Making sense of types of thought

[LastLegend]

What is grasping?

'There are these four kinds of grasping. Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self. Grasping originates from craving. Grasping ceases when craving ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of grasping is simply this noble eightfold path'
(MN 9)

Since you said Buddha nature is a concept, so then what is grasping itself? Or how does it work in mind?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Buddha nature itself is a quality that all beings have the potential to realize. It was there even before anyone had any concept of it.

What is that quality? Is it a quality of the aggregates or not? If it is of the aggregates, it is just as impermanent and empty as they are. If it is not a quality of the aggregates, what would it have to do with beings?

It’s a potential.
The potential to become fully awakened.
A potential isn’t made or not made of aggregates.

[Astus]

Since you said Buddha nature is a concept, so then what is grasping itself? Or how does it work in mind?

If you're looking for more in depth explanations, you can start with the Abhidharmakosabhasya for instance.

'Craving ("thirst") (tṛṣṇā) is the state [of the five aggregates] of those who desire enjoyments and sexual union. Grasping (upādāna) is to be distinguished [from craving]: it is the state [of the five aggregates] of those who run around in search of the enjoyments.'
(AKB 3.23, tr Gelong Lodrö Sangpo, for more see 5.38-40)

[Astus]

It’s a potential.
The potential to become fully awakened.
A potential isn’t made or not made of aggregates.

A potential is not a quality but a hypothesised event, and although beings have a higher likelihood of becoming hell-dwellers than buddhas, I don't see much talk of our hellish nature. Also, imagining a future possibility is very much conceptual.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It’s a potential.
The potential to become fully awakened.
A potential isn’t made or not made of aggregates.

A potential is not a quality but a hypothesised event, and although beings have a higher likelihood of becoming hell-dwellers than buddhas, I don't see much talk of our hellish nature. Also, imagining a future possibility is very much conceptual.

I’m afraid you are wrong here.
Perhaps it would help to think of Buddha-nature (tathagatagharba) a bit like a latent allergy, such as an allergy to strawberries, but something that everyone has. It’s not that they will potentially have the allergy, and likewise it’s not a matter that all beings potentially possess Buddha-nature. When conditions are such that the allergic person eats strawberries, and has a reaction, yes, that is an event, as is one’s moment of realization.

[LastLegend]

Since you said Buddha nature is a concept, so then what is grasping itself? Or how does it work in mind?

If you're looking for more in depth explanations, you can start with the Abhidharmakosabhasya for instance.

'Craving ("thirst") (tṛṣṇā) is the state [of the five aggregates] of those who desire enjoyments and sexual union. Grasping (upādāna) is to be distinguished [from craving]: it is the state [of the five aggregates] of those who run around in search of the enjoyments.'
(AKB 3.23, tr Gelong Lodrö Sangpo, for more see 5.38-40)

It’s just as much curious to see what arises specifically how grasping and craving arise in mind whether coarse or subtle and how we deal with it. More so if we can examine each function of aggregates and how they constitute grasping and craving.

[Astus]

When conditions are such that the allergic person eats strawberries, and has a reaction, yes, that is an event, as is one’s moment of realization.

If so, then what has the potential to react in a certain way to specific conditions? If it's not the aggregates nor something other, then what sort of conditions could exist in such an unspecified realm?

[PadmaVonSamba]

When conditions are such that the allergic person eats strawberries, and has a reaction, yes, that is an event, as is one’s moment of realization.

If so, then what has the potential to react in a certain way to specific conditions? If it's not the aggregates nor something other, then what sort of conditions could exist in such an unspecified realm?

Tathagatagharba is always there, just as the Sun is always giving off heat and light.
But when the Earth is turned so that one experiences night-time, or, when clouds cover the sky, those are conditions which prevent beings from realizing or experiencing the Sun.

But the obscuring conditions don’t prevent the Sun from functioning. The Sun doesn’t need an absence of clouds in order to radiate heat and light. It’s still burning brightly whether we see it or not.

Likewise with tathagatagharba, or Buddha nature. “Buddha” is already the mind’s original state, it’s original nature. It’s always burning brightly. But it is our habitual grasping and other negative actions of body, speech, and mind which make us unable to realize the Buddha-mind.

Our realization is conditional. So, you have a zen monk seeing a rock bounce off some bamboo or whatever and suddenly their light goes on. They realize their Buddha-nature or Buddha-mind. Buddha-mind isn’t conditional; our realization of it is conditional.

This is tricky, because it seems like a contradiction at first: if the nature of Buddha-mind is unobstructed clarity and brilliance and all that, then “unobstructed” by definition, should mean that nothing should be able to obscure it, right?

But that’s like saying if you can block out the sun with a simple little window shade, then it must not be an enormous ball of burning gas after all, thousands of times bigger than we are. The Sun could burn up a window shade in a half second. It doesn’t make sense that a paper window shade can block the heat and light of the Sun. Yet, it can, conditionally.

The problem is that talking about how we experience or don’t experience the Sun, we are one thing and the Sun is another. We are the subject of awareness and the Sun is the object of awareness.

But when we are talking about the mind, and the mind’s true nature, it’s just our one mind. The mind whose true nature is unlimited, is at the same time limited by things which are not it’s true nature.

I think that’s the contradiction you have been pointing to. It’s the contradiction that one needs to resolve. My understanding is that the way to resolve it is to examine the true nature of the obscurations. We have to determine if all those clouds have any substance to them or not. And that’s where understanding emptiness comes in.

So, we observe thoughts that arise during meditation, and we see they have no substance. We examine conflicting thoughts and emotions such as anger or impatience when they arise during the day (“off the cushion”) and determine that they are in fact, nothing. They have no substance.

Gradually, we stop giving rise to the obscuring clouds altogether. Then the mind’s true nature and the potential for full realization become clear.

[LastLegend]

When conditions are such that the allergic person eats strawberries, and has a reaction, yes, that is an event, as is one’s moment of realization.

If so, then what has the potential to react in a certain way to specific conditions? If it's not the aggregates nor something other, then what sort of conditions could exist in such an unspecified realm?

One’s mind would need to be very quiet to recognize Buddha nature…it’s described in Sutra as empty as space take that literally whatever activity going in there arises from empty nature. Empty nature isn’t a dead physical object or an idea. It’s rather that which is clear. It’s one thing to reified for clarity purpose. Another thing is grasping it. The appearance of subject and subject arises from such nature. Tibetan people on this forum call it knowledge of the base.

[LastLegend]

Buddha nature is like a glass of water and when you have a spoon of flour in it stirred (like there is coarse activity going on in mind). When the water is clear, the residue still remains. Just like our mind settles to quiet, calm, and clear the residue still remains. The clear water is like Buddha nature. Just because we are quiet, calm, clear, doesn’t mean the problem goes away just like residue still remains. It will be stirred up again and again until Samadhi.

[LastLegend]

It’s good to know thoughts…which are not necessarily in form of image. They can be very subtle and fine.

[Astus]

Tathagatagharba is always there, just as the Sun is always giving off heat and light.

Always where exactly? In the body, the mind, or both?

“Buddha” is already the mind’s original state, it’s original nature.

If by mind you mean its conventional version that is equivalent to the soul/self, then it being a mere concept without any actual referent, looking for the original nature of something fictional seems futile. Or if by mind you mean the six consciousnesses or the four mental aggregates, then they are quite temporary and it sounds difficult to put the idea of 'original nature' on them. The third version might be is how the two truths are used, in which case mind is the conventional idea of a continuous entity and its original nature is the ultimate reality of it being momentary and impersonal.

But it is our habitual grasping and other negative actions of body, speech, and mind which make us unable to realize the Buddha-mind.

Seems to fit the third version.

Buddha-mind isn’t conditional; our realization of it is conditional.

Although there can be various unconditioned dharmas depending on the system one prefers, they all agree in calling only 'non-things' as unconditioned, like various forms of cessation.

My understanding is that the way to resolve it is to examine the true nature of the obscurations. We have to determine if all those clouds have any substance to them or not. And that’s where understanding emptiness comes in.
So, we observe thoughts that arise during meditation, and we see they have no substance. We examine conflicting thoughts and emotions such as anger or impatience when they arise during the day (“off the cushion”) and determine that they are in fact, nothing. They have no substance.
Gradually, we stop giving rise to the obscuring clouds altogether. Then the mind’s true nature and the potential for full realization become clear.

That is the standard method in Buddhism, with or without the concept of buddha-nature. One has to purify the mind, so to say. But whether one believes that it is already pure but still needs some cleaning, or that it simply needs some cleaning, if approached properly, makes no difference in the end. Still, believing that one is already a buddha can help sometimes.

[Astus]

One’s mind would need to be very quiet to recognize Buddha nature…

What sort of buddha dislikes noise?

[LastLegend]

One’s mind would need to be very quiet to recognize Buddha nature…

What sort of buddha dislikes noise?

Noise as in activity of mind that pulls us it’s karma. Samadhi is practiced so we obtain the power to not be pulled in by karma.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Tathagatagharba is always there, just as the Sun is always giving off heat and light.

Always where exactly? In the body, the mind, or both?

You don’t understand. It’s like if I say that in paper there is always the potential of burning. That’s a quality of paper, not water, not stone.
If the question was asked, “where is the potential for paper to burn located?” It isn’t located anywhere. Tathagatagharba isn’t located anywhere either. All beings possess the potential to eventually realize the mind’s true nature.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The third version might be is how the two truths are used, in which case mind is the conventional idea of a continuous entity and its original nature is the ultimate reality of it being momentary and impersonal.

Mind isn’t a continuous entity.
It’s a continual process.

[LastLegend]

The third version might be is how the two truths are used, in which case mind is the conventional idea of a continuous entity and its original nature is the ultimate reality of it being momentary and impersonal.

You can’t find mind nowhere it isn’t anything but it’s content arises with conditions. But there is a different between clear and not.

[LastLegend]

That is the standard method in Buddhism, with or without the concept of buddha-nature. One has to purify the mind, so to say. But whether one believes that it is already pure but still needs some cleaning, or that it simply needs some cleaning, if approached properly, makes no difference in the end. Still, believing that one is already a buddha can help sometimes.

When someone refers to Buddha nature as a concept, there are two possible situations: 1) they don’t believe in Buddha nature and haven’t recognized it 2) If Buddha nature is a concept, what isn’t a concept? Everything else is a concept. Are aggregates concepts too? Because they still have a name. Now if you want to blow everything out of the pool why leave anything in it? If everything isn’t real so is grasping, then the question is if everything is blown out of the pool how is mind at this point? Is it not empty.

[Astus]

All beings possess the potential to eventually realize the mind’s true nature.

All beings also have the potential for many other things. Originally you stated that buddha nature was a quality that beings can realise. If it is not an already existent quality but rather just the possibility to become a buddha sometime in the future, then it is currently nothing more than a concept of future buddhahood, just as a burning paper remains an idea until it is actually set afire.

Mind isn’t a continuous entity.
It’s a continual process.

A continuity is a conventional view nevertheless.

[Astus]

When someone refers to Buddha nature as a concept, there are two possible situations: 1) they don’t believe in Buddha nature and haven’t recognized it 2) If Buddha nature is a concept, what isn’t a concept? Everything else is a concept. Are aggregates concepts too? Because they still have a name. Now if you want to blow everything out of the pool why leave anything in it? If everything isn’t real so is grasping, then the question is if everything is blown out of the pool how is mind at this point? Is it not empty.

Can you specify what buddha nature is in beings (five aggregates)? If not, what else is it but a mere fabrication, a simple expression?