature of mind.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Location: Gone Bush

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby MalaBeads » Fri May 31, 2013 4:49 am

dharmagoat wrote: As I understand it, it is these conceptual knots that prevent us from resting in unstructured ease in the first place. By "conceptual knots" I refer to ingrained concepts (self, permanence, existence, etc.) that hold us back from accepting the true nature of mind.


:namaste:

My apologies, dharmagoat, for picking at the words you have chosen to use in your post. I am like that sometimes, very persnickety about language.

The nature of mind is not something that is accepted. Rather, it is something that is discovered.

You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go. Voila! Discovery.

I cant say much more though because my advice may not be useful for you.

Just picking lint off the rug here.

I will be quiet now.

Cheers.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby monktastic » Fri May 31, 2013 4:55 am

dharmagoat wrote:
monktastic wrote:
Saraha wrote:To realize this, rest in unstructured ease without meditating on anything. When all that needs to be done is to rest in yourself, it is amazing that you are deluded by seeking elsewhere!

I sometimes like to ask myself: are these seeming conceptual knots real things that can really be "too tight" to untie? Or is it only that repeated designation that gives them their seeming power? Truthfully, when I look, I cannot find anything that is an obstacle "from its own side."

As I understand it, it is these conceptual knots that prevent us from resting in unstructured ease in the first place. By "conceptual knots" I refer to ingrained concepts (self, permanence, existence, etc.) that hold us back from accepting the true nature of mind.


We are well beyond what I can speak about with any authority, but perhaps I can offer this much: conceiving of conceptual thoughts and knots as real things that prevent me from resting in unstructured ease, seems to be what primarily prevents me from resting in unstructured ease.

I apologize if this is not helpful.
Last edited by monktastic on Fri May 31, 2013 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby dharmagoat » Fri May 31, 2013 4:57 am

monktastic wrote:We are well beyond what I can speak about with any authority, but perhaps I can offer this much: conceiving of conceptual thoughts and knots as real things that prevent me from resting in unstructured ease, seems to be what primarily prevents me from resting in unstructured ease.

I apologize if this is not helpful.

Very helpful. Touché. :smile:
Last edited by dharmagoat on Fri May 31, 2013 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Location: Gone Bush

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby Jnana » Fri May 31, 2013 5:39 am

MalaBeads wrote:You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go. Voila! Discovery.

Yes, well, the dharma doesn't exist in a vacuum and realization doesn't occur based on mistaken views.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby Jnana » Fri May 31, 2013 5:47 am

rachmiel wrote:Please help me understand the Buddhist takes on these key terms. I'm hoping they can be "defined" in just a few words, i.e. the essence sans ornamentation ... ?

mind: ...

consciousness: ...

awareness: ...

It might be useful to provide some more explicit definitions of these terms from the perspective of the Indo-Tibetan Lorig teachings. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche's The Presentation of the Classifications of Mind, with commentary by Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen:

    We're going to look at the first point, the definitions of mind.

    There are definitions [of mind], because the definition of a mind is 'that which is clear and aware',

    The definition of mind (lo, T. blo) is that which is clear, which means the nature or essence of mind is clarity. Then we have the second part 'aware' which is expressing the function or action of mind, which is to be aware or to know or to cognize. What possesses the nature of clarity is aware of objects or it knows objects, it cognizes objects. That is the definition of mind.

    The definition of a consciousness is 'that which is aware of objects',

    Consciousness (she pa; T. shes pa) is that which is aware of objects whether they are a specifically characterized phenomenon or a generally characterized phenomenon.

    The definition of an awareness is 'that which experiences an object of comprehension'.

    Awareness (rig pa, T. rig pa) is defined as that which experiences an object of comprehension which also can be either a specifically characterized phenomenon or a generally characterized phenomenon. These three: mind, consciousness and awareness, are synonymous but they are different names. And they each have their own definition.

And this understanding of these terms is situated in the context of functional things. This is explained in Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche's The Miraculous Key, again with commentary by Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen:

    [W]e're now talking about 'things'. And we're going to begin by looking at the divisions of things in terms of their nature, which is divided into matter and mind. And matter means materiality, material-physical matter.

    The definition of matter is that which is made up of particles. That is synonymous with forms. The divisions [of matter] in terms of its nature are: external matter and internal matter.

External matter refers to forms, sounds, smells, tastes and tangible objects. Internal matter refers to the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body. Mind is not included among these material things. The Miraculous Key and commentary continue:

    Next we come to the second division here, that of consciousness.

    The definition of consciousness is that which is clear and knowing [or aware], which is not matter. Mind, knower [or awareness] and consciousness are synonyms.

    Consciousness is not matter. It is not composed of particles. It is that which is clear and knowing.

Thus, consciousness is not considered to be material and cannot be reduced to neurological brain processes.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby Wayfarer » Fri May 31, 2013 9:05 am

I would be interested to know how this view differs from the dualistic view of mind and body being different substances. Is it proposing that mind is an 'immaterial substance'?
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby heart » Fri May 31, 2013 10:13 am

jeeprs wrote:I would be interested to know how this view differs from the dualistic view of mind and body being different substances. Is it proposing that mind is an 'immaterial substance'?


You know that this is Buddhist forum right? All (most in any case) Buddhist believe that the source of the body is the mind. So they are not unrelated but one comes before the other.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3125
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby Jnana » Fri May 31, 2013 1:19 pm

jeeprs wrote:I would be interested to know how this view differs from the dualistic view of mind and body being different substances. Is it proposing that mind is an 'immaterial substance'?

According to the Vaibhāṣika tenets minds and matter are different substances (Skt. dravya, T. rdzas) and both are substantially existent (Skt. dravyasat, T. rdzas su yod pa). But as one progresses through the higher tenet systems (Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, & Madhyamaka) this ontology is subjected to criticism and further refined at each stage.

And so, while the ontology assumed in the Tibetan Dudra and Lorig texts may generally be aligned with the Sautrāntika tenets going back to Dharmakīrti, the classifications and definitions, etc., are still applicable as a useful framework of conventional designations even when their ontological status as ultimately existent substances or ultimately existent unique particulars is undercut by Madhyamaka reasoning.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby MalaBeads » Fri May 31, 2013 9:40 pm

Jnana wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go.

Yes, well, the dharma doesn't exist in a vacuum and realization doesn't occur based on mistaken views.


Thank you for the feedback, jnana.

I don't mean to imply that by letting go of accepting and rejecting, one automatically discovers the nature of mind. I only wanted to make clear that the nature of mind is not something that one 'accepts' but rather it is something that is 'discovered'.

I have amended what I wrote to reflect that.

My apologies.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby MalaBeads » Fri May 31, 2013 9:41 pm

MalaBeads wrote:
dharmagoat wrote: As I understand it, it is these conceptual knots that prevent us from resting in unstructured ease in the first place. By "conceptual knots" I refer to ingrained concepts (self, permanence, existence, etc.) that hold us back from accepting the true nature of mind.


:namaste:

My apologies, dharmagoat, for picking at the words you have chosen to use in your post. I am like that sometimes, very persnickety about language.

The nature of mind is not something that is accepted. Rather, it is something that is discovered.

You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go.

I cant say much more though because my advice may not be useful for you.

Just picking lint off the rug here.

I will be quiet now.

Cheers.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby dharmagoat » Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:09 am

MalaBeads wrote:The nature of mind is not something that is accepted. Rather, it is something that is discovered.

You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go.

:smile: I appreciate your lint-picking, it helps me to clarify what I am trying to say.

Interestingly, I initially wrote "experiencing the true nature of mind", then was reminded that there is a stage before that where many of us will find the need to consider what the true nature of mind actually is. To be able to accommodate this new concept we are required to rework some older, more limited concepts, which is what I mean when I write that these ingrained concepts "hold us back from accepting (and subsequently experiencing) the true nature of mind".
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Location: Gone Bush

Re: Question about "location of mind"

Postby MalaBeads » Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:11 am

dharmagoat wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:The nature of mind is not something that is accepted. Rather, it is something that is discovered.

You can spend many months contemplating what it is to 'accept' and/or 'reject' something and what it is to 'discover' something.

Or you can spend time learning in depth how the activity of 'accepting' and 'rejecting' functions in you. And once you really see this, you can let it go.

:smile: I appreciate your lint-picking, it helps me to clarify what I am trying to say.

Interestingly, I initially wrote "experiencing the true nature of mind", then was reminded that there is a stage before that where many of us will find the need to consider what the true nature of mind actually is. To be able to accommodate this new concept we are required to rework some older, more limited concepts, which is what I mean when I write that these ingrained concepts "hold us back from accepting (and subsequently experiencing) the true nature of mind".


:namaste:
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Astus, Bing [Bot], irishbuddhist, pemachophel and 22 guests

>