[Buddha-l] Tortoise mind?

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

L.S. Cousins schreef:
> Erik,
>
>> I would say that this is purely concentration (samadhi) and it is 
>> very much in line with the ontological dualism of the Giita (Arjuna 
>> is advised to start the battle, because only the bodies of the 
>> combattants suffer and not the souls). This is in my view due to 
>> samkhya influence. Samkhya promisses moksha via separation of purusha 
>> (citta) and prak.rti (kevalam or isolation), so a first step would be 
>> to 'forget' the sensual stimuli, which then would become nonexistent, 
>> because when the mind no longer mixes with the sensual organs, they 
>> stop functioning.
>
> Just a quick correction. Purus.a is not mind, but rather something 
> like spirit i.e. 'our real nature'. Both mind and matter constitute 
> prakr.ti, the alien nature with which we falsely identify. The goal of 
> Saam.khya (including some Upanis.ads) is the unity which occurs when 
> false identification ceases.
If you make corrections why not do it correctly? The word 'mind' has 
such a wide variety of meanings that my first explanation could very 
well be interpreted as correct. Puru.sa is the mind in Hegelian or 
Fichtian sense. And if you insist Lance, I would rather call puru.sa the 
noumenon or logos, but certainly not a spirit. The mind that you 
consider part of prak.rti, the ahamkara and the manas, I would rather 
call mental formations, they are phenomena.
>
> Buddhists have traditionally held that this is a misinterpretation of 
> some kind of formless attainment. I do not know what the followers of
> Saam.khya would have replied to that.
>
Probably what you already mentioned: that it's about realizing your own 
nature.

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950