Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
What is it?
Some Buddhist teachings talk about the mindstream that goes on from life to life. What is that? Is it a universal mindstream? Or are there individual mindstreams? If the latter, how does that work? How does it mesh with the idea that nothing has inherent existence? Are the mindstreams beyond cause and effect? Or are the mindstreams like water streams and rivers? Those can easily be seen to be mere effects of the causes provided by landscape and weather. Are these mindstreams subject to this cause and effect? Or is it better to forget about "life to life mindstreams" and just to work on what we experience now? |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Imo, the idea of 'mindstream' is similar to the idea of 'God', in that the question always arises: Did God create mind or did mind create 'God'?
One of many aspects of mind is it creates ideas. So does 'mindstream', similar to 'God', have any experienceable reality apart from being merely an idea manufactured by an active imagination? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Or are the mindstreams like water streams and rivers? Maybe its like Milk-streams or Sodapop-streams? I like Strawberry or Bubblegum flavor fountains.
OK! Jokes aside! Concepts are numerous and will keep you busy for ever. IMO things have become Ineffable. http://buddhism.about.com/b/2011/10/...-ineffable.htm |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
One of many aspects of mind is it creates ideas. So does 'mindstream', similar to 'God', have any experienceable reality apart from being merely an idea manufactured by an active imagination? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
Maybe a read of this chapter could help?
CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN Analysis of thought-processes In this chapter we will begin to see, in a more specific and direct way, how the analysis of consciousness and the analysis of mental states can really contribute to the awakening of insight, and how such analysis can also be interpreted in our daily life to change our understanding of our situation. Why analyze the processes of thought or the processes of perception? To answer this, we need to remind ourselves of the general purpose of the Abhidharma – namely, to facilitate our understanding of the ultimate nature of things, which share the three universal characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-self. In the analysis of thought-processes, we can see impermanence and not-self clearly revealed, as two analogies from the discourses of the Buddha show. The Buddha likened the life span of a living being to a single point on the wheel of a chariot. He said that, strictly speaking, a living being only endures for the time it takes one thought to arise and perish, just as the chariot wheel, whether rolling or at rest, makes contact with the ground at only a single point. In this context, the past moment existed but it does not exist now, nor will it exist in the future; the present moment exists now but did not exist in the past, nor will it exist in the future; and the future moment, although it will exist in the future, does not exist now, nor did it exist in the past. The Buddha also referred to the case of a king who had never heard the sound of a lute. When he did hear one, the king asked http://peterdellasantina.org/books/t...enment.htm#c37 Sorry for using this book so often. I only brought one book with me to China. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Or is it better to forget about "life to life mindstreams" and just to work on what we experience now? |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean to say everything is a mind-made illusion? ![]() You can't find the thing in any of its parts, or in the collection of the parts, or apart from the parts. The thing is a label imposed by mind. It exists, conventionally, practically, and it works in everyday life. Beyond this, it is not real. This seems to be put forward as a liberating teaching. It seems to be a way to free us from being tyrannised by fears and desires about these things that don't really exist outside of convention. The F A Cup Final or the Superbowl exists all right. But only conventionally. Beyond that, it's just a bunch of men running about in funny costumes chasing a ball. That's what I meant I think. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|