Right now, I am dealing with a store chain called “Woo”. I must determine the proper light levels and color temperature to properly and safely illuminate Woo and make it attractive to Woo-seeking customers. So. I talk woo now with my workmates and I try not to giggle. “What color is woo?” “When can we expect to see woo?”

I shouldn’t burst in like an unwelcome charging hippo on every damn thread. Not on its first page anyway.

I am not an expert on Buddhism nor am I a total novice. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Here’s my take:

Buddhism is a narrative. A Buddha-mind is an ever-stable Mr. Flashlight on an indestructable bridge. Emotional detachment is easy for Mr. Flashlight as he perceives only the aftermath of emotions an instant after they are felt. Like other disciplines, Buddhism has some sophistication in that it trains one not to write their emotions into their narration as if their entire being were having them. Without that discipline, it is easy to become trapped in the rules of the narration… like, anger must lead to vengence or one must save face and avoid humiliation at all cost.

Mr. Flashlight does two things- he reads the nyeep flow and he writes NEXT cues. When he does these together, that’s a narration. The next trick, once “detachment” is achieved, is to peacefully stand on the bridge and write no cues.

Normally, when the narration stops, the bridge stops too, or collapses and plunges the “driver seat” back into the flowing nyeep pool. For some, unless one is in full-blown conscious narration, Mr. Now is the pinnacle of organization and emotions are experienced “live”. To be Mr. Flashlight without narrating is not easy.

The Buddha stands silently on the bridge and watches the flow. There are rhythms and patterns in the flow that are way beyond the Chunk Limit and if the would-be narrator would just shut up for a while, he may notice them.

This view never goes over well. Is this take on it really less sexy than anyone else’s?

Nhoj Morley - 17 October 2011 07:16 AM

Right now, I am dealing with a store chain called “Woo”. I must determine the proper light levels and color temperature to properly and safely illuminate Woo and make it attractive to Woo-seeking customers. So. I talk woo now with my workmates and I try not to giggle. “What color is woo?” “When can we expect to see woo?”

I shouldn’t burst in like an unwelcome charging hippo on every damn thread. Not on its first page anyway.

I am not an expert on Buddhism nor am I a total novice. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Here’s my take:

Buddhism is a narrative. A Buddha-mind is an ever-stable Mr. Flashlight on an indestructable bridge. Emotional detachment is easy for Mr. Flashlight as he perceives only the aftermath of emotions an instant after they are felt. Like other disciplines, Buddhism has some sophistication in that it trains one not to write their emotions into their narration as if their entire being were having them. Without that discipline, it is easy to become trapped in the rules of the narration… like, anger must lead to vengence or one must save face and avoid humiliation at all cost.

Mr. Flashlight does two things- he reads the nyeep flow and he writes NEXT cues. When he does these together, that’s a narration. The next trick, once “detachment” is achieved, is to peacefully stand on the bridge and write no cues.

Normally, when the narration stops, the bridge stops too, or collapses and plunges the “driver seat” back into the flowing nyeep pool. For some, unless one is in full-blown conscious narration, Mr. Now is the pinnacle of organization and emotions are experienced “live”. To be Mr. Flashlight without narrating is not easy.

The Buddha stands silently on the bridge and watches the flow. There are rhythms and patterns in the flow that are way beyond the Chunk Limit and if the would-be narrator would just shut up for a while, he may notice them.

This view never goes over well. Is this take on it really less sexy than anyone else’s?

No Flashlight, no bridge.
No sentinel on a ridge
Every nyeep is just a nyeep
No story lulls to sleep.

What The Bleep!

saralynn - 21 September 2011 06:42 AM

I have been heavily into Buddhism lately.  In terms of basic psychological principles, I find it very helpful. In my youth, I was quite interested in Buddhism, but veered off into Christian philosophy with its emphasis on love, perfection, and service.  In retrospect, I wish I would have explored Buddhism more deeply before approaching Christianity because I think I may have been less susceptible to certain questionable assumptions that underlay Christian doctrine.

Anyway, the term Buddha-mind comes up frequently when I listen or read Buddhist discourses and I think it means that once we get rid of all the “poisons”, our minds are naturally peaceful, joyous and loving.

Isn’t this a lot of bunk…or woo?  Aren’t our minds naturally self-centered and we either cooperate or fight dependent upon what serves us individually or our species.best?  Buddha-mind strikes me as almost identical with Christ-mind and it seems like an unsubstantiated premise to me.  Of course, being about to observe and not be driven by our instincts is desirable, but is there such a thing as Buddha-mind and is it folly to assume there is?

The Buddhist mind is essentially the divine mind or the mind of God, hypothetically. If you use an ideal model for moral behavior or for the though process of the brain the model is the absolute. This absolute is synonymous with God if your using personification. So a Buddhist mind is a model of the absolute mind but more importantly the Buddhist mind starts off as a desire to have the absolute mind. And as long as the desire continues and you are making progress you have a Buddhist mind. Because after all, you can’t be born with an absolute mind. But anyways this Buddhist mind involves letting go of fear, stress, and all negative emotions of the mind state. & is rooted in the love for nature.

& I say you can still have a Buddhist mind without being absolute because one in the pursuit of the absolute mind constantly has it on his or her mind. & as long as you are improving you are using absolute methods and principles or Buddhist principles if that is what you prefer. But you should realize that the absolute mind is bigger than the Buddhist mind and it is an extension of the Buddhist mind. & is what Buddhism strives for. Buddhism is just a take on the absolute reality.

Moo! 

Holy Cow!

What flapdoodle.

Seems like the two of you disagree with what I said. maybe you both can tell me why you think the buddhist mind is not in search of nirvana? or is it perhaps because i said that the absolute mind that captures nirvana was the personification of the divine mind? ... it is just figurative language. i thought religion was a hot topic on this fourm. i was just trying to draw comparison

DanielMoore1991 - 26 February 2012 07:20 AM

Seems like the two of you disagree with what I said. maybe you both can tell me why you think the buddhist mind is not in search of nirvana? or is it perhaps because i said that the absolute mind that captures nirvana was the personification of the divine mind? ... it is just figurative language. i thought religion was a hot topic on this fourm. i was just trying to draw comparison

Wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing, just suggesting that while a mind is in search of nirvana it isn’t there.

Nhoj Morley - 17 October 2011 07:16 AM

Right now, I am dealing with a store chain called “Woo”. I must determine the proper light levels and color temperature to properly and safely illuminate Woo and make it attractive to Woo-seeking customers. So. I talk woo now with my workmates and I try not to giggle. “What color is woo?” “When can we expect to see woo?”

I shouldn’t burst in like an unwelcome charging hippo on every damn thread. Not on its first page anyway.

I am not an expert on Buddhism nor am I a total novice. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Here’s my take:

Buddhism is a narrative. A Buddha-mind is an ever-stable Mr. Flashlight on an indestructable bridge. Emotional detachment is easy for Mr. Flashlight as he perceives only the aftermath of emotions an instant after they are felt. Like other disciplines, Buddhism has some sophistication in that it trains one not to write their emotions into their narration as if their entire being were having them. Without that discipline, it is easy to become trapped in the rules of the narration… like, anger must lead to vengence or one must save face and avoid humiliation at all cost.

Mr. Flashlight does two things- he reads the nyeep flow and he writes NEXT cues. When he does these together, that’s a narration. The next trick, once “detachment” is achieved, is to peacefully stand on the bridge and write no cues.

Normally, when the narration stops, the bridge stops too, or collapses and plunges the “driver seat” back into the flowing nyeep pool. For some, unless one is in full-blown conscious narration, Mr. Now is the pinnacle of organization and emotions are experienced “live”. To be Mr. Flashlight without narrating is not easy.

The Buddha stands silently on the bridge and watches the flow. There are rhythms and patterns in the flow that are way beyond the Chunk Limit and if the would-be narrator would just shut up for a while, he may notice them.

This view never goes over well. Is this take on it really less sexy than anyone else’s?

Thanks for that Nhoj!  You make buddhism make sense without reifying all those “mind categories” and making them god-like in the process.  I read Daniel’s two contributions below and what he’s saying makes complete sense when I carefully map his narrative onto the cognitive landscape that you have provided.  You are giving us a deep blueprint of human cognition Nhoj, and with that in mind almost every religion or reputable philosophy can be “reconstructed” to match exactly what is going on in our neurological domains. Excellent! Keep up the great work.

Thanks, Bob. I thought that fell with a thud.

To a world of primitive chunk-limited humans, anyone who could stand still on their Libet Bridge as their own emotions wash by underneath would seem quite god-like. We are all god-like now… nearly all.

Nirvana suggests a state where not only does one fully possess their narrative ego self, but also the narrative world it lives in… instead of believing that it belongs to an outside authority. (better word)

Nhoj Morley - 26 February 2012 09:50 AM

Thanks, Bob. I thought that fell with a thud.

To a world of primitive chunk-limited humans, anyone who could stand still on their Libet Bridge as their own emotions wash by underneath would seem quite god-like. We are all god-like now… nearly all.

Nirvana suggest a state where not only does one fully possess their narrative ego self, but also the narrative world it lives in… instead of believing that it belongs to an outside reality.

Sure it “fell with a thud” but it was a good thud!

Exactly. Buddhism is definitely not about an “outside reality” but most christians who read any of the buddhist writings automatically assume it that way and are just as automatically lost.  I think I had a precise cognitive moment when I was able to detach myself from my emotions and to also understand what was happening to me in that moment.  I became a changed person from then on (well not permanently, but going in and out of being able to be detached). And also true there are two ways to be detached and the more common way is to leave the bridge altogether which was the way I usually handled it before that experience rather than to occupy the bridge completely.

That is two kinds of stillness. Stepping onto the bridge is like stepping out of a parade and standing on the sidewalk as it flows by. From here, one can construct a narrative that trains Mr. Now to be still and indifferent and unmoved by the flow while immersed in it. Like standing still in the middle of the parade and being completely unimpressed by it.

burt - 26 February 2012 09:01 AM

DanielMoore1991 - 26 February 2012 07:20 AM

Seems like the two of you disagree with what I said. maybe you both can tell me why you think the buddhist mind is not in search of nirvana? or is it perhaps because i said that the absolute mind that captures nirvana was the personification of the divine mind? ... it is just figurative language. i thought religion was a hot topic on this fourm. i was just trying to draw comparison

Wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing, just suggesting that while a mind is in search of nirvana it isn’t there.

oh. ya you are right. i was confused on how to express it. i mean if your not in a state of nirvana but still following buddhist principles you still have a buddhist mind i wolud think. but it all depends on the definition of the buddhist mind, either being the following of the the principles or the model of absolute nirvana. depends on the context which i think was the state of nirvana. so ya, you are right. but technically if one follows buddhist principles of the mind one has a buddhist mind in my opinion and it would only be matter of time till nirvana was reached because nirvana comes from the principles. i dont know. i feel like we argue on definitions a lot.

and/or the application of definitions

Never mind. That’s my bad…buddhist/buddha…buddha mind ...tired.