The Imagination In Buddhist Thought

[Xangsamhua]

It has been said that God, or Deity in whatever form, is the product of language. However, I have also recently seen the following:

Just as deity is non-real, so too are the other presumed external entities such as self and world, with our lives being re-interpreted as a transient ever-changing flow of existence brought into being, like all other elements of experience, by language." (Trevor Greenfield, "Is God back on the agenda? www.sofn.org.uk/theology/index.html)

This all sounds very Buddhist and is written by a post-Christian philosopher of the "non-realist" school, which draws on Buddhist thought, especially the Madhyamaka school.

However, the writer goes on to moderate the emphasis on language. Although it is hard (impossible?) for us to think without having a systematic language, and an ability to learn and apply systematic language is innate, embedded in our genes, the objects that we identify, name and talk about are not simply projections of our mental-linguistic faculty. They "exist" in a continuous, fluid, multi-causal and interdependent way, not just as words or thoughts, but as something more than just the sum of their parts and the flow of their fluidity.

The writer, Trevor Greenfield, suggests that, underpinning the capacity to think and to use words, is the capacity to imagine. And we can imagine, for example, a supreme being or lesser gods. They do not exist in reality, but the imagining of these transcendent beings, confined as they are by human limits to thought and language, may point to a reality beyond the reaches of human cognition.

I'm not sure if this kind of thinking is of much interest or value to Buddhists, except when they're not thinking exclusively about practice and are reflecting instead on the great questions to which people have sought answers throughout history in all the world religions, as well as philosophy and science. Admittedly, as the Buddha taught, metaphysical questions such as whether there is a supreme being, are trivial, not because the question is trivial, but because it is irrelevant to present purpose and ultimately unanswerable. However, questions about the relationship of imagination to the identification and naming of phenomena and events may bear on the nature of the mind and what it is we're expected to explore, discipline and take refuge in as a central focus of our practice.

The mind both is and isn't something, and yet it is fundamental to Buddhist practice. Perhaps it's something we can imagine, rather than describe. However, in imagining the mind we may be pointing to something that relates to it, but transcends it. Trouble is, I don't know what that transcendent reality is and can only think of the mind as a process that takes place in a kind of ante-room to a related but unknowable and transcendent mental super-reality.

What really are Buddhists referring to when they talk about the "mind"? Not just the functions, activities and components of the mind, but the mind itself? Is it ultimately unconditioned, like nirvana, and if so, is a perfectly clear mind identical with nirvana?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

I feel a bit silly replying to myself, but I'm still thinking about this and suspect that the last bit in my post (below) is referring to Buddha-nature, but I'm not sure. Although I didn't write the post with my spiritual mentor Thich Nhat Hanh in mind, I wonder if his influence has come through (or if I'm just very confused.)

However, in imagining the mind we may be pointing to something that relates to it, but transcends it. Trouble is, I don't know what that transcendent reality is and can only think of the mind as a process that takes place in a kind of ante-room to a related but unknowable and transcendent mental super-reality.

What really are Buddhists referring to when they talk about the "mind"? Not just the functions, activities and components of the mind, but the mind itself? Is it ultimately unconditioned, like nirvana, and if so, is a perfectly clear mind identical with nirvana?

[sabaijai]

So that you don't feel silly, I'll offer a couple of thoughts, aside from the obvious "One of those 'poisoned arrow' questions."

Zen master Soen Sanim would say 'Don't know,' and that would pretty much sum up everything I've learned trying to imagine what the mind is. I wish I knew, but I'm not sure trying to imagine it will further the path. Not that someone else might not find fruit there.

Theravada teachers might say 'mind' is just a concept. We call it mind because we're conditioned to call it mind. Our experience of mind is rupa, and our thinking of it as 'mind' is nama. Together nama and rupa condition the thought that mind is a considered entity, but how can it be when every conditioned thing arises and decays in less than the blink of an eye?

Imagining or conceiving will be superseded by more imagining and conceiving, then yet more, and so on towards infinity in samsara.

Better, perhaps, to watch the mind, whatever it is, and see how it works. That's something that can be achieved. You might never know exactly what it is but you'll know something even more valuable, ie dhamma, entering and crossing the stream to where concepts cannot ensnare.

If one thinks about the question for a very, very long time, I don't think any thought or imagination about it will satisfy.

But if you do figure out via imagination, let me know. Seriously.