Cosmogony

[Brucenkhamen]

The traditional Buddhist view, afaik, is that Maya (material reality) is the illusion par excellence.

This was one of the most useful posts for me.

I was wondering why if illusion was such an important Buddhist concept that I had no idea what the Pali/Sanskrit word for it was.

Looking up Maya in wikipaedia I see the answer...

The Pali language of Theravada speaks of distortions (vipallasa) rather than illusion (māyā).

The article has screeds and screeds of information on how the term is used in other Hindu based/Indian Philosophies but just one paragraph regarding early Buddhist practice and Theravada Buddhism, and this is mostly about the Buddha's mother.

Mahayana Buddhism and Tantra also get a mention, as I expected though nothing about the mind being an illusion rather about objects in the world being illusion unlike the mind which perceives them which is the ultimate reality.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[rockyysdt]

So in summary, the mind exists, but it's the counterfeit aspects of mind which bring about illusion.

Ajahn Chah's comment doesn't say anything about "aspects" of mind.

...Nor does it say these "aspects" (counterfeit things) are specifically "of mind".

There is a radically different viewpoint.

The text which you posted (quoted below) describes "counterfeit things" as not being able to reach the mind because a connection has been destroyed.

In other sutras it is said "Buddha cut the root of consciousness".

Buddha states: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

Ajahn Chah's comment:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

My apology.

It was Ajahn Mun who made the comment:

Quote: Ajun Mun:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

Me.

My point was that this was an example that Mind is real and not illusion as Vincent had indicated.

It also appears that "aspects of mind" may not be part of mind.

Quote: Geshe Tashi Tsering:

Mental factors (Sanskrit: caitasika) are formations (Sanskrit: saṅkhāra) concurrent with mind (Sanskrit: Citta).

They can be described as aspects of the mind that apprehend the quality of an object, and that have the ability to color the mind.

The Buddha emphasized the need to purify dispositions rather than eliminate them completely.

Kalupahana states that "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives.

The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions.

The Tibetan for mental factors (Sanskrit. chaitasika dharma), means phenomena arising from the mind, suggesting that the mental factors are not primary to the mind but arise within a larger framework. A mental factor, again, is defined as the aspect of the mind that apprehends a particular quality of an object. Because it is characterized by the qualities of activity and non-neutrality, it has the ability to color the mind in dependence on the way it manifests. Hence, a feeling of desire from seeing what is conceived as a beautiful object affects the other mental factors that are present at that time, and this colors the whole mind.

Me.

This explains Vincents idea that the Mind is illusion.

It's the Mental Factors which, as you say, are not part of mind, but have the power to color the mind, that have the power to induce illusion.

Edited March 25, 2015 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

Thanks for clarifying. To be clear, I see nothing in the text that suggests the "counterfeit things" mentioned are mental factors or aspects of mind. Furthermore; I did not say that "Mental Factors" are not part of mind.

My point is to highlight, that if all phenomena arise from the basis of mind, then an irreversible destructive process would not have been mentioned (counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed).

note: I can't formulate an complete argument on this subject using Buddhism because I don't think that Buddhism is a complete and correct philosophy.

I comprehend that my point probably isn't entirely clear but this is because the paradigm from which I wrote is probably very different to how you understand these things to be.

Edited March 25, 2015 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

Buddha wasn't intersested on how the universe was created.

His whole 'philosophy' was how to break free from Samsara.

I am sure his answer in this thread would be......'It's irrelevant'

Did the Buddha say he wasn't interested, or was he just practical enough to realise that the question was unanswerable in any truthful way? I believe Confucius had a similar attitude regarding that question.

Nevertheless, it's an intriguing question which has resulted in our modern scientific theory of the Big Bang, through the application of a science and technology which neither the Buddha nor Confucius had access to.

I prefer the Big Bang theory to the Creator God theory.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks for clarifying. To be clear, I see nothing in the text that suggests the "counterfeit things" mentioned are mental factors or aspects of mind. Furthermore; I did not say that "Mental Factors" are not part of mind.

My point is to highlight, that if all phenomena arise from the basis of mind, then an irreversible destructive process would not have been mentioned (counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed).

note: I can't formulate an complete argument on this subject using Buddhism because I don't think that Buddhism is a complete and correct philosophy.

I comprehend that my point probably isn't entirely clear but this is because the paradigm from which I wrote is probably very different to how you understand these things to be.

I'm by far no expert, but the way I have interpreted it is that the primal mind (Citta) views things through colored glasses ( A mental factor, or aspect of the mind that apprehends a particular quality of an object).

Now whether we up root something, break the bridge, or otherwise deactivate the power of the Mental Factors I don't know.

What is important is that the distortion or color of perception is removed in order to experience pure Citta.

[tifino]

There's no such thing as Gravity...

... the Earth sucks!

The most powerful force in the grasp of Man is: HindSight - because that opens the doors to Denial - a very powerful Thai trait.

So, let's just worry how to save the Earth...

[rockyysdt]

I prefer the Big Bang theory to the Creator God theory.

What comes to my mind is that either way both matters & doesn't matter.

It matters as science, or the discovery of how our world works, has the power to exponentially improve our lives.

It doesn't matter as improved or not, we remain in Samsara.

Nibhana is the goal.

[lungmi]

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

[rockyysdt]

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

[VincentRJ]

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

One of the precepts of Buddhism, Rocky, is that continual change is an inevitable condition of reality. Nothing is permanent.

For the mind to continue to operate with its impurities would be quite remarkable. The impurities must change over time whatever one does, even if one does nothing. However, it would be only sensible to try to reduce such impurities rather than increase them, of course.

The problem with sticking to precepts is that sometimes one can't be sure that the precepts, as one has interpreted them, are correct and/or ultimately beneficial in relation to one's own unique circumstances and current level of understanding.

At some point one perhaps needs to take a 'leap of faith', and that, for some of us, can be a problem.

I'm reminded here of that famous poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken. I've quoted just a couple of relevant extracts from the entire poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

............................................

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

[rockyysdt]

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

One of the precepts of Buddhism, Rocky, is that continual change is an inevitable condition of reality. Nothing is permanent.

For the mind to continue to operate with its impurities would be quite remarkable. The impurities must change over time whatever one does, even if one does nothing. However, it would be only sensible to try to reduce such impurities rather than increase them, of course.

The problem with sticking to precepts is that sometimes one can't be sure that the precepts, as one has interpreted them, are correct and/or ultimately beneficial in relation to one's own unique circumstances and current level of understanding.

At some point one perhaps needs to take a 'leap of faith', and that, for some of us, can be a problem.

I'm reminded here of that famous poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken. I've quoted just a couple of relevant extracts from the entire poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

............................................

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

Hi Vincent.

Nice poem.

My post was an attempt at answering Lungmi's.

I believe Lungmi has discarded much and focuses his life to practice.

A courageous act given most remain anchored to their old habits.

To him and to those serious about awakening, I'd imagine anything else would be fake.

I was just simply acknowledging that until we become touched with personal experience through practice, our state will probably include discussion anchored in samsara.

That such behavior will be natural to those who are without awareness.

Let's just call our behavior an indicator of where we are at.

Having said that, other than 100% dedication to practice, a difficult task, such social interaction has much to offer and encourages our unofficial sangha.

Unless Awakening were to be bestowed, the egocentric traveler need a motive of some kind.

Without motive, why does anyone do anything?

Edited May 1, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

One of the precepts of Buddhism, Rocky, is that continual change is an inevitable condition of reality. Nothing is permanent.

For the mind to continue to operate with its impurities would be quite remarkable. The impurities must change over time whatever one does, even if one does nothing. However, it would be only sensible to try to reduce such impurities rather than increase them, of course.

The problem with sticking to precepts is that sometimes one can't be sure that the precepts, as one has interpreted them, are correct and/or ultimately beneficial in relation to one's own unique circumstances and current level of understanding.

At some point one perhaps needs to take a 'leap of faith', and that, for some of us, can be a problem.

I'm reminded here of that famous poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken. I've quoted just a couple of relevant extracts from the entire poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

............................................

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

Hi Vincent.

I was just simply acknowledging that until we become touched with personal experience through practice, our state will probably include discussion anchored in samsara.

That such behavior will be natural to those who are without awareness.

I must admit, Rocky, I find such ideas more than a little bit absurd. To engage in any discussion at all, about any subject, requires a certain degree of awareness.

Also, surely all discussions are anchored in Samsara if one defines Samsara as 'the material world'. You need a material object such as a computer in order to post your comments on this forum, for a start.

Even those who might claim to have achieved the ultimate awareness of Nirvana or Samadhi, still need material food and material water to continue living.

Your use of the word 'anchor' is revealing. To continue living, one is unavoidably anchored to material things. However, being anchored to certain ideas and precepts might not be helpful, unless you are lucky and happen to have latched on to precepts which in reality are true.

The attractive thing about the scientific method, at its best, is the awareness that everything we think we know for certain is really never certain and needs to be questioned in the light of any anomalies to the theory that might arise.

In this sense, science is less anchored than religion. I've always found it disappointing that religious beliefs tend to be so dogmatic and unchanging.

I also find a great contradiction between the Buddhist precept that nothing is permanent, and the qualification by certain Buddhist monks, 'except the Dharma'. How does such a notion fit in with the concept of the Maitreya, the future Buddha who will appear after the present Buddha is forgotten?

Do some people really believe that in 200 years time, or more, perhaps even 2,000 years time, a new Buddha will appear and teach the same Dharma, which is permanent and unchangeable?.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that a future Buddha would be influenced by his surrounding culture, just as Gautama was influenced by ancient Indian beliefs and practices, and would therefore be preaching either a different message or a similar message with a radically different emphasis, in accordance with the advanced culture of the times?