tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Jan 24, 2015 3:27:53 GMT 1
Yes, Jeff, only that the term `potential` makes me project the result in the future, so I do not use it.
Also I do not want to concentrate on `horizons`, although thy appear everywhere ;-)
Perhaps it`s only me.
Jeff, you basically say, what Longchenpa said in the 14th century :
“pure mind is like the empty sky,
without memory, supreme meditation;
it is our own nature, unstirring, uncontrived,
and wherever that abides is the superior mind,
one in buddhahood without any sign,
one in view free of limiting elaboration,
one in meditation free of limiting ideation,
one in conduct free of limiting endeavor,
and one in fruition free of limiting attainment.
vast! spacious!
released as it stands!
with neither realization nor non-realization;
experience consummate! no mind!
it is open to infinity.”
Tamara
|
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Jun 12, 2016 0:50:33 GMT 1
Taking this a little further... I view the mind similar to the way I view an environment. An environment only has significance related to what is in it and what potential it has. An environment is not usually seen due to our obsession with its contents, though contents would not be possible without the environment. An environment does not have actual boundaries... only boundaries that are designated and as such it is folly to attempt to count them. There are many horizons in an environment all depending on our perspective and abilities to view them. Therefore, when meditating on the mind we should see it as a boundless potential that does not require a conceptual reference but simply has all that is needed and is totally satisfied. Then rest in that understanding. Where is 'the environment'? |
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Jun 12, 2016 1:47:29 GMT 1
A universal ground of being, a universal mind, leads I think in the opposite direction to Buddhism - to universal laws held in the mind of god. Dzongzar Kyhentse Rinpoche once said that Buddhism does not postulate a universal mind. I think this statement is deceptive, because we certainly do not postulate the opposite or the absence of a universal mind. When one realizes the emptiness of phenomena and understands the implications of this emptiness, then it is effortless to discover that what we regarded as a thought or feeling or object actually has all the qualities of an enlightened mind. In addition all sentient beings are present within the object in a way. When all sentient beings are present simultaneously, no one individual or individual bias or negative emotion can be. In this way sentient beings are our wish fulfilling jewel. They are the key to the purification of our consciousness and our own liberation. Enlightened mind has a quality that is like no mind. It has no boundaries, and no limitations. Also, there is cessation of suffering and its causes, so in these ways it is like there is no mind. In some ways it is more accurate to say there is no mind, because mind is a concept that must be defined. Buddha mind is beyond conceptual constraints and can not be described in any way that limits it. Buddhists often describe this Wisdom Conciousness as containing all good qualities. This is an accurate description that does not impose conceptual constraints. Also, Mahayana Buddhists believe in a Great or Universal Enlightenment. This is an aspiration we commit ourselves to daily. I believe that about the time one understands what is meant by Great Enlightenment, one begins to discover that it has always been here. We need the commitment and the aspiration and be able to feel the compassion within them, but we do not need to create or bring about Universal Enlightenment. Rather we need commitment and aspiration, dedication and sincerity to unlock our own ultimate nature and discover the true potentials within the mundane. "When all sentient beings are present simultaneously"? Surely, in emptiness, they are not present? Isn't that the point? Empty of self-nature? I think you are giving emptiness it's own self nature - Universal Self Nature! I see Buddha Mind as universal in the same sense as a Universal Turing Machine. That is, consciousness is the ability to imagine ourselves into other perspectives, which is to say thinking. In this sense each mind is 'universal', it is similar to other minds and can 'simulate' or think about being them. That process inevitably leads to asking how best to be, and the answer is inevitably to save all sentient beings from suffering and become Buddha. That doesn't require reifying enlightenment as a thing even an infinite thing, such as 'all good qualities'. I am sceptical of 'Mahayana Buddhist's believe in Great or Universal Enlightenment'. If those terms are used, do they mean what you think they do..? The question 'how many sentient beings are there?' is not trivial. In the sutras they say 'uncountable', and in the sutra 'Teacher of the Devas' www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html it is mentioned that beings enter this collection of realms, and presumably leave as they left others. Huge epic scales and numbers are indicated. But the aspect that is puzzling is, does each being get reborn as only one other being? All of Buddhist cosmology says yes, and Buddhist teaching says denying this rebirth is a kind of nihilism. But the Buddhist picture of the mind seems to suggests attachments are the ultimate cause of seperations which are thoughts and combine to be minds. That sounds like one attachment could cause multiple moments of consciousness, and contribute to several minds. In scientific thought, this is saying your body can be food, your possessions can pass to your descendents, your ideas can live on, all these fragme ts and attachments go of in their seperate directions. How can these perspectives be resolved? By saying self is unreal but those things that continue are real? I think that is a mistake, and comes from mixing incompatible explanatory frameworks. It is really crucial to take up the importance of subjective experience. Non-attached consciousness seems to be universal. But what Buddhism is dealing with all the time is attached, is subjective, not universal consciousness. And it is that, which is of the realm of karma and rebirth. We are each places for karma to happen, to experience itself, and that is an essentially subjective seperated attached experience. We as subjective percievers and thinkers are the units for the process, which must be linked in a way we can't see (mundanely). There are universals like Ksitigharba's diamond sword, or the thousand hands and eyes of Kuanyin. But the more universal, the less linked to a subjective particular life. I see it as that the universe cannot ask itself why, it can only do that through beings. We must each wrestle with our particular subjective inheritance, universals only exist as far as they understand themselves in this. What ever is unanswered, is passed on, to arise again. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jun 25, 2016 4:44:17 GMT 1
NOESSENTIALNATURE wrote: I see Buddha Mind as universal in the same sense as a Universal Turing Machine. That is, consciousness is the ability to imagine ourselves into other perspectives, which is to say thinking. In this sense each mind is 'universal', it is similar to other minds and can 'simulate' or think about being them. That process inevitably leads to asking how best to be, and the answer is inevitably to save all sentient beings from suffering and become Buddha. Having read your last several posts, I can see we are coming from very different perspectives, and are quite naturally going to disagree. My writing in these and most posts is a reflection of my own experience with the realization of emptiness, which, for me at least, is different than ordinary experience. A lot of my assertions can be supported by different texts, especially Nyingma texts, because they are a little more likely to describe supra-ordinary experience and what it implies, than the Gelugs. My own Guru is a Gelugpa, but their adherence to prasangika can leave the impression that emptiness is the same as nothingness, so I tend to elaborate some as do many Nyingma texts. My descriptions are never as strictly accurate as the prasangika negations, but they do help some people, and they do not leave the impression that emptiness is akin to nihilism, which is a great error. Nihilism can be understood, as can essentialism or eternalism. All of our ordinary experience is a matter of existence or nonexistence, so these poles are easier to know and comprehend. Strictly speaking, emptiness can not be captured in words, hence the negative approach of the prasangika. But prasangika is just one method, and it can easily leave a wrong impression. What you are describing does not speak to me of the experience of emptiness, rather it speaks of mundane understanding, and you have a very good understanding of reification, but it seems to me you are missing emptiness and implying Nihilism, instead. Many Western Buddhists seem to believe that enlightenment and realization is a matter of intellectual achievement. This is completely contrary to every thing I have learned and experienced, studying and practicing Buddhism for a long time. Usually Dan is better at finding quotes to support my assertions than I am, because he reads a lot more Dharma books and articles than I do, I tend to rely on first hand experience and occasional teachings. So I think it is pointless to argue about these issues, because you have a good mind and a good, if entirely intellectual, understanding, and I have very different experience and consequently quite different understanding. I could quote Buddhist texts to you, but I doubt that would change your mind or point of view at all. So thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I don't see any point in debating them, because we would be essentially talking about different things. I hope you keep posting, though, it is interesting to read, and there is never enough activity here any more.  |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jun 25, 2016 15:14:21 GMT 1
Also, I may as well point out that when I speak of Buddha mind, this is not exactly emptiness, rather clear light, the mind of Buddha, is the result of realizing emptiness with a Mahayana intention. That is known as the union of wisdom and method. In Buddhism, wisdom refers to understanding that all things are interdependent, then knowing they are empty. Method refers to love, wanting all sentient beings to be happy, and compassion, wanting all sentient beings to be free of suffering. Eventually one begins to understand that wisdom and method are actually the same realization. Because all phenomena are empty, then the full potential of any phenomena can be realized through recognition of its ultimate nature. This is what all the Tibetan completion paths accomplish.
Saying that all sentient beings are present in a single atom, is not as strictly accurate as prasangika negations, but it is not wrong either. Chan Buddhists coined the phrase, "the void which is all things," to describe the realization of emptiness, and sometimes this is translated as no-thing. Many Tibetan texts also describe the wholeness aspect of realization and enlightenment. No thing exists, because all distinctions are conceptual and illusory. This is the insight that eventually leads to realization. So if you experienced no distinctions, no boundaries, between all phenomena and between all sentient beings, you can see that is not nothing, but it is not something either. That is the experience that the empty nature of all things allows.
In our conceptual view of the world, we see partial manifestations of phenomena, but this is an illusion. When Buddhists speak of realization or recognition, they are alluding to recognizing within non-dual awareness, that where there is hot, there is cold, where there is female, there is male, and so on. When one penetrates phenomena or experience with this insight and understanding, a very different experience occurs.
|
|
