Discussion: Jupta's "Barriers on the Spiritual Path"

[Kelly Jones]

Interesting essay.

Bringing it down to the nugget, I'd like to see a focus on two core issues:

• what is it exactly, about seeking happiness, that prevents the full use of reason (and is it true that a tool like reason necessarily breaks down at some point; if so, why?)
• In the context of the essay, I'd boil down the introductory types A and B, to simply: "consistently unable to complete a line of reason". That is, boil down this quote:

  A involves an inability to reason something to its conclusion, while B involves an inability to do so consistently. A is much more common than B

  
  
  If someone is unable, just a few times, not to complete a thought, because of something beyond their control, or an atypical patch of laziness, then they're not in the list of dramatis personae --- the players --- in the essay. Unless you'd like to focus on what they normally do, as a way of showing how to improve?

.

[ardy]

error!

[Kelly Jones]

Hey ardy,

Would you mind splitting your latest responses off from your quoted text? It's a bit hard to follow.

To do that, quotes go between the quote tags, like this:

Code: Select all

[quote]your quoted text goes here[/quote]

If you want a couple of "nested" quotes, or quotes inside quotes, it is like this:

Code: Select all

[quote][quote]your first quote goes here[/quote]and your second quote goes here[/quote]

(Or it could be:

Code: Select all

[quote][quote]your first quote goes here[/quote]
and your second quote goes here[/quote]

).


I hope that makes sense.


.

[Kelly Jones]

ardy,

The logical mind looks for identification with the dualistic realm and if it cannot grab onto anything it either gives up or gets confused. The death of the ego is really the inability to hold onto anything anymore, therefore many people claiming they feel as if they are about to die. Paul on the road to Damascus is another example.

[snip]

Rational thought or genuine thinking for yourself is one of the hardest things any human has to do.

Just for clarity's sake, are you putting the logical or rational mind within the same general category as "genuine thinking for yourself"?

Also, I think if ego is the need for "grabbing hold onto anything", is it necessarily the case that this is caused by "the logical mind [looking] for identification with the dualistic realm"?

Perhaps you can express the latter phrase differently, as it suggests that the ego is caused by thinking logically, and that seeking for dualistic identities or traits for anything must cause the ego to form. Probably you didn't mean that. Thinking logically actually reveals the ego as a lie, and therefore is responsible for destroying the ego, so it can't necessarily cause it.


.

[Kelly Jones]

If there's no link between rationality and happiness, is it possible to reason about happiness, to understand what it is?

If reasoning about happiness, destroys it, then there must be some link.

And if people typically seek happiness above all else, then can they even begin to reason? Are thinkers intrinsically incapable of happiness, i.e. by birth or upbringing?

Or is happiness something that exists only in inverse relation to rationality, such that, the more you reason, the more it fades away, like night when the sun comes around? If so, what causes a person to move towards reason, to undermine and distrust happiness?

Is it possible that the rudimentary stages of reasoning are emotions like the will to power, such that, the more rational one becomes over time, the more "refined" or subtle one's emotions are? Such that gross states of dithery, screamy joy are eroded in strength, and finer, more intellectual kinds of happiness replace them, incrementally becoming less egotistical, along the continuum of rationality, until the very rational mind has borderline-type wisps of emotions that are hardly worth calling emotions? For the sake of truthfulness, a highly developed mind would identify delusions as what they are, but they're so far away from what people normally call happiness, that they perhaps don't deserve the same name.


[Just posing a few questions.....]

[ardy]

what is it exactly, about seeking happiness, that prevents the full use of reason (and is it true that a tool like reason necessarily breaks down at some point; if so, why?)

The logical mind looks for identification with the dualistic realm and if it cannot grab onto anything it either gives up or gets confused. The death of the ego is really the inability to hold onto anything anymore, therefore many people claiming they feel as if they are about to die. Paul on the road to Damascus is another example.

Jupta said "Still, people who do have the goal of becoming more rational always, consciously or unconsciously, expect happiness as their primary reward."

There is no link between rationality and happiness as far as I can see. I think it is one of the real barriers that Jupta is examining. What most people expect from rational thought is the conquest in an argument or pushing of an idea.

My view of most people is that they don't give a damn about your precious rational thought, or the inability to repeat and hold their previous logical thought. They just blurt out whatever cliche they read or was told. Rational thought or genuine thinking for yourself is one of the hardest things any human has to do.

[ardy]

ardy,

The logical mind looks for identification with the dualistic realm and if it cannot grab onto anything it either gives up or gets confused. The death of the ego is really the inability to hold onto anything anymore, therefore many people claiming they feel as if they are about to die. Paul on the road to Damascus is another example.

[snip]

Rational thought or genuine thinking for yourself is one of the hardest things any human has to do.

Just for clarity's sake, are you putting the logical or rational mind within the same general category as "genuine thinking for yourself"?

Also, I think if ego is the need for "grabbing hold onto anything", is it necessarily the case that this is caused by "the logical mind [looking] for identification with the dualistic realm"?

Perhaps you can express the latter phrase differently, as it suggests that the ego is caused by thinking logically, and that seeking for dualistic identities or traits for anything must cause the ego to form. Probably you didn't mean that.

I am not talking about the causes of the rise of the ego which is something nobody seems to fully understand. I am just reflecting on what appears to me to happen from my own experience.

Thinking logically actually reveals the ego as a lie, and therefore is responsible for destroying the ego, so it can't necessarily cause it.

I don't agree that logical thought reveals the ego as a lie, it knows you too well to fall for that trick. What meditation and a deepening of the spiritual experience produces is a method of intuition that is not obvious to us through our logic. It is only when there is a crack in our ego and our logic that enlightenment can appear, at least that is my understanding. What is yours?

[ardy]

Kelly - without Prajna you have no chance anyway. The rest of it is just noise and distractions.

[Kelly Jones]

I am not talking about the causes of the rise of the ego which is something nobody seems to fully understand.

No one knows all the causes for the rise of anything at all. They're infinite. But that's not the point. One can't talk about egotism sensibly as something to be avoided, unless you know what it is, in order to avoid it. What is the ego, in your view, ardy?

KJ: Thinking logically actually reveals the ego as a lie, and therefore is responsible for destroying the ego, so it can't necessarily cause it.

ardy: I don't agree that logical thought reveals the ego as a lie, it knows you too well to fall for that trick. What meditation and a deepening of the spiritual experience produces is a method of intuition that is not obvious to us through our logic. It is only when there is a crack in our ego and our logic that enlightenment can appear, at least that is my understanding. What is yours?

You're contradicting yourself there. You're reasoning that it is only when the ego somehow makes a boo-boo, and forgets to cover all the bases, that the mind sneakily gets a glimpse of enlightenment. So, since you've also reasoned that the ego can't be revealed by reasoning, your conclusion there must be wrong; it must be an egotistical conclusion, since "the ego...knows you too well to fall for that trick [of logical thought]".

My understanding is quite different. The ego is all mental processes supported by a core belief in the inherent existence of things, primarily the self.

The erasure of ego comes through logical thought, because logical thought reveals that things do not exist inherently. When one is capable of thinking about how things really exist, and, furthermore, to truly trust this line of reasoning with all one's heart, mind, and being, then the fundamental belief in self-existence starts to get a pounding. All the thoughts, beliefs, emotions, hopes, visions, imaginations, desires, intuitions, and speculations, which are based on the notion of inherent self-existence start to get a pounding. The ego: my life, my will, my capacities, my influence, my agency, my possessions, my relationships, my loves and dreams etc., is a part of the mind that starts to lose its dominance. It no longer flavours the mind. Something else is being substituted, that is eating away at its validity. True, logical thoughts.

So it is directly and deliberately through fully conscious and logical thought, that ego is understood, detected, and dismantled. As one focusses all one's attention, minute by minute, every day in constant application, on true thoughts, the wayward bad habits of false thoughts get less of a look-in, less of a foothold. They are exposed to doubt and incredulity. And so the change goes, strengthening slowly. The more one can put one's whole will and being into this logical approach to all things, the more capable one becomes of accepting the unpleasant and disturbing facts of ungraspability. That is, faith in reason drives the whole process of enlightenment.

The ego is just a thought, a part of causality. When one thought creates it, it arises. When another destroys it, it dies.


.

[ardy]

No one knows all the causes for the rise of anything at all. They're infinite. But that's not the point. One can't talk about egotism sensibly as something to be avoided, unless you know what it is, in order to avoid it. What is the ego, in your view, ardy?

I find the ego to be that part which drives our emotional attachment and our discriminations [at its simplest level] it also seems to want to control our thinking. Therefore, you find that the ideas of yourself are all based in ego, and when you start to do the meditation work these ideas are sometimes thrown away and new ones arise and our deepest ideas about ourselves are proven to be a lie.

You're contradicting yourself there. You're reasoning that it is only when the ego somehow makes a boo-boo, and forgets to cover all the bases, that the mind sneakily gets a glimpse of enlightenment. So, since you've also reasoned that the ego can't be revealed by reasoning, your conclusion there must be wrong; it must be an egotistical conclusion, since "the ego...knows you too well to fall for that trick [of logical thought]".

My understanding is quite different. The ego is all mental processes supported by a core belief in the inherent existence of things, primarily the self.

The erasure of ego comes through logical thought, because logical thought reveals that things do not exist inherently. When one is capable of thinking about how things really exist, and, furthermore, to truly trust this line of reasoning with all one's heart, mind, and being, then the fundamental belief in self-existence starts to get a pounding. All the thoughts, beliefs, emotions, hopes, visions, imaginations, desires, intuitions, and speculations, which are based on the notion of inherent self-existence start to get a pounding. The ego: my life, my will, my capacities, my influence, my agency, my possessions, my relationships, my loves and dreams etc., is a part of the mind that starts to lose its dominance. It no longer flavours the mind. Something else is being substituted, that is eating away at its validity. True, logical thoughts.

So it is directly and deliberately through fully conscious and logical thought, that ego is understood, detected, and dismantled. As one focusses all one's attention, minute by minute, every day in constant application, on true thoughts, the wayward bad habits of false thoughts get less of a look-in, less of a foothold. They are exposed to doubt and incredulity. And so the change goes, strengthening slowly. The more one can put one's whole will and being into this logical approach to all things, the more capable one becomes of accepting the unpleasant and disturbing facts of ungraspability. That is, faith in reason drives the whole process of enlightenment.

The ego is just a thought, a part of causality. When one thought creates it, it arises. When another destroys it, it dies.

I think you have too tight a grip on the power of thought. It is a tool [wheel?] not a driver. It is in dropping thought that Prajna arises and from there true understanding seems to take over. As you move further away from our ego based ideas about ourselves you naturally experience a better world, then if, or when [as most do], you drop out of it, life feels like you are wading through shit. The ego re-asserts itself and life takes on the same delusions and comforts you have lived with for ever.

You may disagree strongly [which you are good at], but the ego is the enemy, in my camp anyway. Thinking is good, how can you plan and do what is necessary without it? But it is not the vehicle to take you over the river of delusion.

[jupiviv]

what is it exactly, about seeking happiness, that prevents the full use of reason (and is it true that a tool like reason necessarily breaks down at some point; if so, why?)

Because reason has no use when it doesn't help us seek happiness. And yes, reason can break down like anything else.

And if people typically seek happiness above all else, then can they even begin to reason? Are thinkers intrinsically incapable of happiness, i.e. by birth or upbringing?

Thinkers tend to be people who haven't succeeded in the mainstream, so they seek alternative ways of being happy.

Is it possible that the rudimentary stages of reasoning are emotions like the will to power, such that, the more rational one becomes over time, the more "refined" or subtle one's emotions are?

The more one exercises the intellect, the more intellectual content the emotions have. However, exercising the intellect might not have much to do with rationality.

Such that gross states of dithery, screamy joy are eroded in strength, and finer, more intellectual kinds of happiness replace them, incrementally becoming less egotistical, along the continuum of rationality, until the very rational mind has borderline-type wisps of emotions that are hardly worth calling emotions?

It's rarely as simple as that. If one is to go beyond a certain point then it is necessary to recognise that any form of happiness is deluded in the same way, and to the same degree - if not in their content, then in their effects.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: No one knows all the causes for the rise of anything at all. They're infinite. But that's not the point. One can't talk about egotism sensibly as something to be avoided, unless you know what it is, in order to avoid it. What is the ego, in your view, ardy?

A: I find the ego to be that part which drives our emotional attachment and our discriminations [at its simplest level] it also seems to want to control our thinking. Therefore, you find that the ideas of yourself are all based in ego, and when you start to do the meditation work these ideas are sometimes thrown away and new ones arise and our deepest ideas about ourselves are proven to be a lie.

This sounds to me like superstition and religion. You have probably often heard Christians answer the question, "How do you know God is actually real?" with, "Because my intuition tells me so." Or, "Because I feel it to be true, deep down." That is, they're going on gut feelings. They may even call it "Hearing God in the stillness of my heart." How is your method any different?

Basically, how are you going to establish what a lie is, except through reason? Simply asserting something to be a truth, seems equivalent to superstition, to me. That is, gut feelings.

I think you have too tight a grip on the power of thought. It is a tool [wheel?] not a driver. It is in dropping thought that Prajna arises and from there true understanding seems to take over. As you move further away from our ego based ideas about ourselves you naturally experience a better world, then if, or when [as most do], you drop out of it, life feels like you are wading through shit. The ego re-asserts itself and life takes on the same delusions and comforts you have lived with for ever.

So, you believe that cessation of all thought brings the highest wisdom? That seems a tidy and convenient a solution, to avoid the problem of trying to work out if any of your ideas are false. All you have to do is not bother questioning, because, as you say, that must be ego-driven.

You may disagree strongly [which you are good at], but the ego is the enemy, in my camp anyway. Thinking is good, how can you plan and do what is necessary without it? But it is not the vehicle to take you over the river of delusion.

How do you know you're not deluded in your beliefs? You have no way of knowing, except for "gut feelings" and "I believe it is right." You're basically throwing yourself into unknown terrain and refusing to consider the terrain, or to use a map and compasses, on the notion that you'll reach your destination by pure chance.

It's very much like a Christian behaves, when they say, God exists because no one can comprehend Him. They throw their brains out the window, because they want to be unconscious. It's up shit creek without a paddle.


.

[Kelly Jones]

And yes, reason can break down like anything else.

You mean, reason has flaws? How can that which determines all flaws, be flawed?


.

[jupiviv]

If reason means consciousness then it is impermanent just like anything else. If by "reason" you mean logic, then it is permanent. But there is logic in both consciousness and unconsciousness.

[ardy]

This sounds to me like superstition and religion. You have probably often heard Christians answer the question, "How do you know God is actually real?" with, "Because my intuition tells me so." Or, "Because I feel it to be true, deep down." That is, they're going on gut feelings. They may even call it "Hearing God in the stillness of my heart." How is your method any different?

Basically, how are you going to establish what a lie is, except through reason? Simply asserting something to be a truth, seems equivalent to superstition, to me. That is, gut feelings.

How do you know your rationality is the truth? Your ideas are based on your accepted 'wisdom' distilled over the last few thousand years. In such a short time what makes you so sure you are standing on a concrete plinth? We know almost nothing of our world and a 'don't know' mind has a strong place in it.

Basically my experiences or yours don't matter a damn, what does matter is can you resolve the big issue or, at least, deal with your own shit. I think it is the responsibility of every human to sort out their own issues before attempting to fix others. To answer your question, yes it is a religion, but one based on me and not someone living in the sky or who wandered around India in 600bc. It is personal and intimate and important but it is not 'you', your own mental freedom is up to you.

Maybe you can resolve your issues using rationality, and that's great if you can but to me your ego seems as strong as most peoples [including mine]. So after a minimum of 6 years here, what have you got apart from a large mechano set in your brain. Sorry don't mean to insult you, but I always find that people who rely on their logic and rationality a bit mechanistic.

So, you believe that cessation of all thought brings the highest wisdom? That seems a tidy and convenient a solution, to avoid the problem of trying to work out if any of your ideas are false. All you have to do is not bother questioning, because, as you say, that must be ego-driven.

It doesn't matter what I think about Prajna it is what you think about it that counts. Until you sit in meditation until it naturally flows through you it is impossible to explain to anyone rationally.

How do you know you're not deluded in your beliefs? You have no way of knowing, except for "gut feelings" and "I believe it is right." You're basically throwing yourself into unknown terrain and refusing to consider the terrain, or to use a map and compasses, on the notion that you'll reach your destination by pure chance.

It's very much like a Christian behaves, when they say, God exists because no one can comprehend Him. They throw their brains out the window, because they want to be unconscious. It's up shit creek without a paddle.

None of us know for sure if we are deluded in our beliefs. Take the climate change scientists as an example. They are convinced that the world is heating and all their scientific models point to that conclusion. Yet they all believe in the scientific process that says a proposition is not proven until it's prognostications are supported by empirical data, and that data is not conclusive yet and may never be in our lifetimes. So where does their rational logic take them? Nowhere yet!

It is too easy to laugh at Christians and I did my fair share of it when I was younger. Now I am older I prefer most Christians to the hedonistic lost ones who prefer to give their children cuddly toys than food, clothing and discipline to prepare them for life.

The amusing thing about life is just when you think you have a grip on it, you are thrown a curve ball. It is complex and wonderful and at the base it is built on joy - that is for another thread though. I think I have run out on this one.

[Kelly Jones]

How do you know your rationality is the truth?

How do I know that rationality enables me to understand what is ultimately and absolutely true about all things?

Let me break it down to something very simple, so as to get a handle on truth itself. Please note, I'm not talking of scientific facts here, which are open to doubt and revision, but a philosophical principle, that does not change.

Is something, anything at all, itself at the very instant of its being itself? This is basically what truth boils down to. The very primitive notion of "it".

It is itself. Yes. Identity matches. Truth.
What is not it, is not it. No. False. No identity match.

Such a principle never changes.

If you say, "No, it is not itself", then you are referring to "what it is, itself" already, to reject it. That's untruth, illogic. Such illogic reinforces what it is trying to deny; that it is itself. The only sane alternative is, "Yes".

A little toddler's mind is pure enough to know this. It's a very simple principle. This is what truth boils down to.


.

[Kelly Jones]

No, think about the essence of identity, before any content or meaning is applied to "it", not after.

What is really holding the unchangeability of identity, is Reality itself. It has always been, and always will be: itself.

See, there is something happening right now: that is an eternal something, no matter what form or meaning it is given. That's the unchanging "it" anchoring the absoluteness and reliability of truth.


.

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: How do I know that rationality enables me to understand what is ultimately and absolutely true about all things?

Kelly: See, there is something happening right now: that is an eternal something, no matter what form or meaning it is given. That's the unchanging "it" anchoring the absoluteness and reliability of truth.

Well said, but one can get to the point where rationality is no longer needed to sustain one's consciousness in the eternal something. The Buddha is the premier example, he calmly used logic to teach about the eternal something, but he himself had left the fire of needing logic (as a reminder of truth) behind. Rationality is not THE truth of the eternal something, rather, is a truth of deliverance into the eternal something. The fire of logic is eventually extinguished for the sake of being awake (unmoving equanimity).

[ardy]

No, think about the essence of identity, before any content or meaning is applied to "it", not after.

What is really holding the unchangeability of identity, is Reality itself. It has always been, and always will be: itself.

See, there is something happening right now: that is an eternal something, no matter what form or meaning it is given. That's the unchanging "it" anchoring the absoluteness and reliability of truth.


.

Kelly - you, movingalways and I are talking about the same hub, your assumption that logic and rationality is what is taking you there is your perception of IT. We stand on nothing, we grip on nought.

The closer you get to IT the less you can say about it. It is the same IT we are all talking about, IT has a thousand paths but only one hub. For us all to be talking about the same thing and chewing up time here is comforting but takes us nowhere. When we all disappear from this forum and all forums that discuss the great IT then you will know your fire has certainly taken over, and we have all slipped into the natural flow of life [assuming we all have some Taoist fundamentals in us].

[Kelly Jones]

So you're back, MA? I thought you said you were leaving, because you didn't like the sound of starting fires to help enlighten people?

Kelly: How do I know that rationality enables me to understand what is ultimately and absolutely true about all things?

[snip]

Kelly: See, there is something happening right now: that is an eternal something, no matter what form or meaning it is given. That's the unchanging "it" anchoring the absoluteness and reliability of truth.

MA: Well said, but one can get to the point where rationality is no longer needed to sustain one's consciousness in the eternal something. The Buddha is the premier example, he calmly used logic to teach about the eternal something, but he himself had left the fire of needing logic (as a reminder of truth) behind.

Why are you mentioning this in relation to the discussion with ardy? Can't you see he's arguing against the use of reasoning to understand what is absolutely true? He advocates not using it AT ALL for this goal. So your post is out of context, and unhelpful.

Rationality is not THE truth of the eternal something, rather, is a truth of deliverance into the eternal something.

This is completely irrelevant.

We're not speaking of particular truths, but of what is ultimately true. There is nothing but rationality that can actually deliver. Intuitions, hunches, hopes, imagination, speculations, wishes, dreams, etc. have absolutely no power to do the dirty work. Using them is like putting water into your fuel tank. The reason is because only reasoning clarifies what is true and what is false. If you can't see errors, you can't dismantle them. The whole grunt of the enlightening process is dismantling errors.

The fire of logic is eventually extinguished for the sake of being awake (unmoving equanimity).

Happiness, sadness, and equanimity are all delusional states of mind. If you've decided to get rid of logic, and are then experiencing such things, you definitely lost the track way before then.

Just as Huang Po put it:


The common mind imagines a self
Where there is nothing at all,
And from this arise emotional states -
Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.


The six states of being in Samsara,
The happiness of heaven,
The suffering of hell,
Are all false creations, figments of mind.


.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: No, think about the essence of identity, before any content or meaning is applied to "it", not after.

What is really holding the unchangeability of identity, is Reality itself. It has always been, and always will be: itself.

See, there is something happening right now: that is an eternal something, no matter what form or meaning it is given. That's the unchanging "it" anchoring the absoluteness and reliability of truth.

ardy: Kelly - you, movingalways and I are talking about the same hub, your assumption that logic and rationality is what is taking you there is your perception of IT. We stand on nothing, we grip on nought.

We aren't talking of the same thing at all. Your talk is that reasoning is driven by egotism, and can't show what is ultimately true. MA wants to get rid of reasoning before it has finished its work, so she can experience happiness (unconsciousness). My talk is that reasoning does show what is ultimately true, and needs to be plied diligently and uncompromisingly until the mind no longer experiences any delusions and false thoughts.

The closer you get to IT the less you can say about it.

Then stop talking.

Surely you realise that Lao Tsu was extremely close to IT yet could chatter for hours about the "Nameless Name"? Or do you think his disciples were brainless cult members who couldn't recognise their toenails from their nipples?

Reasoning points to the fact that things don't have ultimate boundaries, and that names are convenient pointers. That's what words are. It doesn't mean they can't do their job perfectly, as pointers. Or that one has to stop using them. In fact, rather than give up words, one uses the ones that work. Ones that point to themselves also.

If you think words delude and mislead, then you don't know their use. At some point, someone has told you, so to speak, to cut down the forest of delusion by laying aside the axe; it was a bad piece of advice.


.

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly wrote:

Happiness, sadness, and equanimity are all delusional states of mind. If you've decided to get rid of logic, and are then experiencing such things, you definitely lost the track way before then.

Just as Huang Po put it:

The common mind imagines a self
Where there is nothing at all,
And from this arise emotional states -
Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.


The six states of being in Samsara,
The happiness of heaven,
The suffering of hell,
Are all false creations, figments of mind.

It doesn’t follow from this that the enlightened mind is free of the experience of emotion.

What is being reasoned out here is that suffering in the unenlightened mind produces a clinging to false states of existence, i.e. states of existence where there is no physical suffering, yet there is an experience of the cumulative and generalised effects of physical suffering.

Hence:

The common mind imagines a self
Where there is nothing at all,

[Kelly Jones]

The quote continues... "and from these [the deluded perceptions of the unenlightened mind] arise emotional states."

[Kunga]

The quote continues... "and from these [the deluded perceptions of the unenlightened mind] arise emotional states."

"The deluded perceptions of the unenlightened mind" [is an emotional statement, the emotion being hatred.]

Huang Po said : The Mind is Buddha

So your perception is deluded, that the mind is unenlightened.



“All Buddhas and all ordinary beings are nothing but the one mind. This mind is beginningless and endless, unborn and indestructible. It has no color or shape, neither exists nor doesn’t exist, isn’t old or new, long or short, large or small, since it transcends all measures, limits, names, and comparisons. It is what you see in front of you.

Start to think about it and immediately you are mistaken. It is like the boundless void, which can’t be fathomed or measured. The one mind is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between Buddha and ordinary beings, except that ordinary beings are attached to forms and thus seek for Buddhahood outside themselves. By this very seeking they lose it, since they are using Buddha to seek for Buddha, using mind to seek for mind. Even if they continue for a million eons, they will never be able to find it. They don’t know that all they have to do is put a stop to conceptual thinking, and the Buddha will appear before them, because this mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not any less for being manifested in ordinary things, nor any greater for being manifested in Buddhas.”

[Leyla Shen]

What's, to you, is an emotional state?