"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by cooran » Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:38 pm

Hello all,

These Suttas and articles on Nibbana may be of interest:

Nibbana
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ml#nibbana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:32 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:I think my mistake has been in conflating the results of nibbana with nibbana itself, . . .
Love, luminous consciousness, which I would call the ground of being, result from nibbana, but nibbana itself is not the ground of being, it is the absence of craving and therefore absence of conscious turning away from exactly what is happening right now.
And you contine to conflate things. Luminous mind has not been, by the Buddha defined as love. That is your doing, based upon yopur ideas of how you think things should be.
One more thing, to defend my use of the word 'love' to describe nibbana, Buddha does say one telling thing. He says upon reaching nibbana 'my heart is utterly set free'. Well that's how I would define love.
And heart is used by the Buddha in the same way modern Western people might use it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:36 pm

Jechbi wrote:
alan wrote:Jechbi--many more ways for the mind to proliferate outside Therevada!
This is a perilous conceit.
tiltbillings wrote:You claim that other paths lead to what the Buddha taught. I am waiting for you to show us.
This is impossible to show.
Then it is meaningless to claim. Adding to such meaninglessness is the pressing into service distorted understandungs of Buddhist doctrine.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:38 pm

How do you interpret 'my heart is utterly set free?'

Tilt, if it's meaningless to claim other paths lead to enlightenment without proof, why is it not equally so to claim the opposite? Do you have proof?
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:46 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:How do you interpret 'my heart is utterly set free?'

Tilt, if it's meaningless to claim other paths lead to enlightenment without proof, why is it not equally so to claim the opposite? Do you have proof?
I do not have to make that claim; however, looking at what it is that the Buddha taught as a way to awakening, it is not found in other "paths."

You, on the other hand, are making a claim for which you have yet to show any real, meaningful, proof.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by seanpdx » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:00 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:How do you interpret 'my heart is utterly set free?'
Manapa already briefly covered this.
What is the pali sentence that translates to "my heart is utterly set free"?
There are a number of translators who translate "citta" as "heart", where others translate it as "mind". So an alternate translation would be "my mind is utterly set free", which has absolutely no connection to love.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:18 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:How do you interpret 'my heart is utterly set free?'

Tilt, if it's meaningless to claim other paths lead to enlightenment without proof, why is it not equally so to claim the opposite? Do you have proof?
Cafael
are you ever going to directly answer a question?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:23 pm

this is from Karaniya Metta Sutta Kph 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; unfortunately the only place I could think to get the pali was Wikipedia.
this is as Thanissaro translates it
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;

and the pali with a rough word for word translation from Buddhadatta Mahatheras concise pali english dictionary (should say I only used his dictionary no others)

Mātā yathā niyaṃ puttaṃ āyusā
Mātā = mother
yathā = just as
niyaṃ = one's own
puttaṃ = child
āyusā = life

ekaputtamanurakkhe
eka = one
putta - child/son
manusa = her
rakkhe = protect

Evampi sabbabhūtesū
Evampi = just so
sabba = all
bhūtesū = existence (?)

mānasaṃ bhāvaye aparimānaṃ
mānasaṃ = mind
bhāvaye = develop
aparimānaṃ = imeasurable
manapa's poor attempt at translating wrote:Mātā yathā niyaṃ puttaṃ āyusā
Just as a mother with her life,
Mātā = mother /
yathā = just as /
niyaṃ = one's own /
puttaṃ = child /
āyusā = life /

ekaputtamanurakkhe
would protect her child, her only child
eka = one
putta - child/son
manusa = her /
rakkhe = protect/

Evampi sabbabhūtesū
Just so even for all existance
Evampi = just so
Pi = so even
sabba = all
bhūtesū = existence (?)

mānasaṃ bhāvaye aparimānaṃ
we develop an immeasurable mind
mānasaṃ = mind
bhāvaye = develop
aparimānaṃ = imeasurable
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Ben » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:52 am

Hi Jechbi
Jechbi wrote:Does that mean that no elements of Dhamma teachings whatsoever are to be found outside the tradition of Theravada Buddhism? Does that mean that individuals not-yet-enlightened can never, in their own words, use clumsy labels that propel them, individually, along a path that progresses toward a better understanding of Dhamma?
Thanks for your reply. I would argue that if elements of the Dhamma are found existing outside the Buddhadhamma, and I did give the example of Alara Kalama and Ramaputta (the Buddha's teachers), that it is incomplete. That it is not to suggest that it is worthless. I am reminded of Ashoka's 14th Rock Edict where he directs all within the empire to encourage everyone to engage with their religion, whether they are practicing Buddhadhamma or something else. It is an acknowledgement that there is great beauty and benefit in other paths and the practice of those paths are beneficial, but I still contend they are incomplete because they do not offer a path out of samsara.
In my opinion, it's good for us to examine our own path and practice.
I couldn't agree more. And that goes to the heart of this current discussion. Cafael Dust has offered us comments such as being enlightened, having attained jhanas, and his comment I am the path. Practice is very important with the aim of directly penetrating the Dhamma for oneself through one's own efforts. However, our own experience should not escape the laser-like scrutiny of self examination and the validation of one's experience and insights via the recorded wisdom handed down to us via the Tipitaka, the commentaries and the wisdom of later scholars and the advice and direction of current reputable teachers.

Apart from Cafael Dust's questionable attainments, his assertion that love = nibbana is erroneous. I have not seen Cafael offer any support from the Tipitaka despite numerous requests from me and others. In fact, Cafael's assertion is counter to the Buddhadhamma. While metta can be used as a meditative subject in which to develop insight, the practice, as recounted by Ananda to a householder, instructed him to remain mindful of the compounded and impermanent nature of metta. Metta, however exalted and however that it can be used as a vehicle to enter the Brahma worlds, is still just a dhamma which is devoid of self.
Still, answering your comment In my opinion, it's good for us to examine our own path and practice, the fact remains that here we are at Dhamma Wheel, a forum for the discussion of the Dhamma. As such, some of us may feel compelled to challenge ideas that are counter to the Buddha's teachings.
Good to see you posting back here, my friend!
With metta (not to be confused with Nibbana!)

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:10 am

Ben wrote:Hi Jechbi
Jechbi wrote:Does that mean that no elements of Dhamma teachings whatsoever are to be found outside the tradition of Theravada Buddhism? Does that mean that individuals not-yet-enlightened can never, in their own words, use clumsy labels that propel them, individually, along a path that progresses toward a better understanding of Dhamma?
Thanks for your reply. I would argue that if elements of the Dhamma are found existing outside the Buddhadhamma, and I did give the example of Alara Kalama and Ramaputta (the Buddha's teachers), that it is incomplete.
Basically, when addressing other the subject religions the Buddha argued that where the other religions corresponded to the Eightfold Path that was good, where they they did not, not (DN II 151).

One of the things Cafael stated is that "enlightenment" was inevitable, which is something the Buddha strongly rejected, stating that such a view is disastrous for the welfare of those who followed such a view (AN I 33).

MN 11 PTS: M i 63 Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar gives a rather interesting look at how the Buddha viewed other religions. Though not explicitly spelled out in this discourse, but what stands in the background is paticcasamuppada. I have yet to any other path thoroughly grounded in paticcasamuppada, which means full awakening, as understood by the Buddha is not possible.

Where a religion advocates moral responsibility, in that it is good and that should be supported, but that is a long way from stating that all paths lead to the same goal.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Jechbi » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:39 am

Hi Alan,
alan wrote:Jechbi-- In this context I'm saying it is so much easier to proliferate ideas, concepts, and thoughts within the Mahayana. "Emptiness", "Original Nature", etc. They don't really give us any way to judge them. Too easy to just go off on a non-rational rant. Within the Therevada, however, claims must be backed up. That is why I say there are many more ways for the mind to proliferate outside Therevada.
Don't see anything dangerous or conceited about that.
Thanks for your comment. I think that papanca is a matter unrelated to whether one follows Theravada or Mahayana.
alan wrote:Jechbi,
Not sure if you are using the concept of Kamma correctly.
Kamma is volitional action.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.

User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Jechbi » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:48 am

Thanks, Ben, for your kind post!
Ben wrote:I would argue that if elements of the Dhamma are found existing outside the Buddhadhamma, and I did give the example of Alara Kalama and Ramaputta (the Buddha's teachers), that it is incomplete. That it is not to suggest that it is worthless. I am reminded of Ashoka's 14th Rock Edict where he directs all within the empire to encourage everyone to engage with their religion, whether they are practicing Buddhadhamma or something else. It is an acknowledgement that there is great beauty and benefit in other paths and the practice of those paths are beneficial, but I still contend they are incomplete because they do not offer a path out of samsara.
I agree with this.
Ben wrote: ... here we are at Dhamma Wheel, a forum for the discussion of the Dhamma. As such, some of us may feel compelled to challenge ideas that are counter to the Buddha's teachings.
Yes, absolutely. It's the exchange of ideas that I think can make for very productive discussions, particularly when we listen carefully to others, and when we invite encouragement even when challenging their ideas. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:02 am

tiltbillings:
One of the things Cafael stated is that "enlightenment" was inevitable, which is something the Buddha strongly rejected, stating that such a view is disastrous for the welfare of those who followed such a view (AN I 33).
31. "I don't envision a single thing that, when untamed, leads to such great harm as the mind. The mind, when untamed leads to great harm."
sorry, I'm unfamiliar with your referencing system, but do you mean... Anguttara Nikaya, Book of the Ones, 31?

Because I'm in complete agreement with it, and that enlightenment is inevitable (not for every life, perhaps, but I think for every lifestream, though it may take more time than one wishes to risk by not practicing correctly.).

There is no self, you understand? So no one pulling the strings. Yet of course one has to make the greatest effort to enlighten. Is this a paradox? No; no one is pulling effort's strings either, volition's strings, yet there is the illusory sense of effort, a form of suffering based on self-view.

As to the Lion's Roar, Buddha says 'certain recluses' teach incorrectly. How you leap from that to 'Buddhism is the only way!!!', which, let us not forget, is considered a pretty crazy thing to say these days, for all sorts of very good reasons, I don't know.

When I say 'for all sorts of good reasons', what I mean is that the general public does understand why you cling to propositions such as the above, even if you don't know yourself so well.

I agree with Buddha that his is the only path, by the way, of course it's the only path - but it can be expressed in a myriad of ways. I understand language well enough to know this quite firmly; to me it's not even contentious, but laughably obvious and self-apparent. Let me ask you another question: does only the Theravada have the correct way?
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:04 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:... Let me ask you another question: does only the Theravada have the correct way?
You keep shifting your position, and as for your question, I am not going to answer any question from you, until you address the questions I have directly put to you and which you avoid answering.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: "Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:06 pm

Ok, sorry, can you repeat the questions and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Let's all bear the following in mind:
If, like a cracked gong, you silence yourself, you have already attained Nibbana: no vindictiveness will be found in you.
- Dhammapada 133-134
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: robertk and 68 guests