Noticing space

[Banjankri]

I disagree. Try walking into an empty room.

And how will you experience emptiness? By not experiencing stool with your pinky?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And how will you experience emptiness? By not experiencing stool with your pinky?

It does take some practice. Try it and see. Space in a room, space in the mind.

 

[Banjankri]

It does take some practice. Try it and see.

You feel many things. Your clothes, air, temperature change, your inner sensations, feelings, sounds...
You say you feel space, how and with which sense?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You feel many things. Your clothes, air, temperature change, your inner sensations, feelings, sounds...
You say you feel space, how and with which sense?

The practise is noticing space. If you haven't tried it, you won't get the point.

 

[Banjankri]

The practise is noticing space. If you haven't tried it, you won't get the point.

The point is? What did you get from noticing space?
Don't bother making up the answer.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't bother making up the answer.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[Banjankri]

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I have already asked you precise questions, you were struggling to answer. I'm not interested in magic stories.
Space is just an idea which you can take as a practice target. But what good is it, if you don't know even that?
Go notice this space:

Or this one:

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have already asked you precise questions, you were struggling to answer.

No, what you were actually doing is trying to dismiss the practice because it doesn't fit in with your phenomenolological preconceptions.

There is a general negativity about your posting which I find unhelpful and unappealing, so onto ignore you go.

 

[Banjankri]

No, what you were actually doing is trying to dismiss the practice because it doesn't fit in with your phenomenolological preconceptions.

I am not trying to dismiss the practice, just showing its illusory foundations. Instead of going personal, you should prove the authenticity of your practice. I forgot, you already tried with "try it and see".
If you don't know how to explain it, keep it for yourself, instead of being touched by critique.

so onto ignore you go

O'boy, o'boy.

 

[atanu]

I do not see in the link where consciousness is called the sixth sense. I may have missed it. At any rate, I agree with you that mind is the sixth sense. I suspect that Ajahn Sumedho does too, he may have worded it strangely. Consciousness, as taught by the Buddha, is merely another impermanent aggregate which has the function of awareness of sense objects. Mind is the sense base for apprehending mental sense objects. One issue at work here is that the Buddha primarily uses two systems for breaking beings down, one is by breaking them down into the five aggregates, the other is by breaking things down to sense bases and sense objects, along with the respective type of consciousness that arises from the contact of base and object. (e.g., eyes, visual object, and visual consciousness) Each system is true from its perspective, but each is using different terms to break a being down, mixing the two systems in one analysis could lead to some confusion.

Allow me this. In the context, the impermanent aggregate consciousness is called by the name vijnana.

In Sanskrit, vijnana is a derivative of 'jna', the root that means 'to know'. Vijnana signifies a division and is different from divisionless pure space of cit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Allow me this. In the context, the impermanent aggregate consciousness is called by the name vijnana.
In Sanskrit, vijnana is a derivative of 'jna', the root that means 'to know'. Vijnana signifies a division and is different from divisionless pure space of cit.

So what is the Buddhist equivalent of "cit"?

 

[atanu]

So what is the Buddhist equivalent of "cit"?

Cit. ha ha.

 

[Osal]

I am not trying to dismiss the practice, just showing its illusory foundations. Instead of going personal, you should prove the authenticity of your practice. I forgot, you already tried with "try it and see".

Well, his was good advice. The only way to prove the authenticity, is for you to try it and see for yourself. One such practice would be Shamatha/Vipassana. lnstruction can be found at most Tibetan Buddhist centers. Its my understanding that Theravedins teach just Vipassana.

And I thought you had taken your phenomenological marbles and left our little party. Have you returned only to plague us with your recalcitrance?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cit. ha ha.

Like "citta", mind?

 

[Banjankri]

Well, his was good advice. The only way to prove the authenticity, is for you to try it and see for yourself. One such practice would be Shamatha/Vipassana. lnstruction can be found at most Tibetan Buddhist centers. Its my understanding that Theravedins teach just Vipassana

Nonsense. "Try it for yourself", is not an answer.

And I thought you had taken your phenomenological marbles and left our little party. Have you returned only to plague us with your recalcitrance?

Nitpicking. Some theories just can't handle scrutiny.

 

[atanu]

Like "citta", mind?

Citta is mind. Cit is consciousness. If you have ever noticed the thoughtless moment between two successive thoughts, you have come in touch with cit, which, for the purpose of illustration, is said to be of the nature of space, same as our nature.

Citta is sort of personification of cit, somewhat analogous to the relation between sunya and atta.

(I know that the above will not be fully satisfactory).

 

[Osal]

Nonsense. "Try it for yourself", is not an answer.

No nonsense at all. It's the best answer anyone could give you.

Buddhism always has been and always will be about our personal experience in the practice of Dharma. If you want proof that a particlar practice gives certain fruition, then the only possible course is for you to try it for yourself and see what happens. None else can do that for you, so pressuring others for proof in this, is a fool's errand.

If you're not willing to that much, you shouldn't pursue this.

 

[Banjankri]

No nonsense at all. It's the best answer anyone could give you.

 

[Osal]

Citta is mind. Cit is consciousness. If you have ever noticed the thoughtless moment between two successive thoughts, you have come in touch with cit, which, for the purpose of illustration, is said to be of the nature of space, same as our nature.

Citta is sort of personification of cit, somewhat analogous to the relation between sunya and atta.

(I know that the above will not be fully satisfactory).

What would have been helpfull, if not satisfactory would have been to use the English instead of Sanskrit. If Consciousness and Mind are sufficient to move the discussion forward, that should be enough. Remember, not everyone has your command of Sanskrit.

 

[atanu]

What would have been helpfull, if not satisfactory would have been to use the English instead of Sanskrit. If Consciousness and Mind are sufficient to move the discussion forward, that should be enough. Remember, not everyone has your command of Sanskrit.

I have very little command over Sanskrit. However I wished to convey the difference between Vijnana (the word used in sutta which is translated as consciousness) and its root 'jna'.