DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ViaxobbimeVar** · 06-05-2011, 10:57 AM

is the mind intrinsically pure and bright? when one is practicing, zazen, vipassana or shikantaza, the act of the meditation is so wholesome it make it seem like the mind or nama is intrinsically bright and pure. but in reality its not the mind that is bright and pure but the act of meditating?

My understanding is this-

When people speak of the mind being originally bright and pure, this can be taken to mean that it has a sort of permanent characteristic, and this suggests to some people that the mind is regarded as a permanent thing, because a "thing" has characteristics that define it. If we say. "the mind is this" or "the mind is that" , even if we say it is 'bright and clear' then it is sort of like we are giving it a shape or color. But that is not really the case.

But when the mind is said to be originally bright and pure, it really means that it is free from defining characteristics. It's like going outside and saying that the air is fresh. The "air" that one experiences isn't one thing--it's a combination of temporary things such as wind, temperature, humidity levels, barometric pressure, pollen count and so on. Ultimately, there is no "air" that is "fresh" but on a relative level it is an accurate description. When there isn't some smog or foul smell or pesticide or something, or a lot of dust, the air is in its original state. Likewise, when the mind is free from the various attachments, clinging and other distractions, it is in its original state which is not some permanent thing, but flowing and free of defining characteristics.

So, with regard to meditating, which is the activity of the mind, I think what you are talking about is the experience of the clarity of the mind. The mind is bright and pure--meaning free of defining characteristics, and there is a sense of the experience of that "brightness" during meditation. Sometimes there is just the experience of that clarity without any sense of 'me' bearing witness to it. There is no 'experiencer', meaning no 2nd person intellectualization. There is just the experience, the clarity. It may only last for a second. with practice, it can last longer.

How can there be an experience without an experiencer? If you have ever pounded a nail and hammered your thumb instead, that is a sensation, for a split second, of pure experience without any conceptualization. A second later you may yell "Oh Sh***! I hit my thumb!!!" but the second when it is happeneing, it is also pure clarity (although a lot more painful!!!). It is not the experience of the clarity of the mind free of characteristics, but it is the direct experince of the mind temporarily characterized by pain.

That's my understanding.

06-05-2011, 10:57 AM	#36
ViaxobbimeVar Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 437 Senior Member	is the mind intrinsically pure and bright? when one is practicing, zazen, vipassana or shikantaza, the act of the meditation is so wholesome it make it seem like the mind or nama is intrinsically bright and pure. but in reality its not the mind that is bright and pure but the act of meditating? My understanding is this- When people speak of the mind being originally bright and pure, this can be taken to mean that it has a sort of permanent characteristic, and this suggests to some people that the mind is regarded as a permanent thing, because a "thing" has characteristics that define it. If we say. "the mind is this" or "the mind is that" , even if we say it is 'bright and clear' then it is sort of like we are giving it a shape or color. But that is not really the case. But when the mind is said to be originally bright and pure, it really means that it is free from defining characteristics. It's like going outside and saying that the air is fresh. The "air" that one experiences isn't one thing--it's a combination of temporary things such as wind, temperature, humidity levels, barometric pressure, pollen count and so on. Ultimately, there is no "air" that is "fresh" but on a relative level it is an accurate description. When there isn't some smog or foul smell or pesticide or something, or a lot of dust, the air is in its original state. Likewise, when the mind is free from the various attachments, clinging and other distractions, it is in its original state which is not some permanent thing, but flowing and free of defining characteristics. So, with regard to meditating, which is the activity of the mind, I think what you are talking about is the experience of the clarity of the mind. The mind is bright and pure--meaning free of defining characteristics, and there is a sense of the experience of that "brightness" during meditation. Sometimes there is just the experience of that clarity without any sense of 'me' bearing witness to it. There is no 'experiencer', meaning no 2nd person intellectualization. There is just the experience, the clarity. It may only last for a second. with practice, it can last longer. How can there be an experience without an experiencer? If you have ever pounded a nail and hammered your thumb instead, that is a sensation, for a split second, of pure experience without any conceptualization. A second later you may yell "Oh Sh***! I hit my thumb!!!" but the second when it is happeneing, it is also pure clarity (although a lot more painful!!!). It is not the experience of the clarity of the mind free of characteristics, but it is the direct experince of the mind temporarily characterized by pain. That's my understanding.
	Quote