Myotai wrote:Interesting thread. However, what I see is a Theravada perspective struggling in terms of describing what it is that experiences or maybe mnore to the point what is it that is aware.
I think the Prasangikas' have this sorted (sorry Tilt)!
Two levels of reality. Conventional and Ultimate.
Ultimately there is no self. Utterly unfinable wither within aggregates or externally from them.
However, it appears conventionally as an appearance to mind in dependence upon those very aggregates. Just like a rainbow appears in dependence upon causes and conditions. But we also know its not really there...but there it is....ad infinitum!
Also just a small point, someone mentioned that "Mind can know itself". I think that logic falls down. Mind knowing itself is like saying a knife can cut itself. Mind is not a singularity, its another appearance in dependence upon a stream of thoughts, a narrative of sorts.
Knowing is a thought, awareness is an implication of a meeting between subject and object. Awareness is not a thing either.
Just my thoughts.
And if one takes Nagarjuna seriously, and there is no reason not to, "conventional" reality is no less real than "ultimate" reality. When Nagarjuna talks about two truths, sometime referred to as the "relative" and the "absolute," it is misleading, however, to make a neo-platonistic assumption here that one is "merely relative" and the other a higher, an absolute truly true truth. Both are true. The one is the truth that things exist as the result of causes and conditions, i.e., relatively, and the other is that things do not exist in any absolute sense, i.e., they are empty of any permanent, absolute, unchanging reality.
When we say one is practicing mindfulness what is it that is being mindful?
If the goal is to eventually eliminate the notion of an "I" and you actually do eliminate the notion of an "I" how could you say "I" is being mindful?
The only real question here is what is being eliminated?