It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I think it's an interesting question at least what I am thinking of. And what I am thinking of is the question of how my subjective knowing meets with objective knowing. The ever popular tree in a forest question. How does my subjective knowing even of teasing my thoughts into English sentences meet with an objective knowing?
Like say you imagine a tree falling and so you are present with your thoughts of tree falling. But you are imagining it. But then there can actually be a tree falling not just in imagination. How is my imagination related to the actual universe? And does either my imagination or the universe have a boundary in space? Is the universe totally separate from my imagination? Or do they meet and connect somehow? Is it a question based on wrong assumptions?
I read an account of how 'witches' in history might have actually believed that they went on flying trips on their magical brooms. And the book which was an entertaining account of chemistry in history told of how maybe some of their witches brew herbal concoctions account for that. So the witches were tripping on some of their herbal concoctions and woke up in the morning after 'experiences' of flying their brooms. Perhaps outdoors with broom in hand or nearby. Probably the book was just trying to be entertaining but it could be. And maybe some of the 'high' of meditation could explain experiences or claims of flying?
The "I" is examined and not destroyed. "I" isn't here and never was. We just don't realize. Or maybe it is here but we don't understand.
So where is the "I"? Body?
Also suffering ends at arhatship but Mahayanists believe that there are still 'knowledge veils'. The 'kleshas veils' are done at arhatship which kleshas are stains or 'suffering'. So then the path goes onwards from peace to become a complete Buddha. That's Mahayana though and not just tantra.
And cittamatra can be translated as mind only. And I also find that a bit odd to think the world is all thoughts. But it is the cittamatra and not the skhandamatra. Citta is something different from the skhandas. Actually my therapist who is not Buddhist has said that he thinks all sorts of things including physical and plants have vibrations that are beings. I don't exactly believe that or understand his perspective but I can listen to him talk and enjoy hearing and I think he is a very insightful person. My teacher wrote a book about death practices and a lot of what she says is to let go into our relationships or 'heart connections'. Our 'heart nature'. So that sounds a lot different from the teachings that say all of our relationships are just like meeting people in the market and they are impermanent. In fact in my teachers own lineage I think a lot of people say things like that to guard against being attached to relationships and fame and so forth. But my teacher teaches that the nature of the universe also meets us in our refuge. So my refuge is not just me cultivating something but it is also recognizing that the universe is going to say something back to me. I recall Thich Nhat Hanh talking about how he often receives "letters from emptiness" and I wonder if that's what he meant. So for me cittamatra could be "heart only" instead of "mind only". Or it could be an instruction to recognize the heart nature or our heart nature or something. But definitely important to note that citta is not same thing as skhanda.
With relationships we let go of the part (attachment) that is not meaningful, reliable, satisfying. When we let go of that there is something left that is satisfying remaining. If there was nothing satisfying about our relationships then we would be left with suffering and there wouldn't be enligthenment (is the line of thinking). So there is something meaningful about our heart. We suffer when attached to things that don't matter. When we let go of what doesn't matter we are left with something genuine rather than "it's all meaningless". Nature of mind beyond prapancha as we say.