Sutta references to the mind

[Spiny Norman]

I've focussed mainly on Theravada material, but have come across some interesting snippets from other schools.

Here is a quote from the Dalai Lama that I rather like:

"It is clear that the mind exists, but since it is not established as it's own final nature and basic disposition, what is it's mode of being? It's deep nature is a mere emptiness of it's own inherent existence. This means that the faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the mind's basic nature, we see that the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness."

( from "How to Practice, page 172 )

[aflatun]

I've focussed mainly on Theravada material, but have come across some interesting snippets from other schools.

Here is a quote from the Dalai Lama that I rather like:

"It is clear that the mind exists, but since it is not established as it's own final nature and basic disposition, what is it's mode of being? It's deep nature is a mere emptiness of it's own inherent existence. This means that the faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the mind's basic nature, we see that the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness."

( from "How to Practice, page 172 )

Careful with that Vajrayana stuff, you might start a riot

[ToVincent]

......

"It is clear that the mind exists, but since it is not established as it's own final nature and basic disposition, what is it's mode of being? It's deep nature is a mere emptiness of it's own inherent existence. This means that the faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the mind's basic nature, we see that the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness."

Sometimes, pundits of "buddhism" are giving you unconsciously, the extent and limit of their achievement.

"emptiness of it's existence" ?!?
Emptiness applies predominantly to the "self" in the genuine Buddhist Dhamma (paṭiccasamuppāda) - not to citta.
Citta when undefiled - when it has transcended (ekodi) - retains its original determinations; that is to say feeling and perception. The only difference between the state of citta in the second link of paṭiccasamuppāda, and the state of the liberated citta, is that the liberated citta is "knowledgable" now. The liberated citta has the vijjā of the nature of dukkha; through the sensory experience in saḷāyatana. And it does not cling to the "world" of senses (organs and their āyatanāni), any longer.
The "basic nature" of the citta is not the supposed "emptiness" left, after the defilements are done away with. For there is still "fullness" of the citta until the arahant reaches the 9th jhāna.
(see second jhāna, for the transcendence of citta - https://justpaste.it/1avur)

... the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness ?!?!
Emptiness is of two chief natures in echt Buddhism:
- emptiness of "Self/self" in paṭiccasamuppāda - that is to say that there is no "Self or self" whatsoever, in the Buddhist Dhamma.
- emptiness of satta - that is to say that the khandhas are not ours - that our body is void and made to be felt, through these external khandhas. Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (https://justpaste.it/191nd) is just about that.
The Brahma/Prajapati/Ka shebang, of the late Vedic creed, does not happens in paṭiccasamuppāda, says Buddha. Otherwise, everyting would be permanent.
- additionally, there is a meaning of "emptiness" covered in MN 151, that deals with how a great man should reflect on the training, and review if all the requirements of the training are through with (sensual pleasure, hindrances abandonned - four foundations of mindfulness developed - etc.).

There is no "emptiness of citta". The liberated citta is full of (mindful/lucid & equanimous) feeling, perception (experience), and knowledge. Until it ceases in the 9th jhāna.
There is quite a nuance between "being empty", and having "no real ultimate utility" (to the point of having called it quits).
How can this citta be empty; paticularly at such a lower level of jhāna, as the second jhāna; as the Dalai Lama seems to believe?
Citta might be useless, if we consider that avijjā is useless, and that the former is a consequence of the latter. But that does not mean that citta is "empty".
However, ignorance is not always useless. Consequently citta might not even be useless; let alone "empty".

An experience has always ignorance (avijjā,) as as a precondition. That does not mean that the experience is "empty", if one decides that the experience was useless.
A drug addict might try a drug for the first time, through ignorance (and curiosity) - then get hooked - then realize, despite the goodness of the substance, that the drug is inherently bad. Does that make the experience "empty"? - The all shebang looks pretty "existential" to me.
However, is the aftermath of rehab also "empty"? - I suppose that it is empty of drugs. But definitely not empty of other healthy experiences.
The same applies with the liberated citta, from defilements. The liberated citta is "empty" of sensory defilements; yet it experiences the "fullness" of such spheres as the consciousness, nothingness, etc.
Is that "empty"?

There is no "inherent emptiness" of citta.
There is a Dhammic purpose for citta - And that is to discover vijjā.
Once vijjā is found, there is no need for citta anymore - (exit 9th jhāna).

Think about having an idea (born of ignorance).
Let say that, as an architect, you don't know if building a house out of plain paper is a good or a bad thing.
So you experience your idea, and you build a house out of paper.
At the first rain, your house collapses.
Do you need to keep that idea any longer?
Think of citta, in paṭiccasamuppāda, as this idea.
Was this idea an "empty" thing. Did getting rid of this idea, made this idea "empty"?

However, the only "emptiness" found then, is when this idea is no more there.
It is not the idea that is "inherently empty" - it is the state of having no more this "idea", in which there is "emptiness".
This is what "emptiness" really means in Buddhism.

---

Citta is the locus of experience, and the acknowledgment of this experience - (vedeti, ceteti, sañjānāti - SN 35.93) - All the way to its extinction in Jhana 9.

This "nagarjunesque" need to put "emptiness" everywhere, appears nowhere in the early Suttas. This is just sheer nescience.
----

As far as "light" is concerned, consciousness (viññāṇa) has to do with it. And consciousness is done away with, when reaching the sphere of no-thing-ness (7th Jhāna). Yet there is still feeling and perception until jhana 9 - https://justpaste.it/1avur.

[Spiny Norman]

I've focussed mainly on Theravada material, but have come across some interesting snippets from other schools.

Here is a quote from the Dalai Lama that I rather like:

"It is clear that the mind exists, but since it is not established as it's own final nature and basic disposition, what is it's mode of being? It's deep nature is a mere emptiness of it's own inherent existence. This means that the faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the mind's basic nature, we see that the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness."

( from "How to Practice, page 172 )

Careful with that Vajrayana stuff, you might start a riot

Perhaps a quote from the Dairy Lama might be less controversial:

"The mind is a cathedral filled with petty parishioners."
( from "The tantric trinity of Neapolitan." )

[Spiny Norman]

......

"It is clear that the mind exists, but since it is not established as it's own final nature and basic disposition, what is it's mode of being? It's deep nature is a mere emptiness of it's own inherent existence. This means that the faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the mind's basic nature, we see that the deep nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness."

Sometimes, pundits of "buddhism" are giving you unconsciously, the extent and limit of their achievement.

Sometimes different schools of Buddhism just have very different explanations.

[ToVincent]

Sometimes different schools of Buddhism just have very different explanations.

Again a strange logic to me !?!

In my dictionary, I have the following definitions of "explanation":
1. Statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure, operation or circumstances etc.
2. Thought that makes something comprehensible.
3. The act of explaining; making something plain or intelligible.

With all due respect to his undeniable good faith; how can that "explanation" of the Dalai Lama, be comprehensible, plain and intelligible; if what the Dalai Lama says, does not correspond with what the Buddha said in the EBTs?
This "Nagarjuism" is a construal out of nowhere. A pure papañca (development*), with no sound reference in the early Suttas with parallels.
This "explanation" might be comprehensible to a Nagarjunist - but certainly not to a genuine Buddhist.

Pretty confusing indeed!

Never "mind" !

Metta.

* "Development" does not always entail a broader and deeper outlook; and consequently some superiority in rank or status. However, it can sometimes be so deep, that it just lacks any bottom - (as Nietzsche put it once, talking about the small-mindedness of the pseudo-intellectuals.)
I suppose that this sort of thing covers likewise, the old concept of knowledge vs. understanding; as well as the mundane possibilities, viewed as spiritual ones.

[Spiny Norman]

... genuine Buddhist.