tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Dec 14, 2013 4:30:15 GMT 1
And then (out of topic):
He is here.
He is here, the young man, not older than 25,
wearing the coat half over one arm in traditional style,
his hair long, down to the waist,
busily reciting mantras, holding the big `malla` in both hands
while fastly walking through the small street north of Kathmandu
today at 6 am while I did my morning walk.
He might be from northern Nepal or perhaps
from the country north of it.
He`s obviously very new here and perhaps part
of the small, quite secular looking Nyingma monastery
5 minutes away.
He will go through hell adjusting to modern Nepal
and living with monks with smart-phones,
shopping in the nearby huge department store.
Let`s pray that he emerges as a `victor`
from this enormous challenge,
that what he KNOWS NOW is not lost
within the next weeks and months.
Let`s be with him in our hearts.
Tamara
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Dec 15, 2013 14:49:44 GMT 1
Jeff asked: ``When it comes to Dharma, what are you most unsure about?`` Could you elaborate on this question a bit, Jeff, what exactly do you mean ? Tamara Tamara, great to see you. I really miss you when you're away but it's so great to hear about the fabulous teachings you are receiving and the work you are doing. Well, I tend to ask this question to advanced practitioners. There are so many things to work through when progressing along the path and I believe we all have uncertainties and doubts. However, I'm always curious what issues remain in the minds of those who have "worked through" so many of struggles and what "nags" them. For some it may be something really fundamental, like rebirth. Others may see "miracles" as unbelievable. Others may have doubts but they do not "nag" them (hinder them). I have asked some teachers and received some really interesting answers. Of course this question is interesting for all practitioners, even baby ones, like myself. For me, what I find hardest to believe is that there are so many enlightened beings with these amazing powers but they are unable to reach us in more effective ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Dec 15, 2013 15:31:54 GMT 1
Hi Jeff,
With me also the most problems I encounter in believing are many of the 'magical stories' from Tibet. If these were all true, the place must have been filled with tons of creatures and people that nobody has ever seen in the last couple of centuries.... On the other hand, I must say that if only one percent of the stories is true, Tibet is/was probably the most magical place in the world.
Another thing is for me to distinguish between teachers actually 'seeing things' and what seems much more like pure superstition. For example, I did hear of many very accurate predictions by the great masters, but at the same time, I see some relying on astrology and all kinds of 'mechanical' predictions that appear pretty unlikely to me to say the least. For example, 'Thursday is not a good day for me', or the xth day of the month is bad for travel.
This kind of reliance on calendars etc. becomes double weird when you realize that the Tibetans are actually using a calendar that has shifted one month over time, simply because they do not adhere to the instructions that are described in the texts, and refuse to do some basic measurements every now and then. So, the calendar with all their predictions and 'important' dos and don'ts is one month off, and they still hold on to it for dear life, rather then doing what is described in the texts to adjust the calendar every few centuries - by a very simple measurement that takes an hour or so...
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 15, 2013 22:36:01 GMT 1
I thought Milarepa's fantastic accounts in his biography were believable, because he describes them so matter-of-factly amongst so much mundane detail, and he is highly regarded by so many. It is one thing for a story about someone to become embellished over time, but Milarepa was describing his first hand experiences, like flying from one place to another, and being seen by people while flying. It seems more incredible that he could be telling untruths than he could fly or practice dark magic. And the vast majority of the book is about all of his years of asceticism and meditation. He develops the ability to fly near the end.
On the other hand I have always believed those kinds of things are theoretically possible, but probably very rare. I worked with a young man from SE Asia, I don't remember which country, who said that while he was a monk for about a year he saw someone levitate while meditating. I did not know the fellow well enough to believe him or not, though. He told us he was in a monastery that specialized in marital arts. Where he was from most young men became monks for a while. There was another man from Thailand in that factory, but I am thinking this fellow may have been from VIetnam.
I am just not that much of materialist that I believe physical laws trump extraordinary mental abilities. I never have believed that. I don't necessarily believe all the fantastic stories I hear or read, but I usually don't disbelieve them either, I usually think well, that may be true, who knows, but some I find really credible. To me the most credible explanations for them were from Carlos Castaneda. He described an assemblage point in our energy bodies that determines what kind of world we experience, and when that becomes fluid and can move to certain positions the rules can change, or in other positions other realms are experienced.
I read online somewhere a post from a young guy who was trying to understand an experience he had. He and his girl friend were walking across a frozen lake when he felt a surge of energy and started leaping really high and far between steps. He said it was about 40 feet between each foot print. His girlfriend was running after him and saw the whole thing. They were both blown away by it, and could see his foot prints so far apart after. I found his story credible. He seemed genuinely perplexed by it and was really trying to get some kind of explanation. This was on chat site about shamanism.
Anyway, I'm glad that things like that are believable to me. I think it makes practice easier in some ways.
|
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Dec 16, 2013 5:46:53 GMT 1
Jeff wrote:
``For me, what I find hardest to believe is that there are so many enlightened beings with these amazing powers but they are unable to reach us in more effective ways.``
Dear Jeff, you have turned something around here, IMHO:
Enlightened beings are always everywhere but we do not have the capability to receive what they offer and we do not have the capability to understand what Buddha was teaching (or Garab Dorje).
Buddha reaches out to us in the most effective ways all the time but we are not able to cognize and to realize this. In other words - reality, as it is, is always here but we distort it.
To get somewhere on this path is a gradual process.
I had an amazing experience 2 weeks ago.
Since the first moment, since seriously `meeting` the Dharma in 2004, I feel drawn to Vajrasattva and he is my favorite so to speak, I do not know why.
After 3 years as Vajrayana practitioner now I had a total change of experiencing Vajrasattva, not anymore in a Sutra- but in a Vajrayana way.
Not possible to explain here, this will only understand who had the same experience.
And this came without much analytical/theoretical brain exercises, which I tend to be so fond of.
Now I wonder `why I did not see this before in this way...,
it`s soooo obvious, so clear and even logic`.....
Now where was Vajrasattva, this knowledge, these undistorted way of seeing, all the time ?
It all was always here but it took me years of practice to be able to `get it`.
Tamara
|
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Dec 16, 2013 5:56:44 GMT 1
``they are unable to reach us in more effective ways.``
Just yesterday I e-mailed a story to a friend where I recalled the event of another acqaintance of us who as a teenager nearly killed someone.
The action was disturbed by a telephone suddenly ringing, so he did not do it.
In cases like this, isn`t there an `angel` watching over us, as they say in Christian terms ?
Yesterday I also remembered a moment where I was about to do one of the most stupid/thoughtless actions in my life as a young person and another incident, a totally rare event, made the action impossible in the last moment.
And so on and so on...
Tamara
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Dec 16, 2013 15:00:59 GMT 1
Actually, this is an "age old" question really. Why doesn't God show himself, etc.
or
If a Buddha can make the telephone ring to prevent a killing why not simply intervene in other killings or in a more direct way?
But that wasn't the purpose of my question (to get a discussion going about my own inadequacies) which was to understand and share Dharma related topics about which we are most unsure.
For instance, here is another of mine...
Is the mind really the source of everything? Is all phenomena, physical and non-physical really created by the mind? How does that work?
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 18:57:57 GMT 1
For instance, here is another of mine... Is the mind really the source of everything? Is all phenomena, physical and non-physical really created by the mind? How does that work? Well that is a really big question, isn't it? The Dalai Lama gets into it a little in his book, the Universe in a single atom. He describes how a Physical Universe begins as matter, and because there are no sentient beings in it yet only physical laws apply. Physicists believe those laws break down at times, like in a black hole, or during the first few moments after the big bang. According to HHDL karma comes into play later when sentient beings are born into the Universe, but then he says what is more difficult to understand is that the karma of sentient beings born into the Universe later causes the physical Universe to be "born" previously. So I come back to interdependence at this point, setting time aside altogether in a way and look at it more holistically, and think well, collectively in our interdependence we are creating the Universe right now. As far as it all being created by mind, one has to consider the alternatives. What else could it be? As far as how it works, well, I am not entirely sure obviously and I don't know all the details but physical reality is a kind of collective dream. The universe may be a holographic projection, but however it works it is definitely an illusion, and there is really only one mind and even that is interdependent and empty. But consciousness has endless capacity to fragment and project, so we get all these individual mind streams, with their own karma, desires, fears and experiences. There are a number of ways you can gain some insight into the big scheme, and help your practice, which of course should always be the priority. 1. Examine ways you reify the self. How do you distinguish and define yourself? How do emotions and competitiveness work with that? 2. Think about interdependence and impermanent natures. We need food, air, water. If you have a basic understanding of the Uncertainty Principal, how electrons are thought to appear in probability fields, that can help because then you can think more in terms of probabilities and appearances rather than objects. But even just mediating on impermanence helps with all of that. In fact all Buddhist wisdom comes down to impermanence. If you contemplate how everything is impermanent in nature not just that it will break or die, but that it is dependent on everything else, that helps a lot. Rather than one simple answer, there is a different, more holistic way to approach things, and out of that a person can develop a more intuitive description of the world. Finally, and most importantly it all comes down to duality. The mind's capacity to think in dualistic terms creates vibrations. And even contemporary science believes that at its most minute level, matter is vibration. |
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Dec 16, 2013 19:47:01 GMT 1
Finally, and most importantly it all comes down to duality. The mind's capacity to think in dualistic terms creates vibrations. And even contemporary science believes that at its most minute level, matter is vibration. Well, that's very interesting to me... I always had the feeling that "mind" is not really just mind. As is says in the Mahahumdra text: "Furthermore, while in a state of total absorption, [scrutinize] mind. Not established as any form of physical phenomenon, it is a non-obstructive bareness that gives rise to the cognitive dawning and emanation of anything, and which endures as an unhindered clarity and awareness, engaging [with objects] without discontinuity. It appears not to depend on anything else. But as for the implied object of the mind that apprehends it [to exist as it appears], our guiding light, Shantideva, has said, "Such things as continuum or collection are not as they seem. They are false, as in the case of a rosary, an army and so on." By means of scriptural authority and lines of reasoning such as this, totally absorb yourself on everything's lack of existing as it appears." While this whole description has a beauty that is very profound I think about the part where it says "...engaging with objects without discontinuity". When I think about this it does feel like "mind" is a vibration that goes back and forth between some form of energy/lucidity and object(s) and if there were ever no objects to cognize mind would have no purpose and cease. Or, even more profound, perhaps it would then create them... That's been my feeling for a long time. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 19:53:32 GMT 1
So when I say think more holistically, I understand that can be easier to say than do. The first step is to relax and soften our grip a little. We want to get to a point where we can just let go of expectations, stop grasping after an answer. And concentration meditation is helping with this, because you learn to concentrate on the breath or an object and to do that you learn to let go of thoughts and bring your mind back to the object over and over until it becomes easier to quiet and focus the mind. Now when we think intellectually it tends to be in a pretty linear fashion, like a+b=c. So that is like first there is a, then we add b, and that leads to c. You see, there is a linear progression. And all of our stories, they have a beginning, a middle and an end. But the beginning is never really the beginning, and the end is never really the end. We tell stories that begin where we want and end where we think they should, and all those choices have ways of describing us as victims or heroes. They tend to be very self-serving and ignore our karma and responsibility altogether. In other words our stories are not just arbitrary, they are self serving and unrealistic.
Now trying to understand something, is trying to fit it into a linear format, and we analyze it in a linear way. That means we are ignoring the vast majority of the details. Another way to get an answer, not necessarily the final answer, but just a better understanding is to just let go of the whole thought process, and see what comes up. It may seem nonsensical at first, but is it really? Maybe there is some connection to this apparently random thought and the question after all.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 20:05:10 GMT 1
Well, that's very interesting to me... I always had the feeling that "mind" is not really just mind. As is says in the Mahahumdra text: "Furthermore, while in a state of total absorption, [scrutinize] mind. Not established as any form of physical phenomenon, it is a non-obstructive bareness that gives rise to the cognitive dawning and emanation of anything, and which endures as an unhindered clarity and awareness, engaging [with objects] without discontinuity. It appears not to depend on anything else. But as for the implied object of the mind that apprehends it [to exist as it appears], our guiding light, Shantideva, has said, "Such things as continuum or collection are not as they seem. They are false, as in the case of a rosary, an army and so on." By means of scriptural authority and lines of reasoning such as this, totally absorb yourself on everything's lack of existing as it appears." While this whole description has a beauty that is very profound I think about the part where it says "...engaging with objects without discontinuity". When I think about this it does feel like "mind" is a vibration that goes back and forth between some form of energy/lucidity and object(s) and if there were ever no objects to cognize mind would have no purpose and cease. Or, even more profound, perhaps it would then create them... That's been my feeling for a long time. Yeah, that is it, I think. And there is a similar kind of duality in any thought or feeling. Well this quote function is not working right, but this is Mat saying I think Jeff is right. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 20:46:32 GMT 1
There are vibrations in any object material or mental, and there are vibrations between the object and observer, and in the observer. Going from this understanding to it all being mind is a leap, but it is a leap from something to something. At some point something (mind) can be seen to be nothing (emptiness), and that is where liberation occurs. In Dzongchen everything that appears is food for Rigpa. So that is like Buddha eating all the vibrations. They are consumed by sentience in many realms simultaneously, like water being purified in a wetland. One bug or microbe eats something, then its waste is consumed by something else and so on until you have clean water. Clear light manifests that way, the vibrations are consumed and become more refined at each level. Because the levels are multidimensional it can all happen simultaneously. The whole interdependent universe and all its inhabitants have the potentials of clear light, which is the mind of Buddha and can manifest as whatever sentient beings need.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 21:06:37 GMT 1
In order to recognize (transform into) sem (ordinary mind) as Rigpa (Clear light consciousness), you really just need confidence that sem is the polluted form of rigpa, and that it can be purified instantly. Whatever understanding and experience gets you to that point, that is all that is needed. Once you know that in sem are all the potentials for rigpa, all good qualities are there as potentials, and have some way of feeling confidence they will appear, then they will. So sem being empty of inherent existence is important, in other words it is not stuck in its present form, it can be purified, in fact it is pure ultimately, that is all one needs to know. If you have confidence it can be instantly purified, then anything you apply your mind to will be, and it seems to happen in the observer and the object at the same time, which makes sense. Study and practice are the ways we gain and maintain the understanding and experience we need to have that confidence.
In any part is the whole. That is a big part of the logic. A powerful aspiration like universal love and compassion, can be realized anywhere in anything. When you know it is there, it appears as clear light.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 16, 2013 21:54:33 GMT 1
Just came across this in my inbox. As often happens it seems appropriate. Dharma quote from Snow Lion:
December 16, 2013
LIBERATION AND NIRVANA
According to Sthiramati, though samsara has the nature of nirvana, in ordinary beings true reality is obscured by their tendencies of clinging to a self and really existing phenomena. Thus, they do not see emptiness, which actually exists, but they naturally perceive the actually nonexistent phenomena of apprehender and apprehended, just as when mistakenly not seeing an existent rope, but seeing it as a nonexistent snake.
Bodhisattvas lack the clinging to a self and phenomena and thus they naturally see true reality—emptiness—while not seeing any duality, just as correctly seeing an existent rope, while not seeing it as a nonexistent snake. When existent emptiness—true reality—is seen and the nonexistent characteristics of apprehender and apprehended are not seen anymore, the alaya-consciousness—the dependent nature—has undergone the fundamental change. This fundamental change is liberation and nirvana.
Just as people liberated from bondage can do what they please, once this fundamental change occurs, bodhisattvas are liberated because they have gained mastery over their minds, which abide like space without any appearance of characteristics. Thus, no matter what they encounter, they are able to act as they please without being bound by any attachment or aversion.
Mining for Wisdom within Delusion: Maitreya’s Distinction between Phenomena and the Nature of Phenomena and Its Indian and Tibetan Commentaries by Karl Brunnhölzl, page 82
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Dec 17, 2013 10:19:08 GMT 1
That is quite simply true; just look at when we sleep; our normal sense perception is more or less shut down, so our mind comes up with dreams. Simply close your eyes and you 'see' an endless stream of thoughts, which very often have nothing to do with direct sense perception. This is the mental sense.
To get back to the main question of 'everything is created by the mind', there is also the different perspective that explains not necessarily that the universe is literally created by the mind (as Matt explained via our karma), but for us, everything that we can perceive of the universe goes via the mind. Just like all the images on TV must first have come from some sort of a camera, we need our senses and our mind in order to perceive things. We also know that normally, our mind mis-perceives reality as being inherently existent, so our mind projects this distorted idea onto everything we perceive, just like a camera with a distorting lens.
The whole world we see on TV is ultimately created by cameras and all other technical stuff behind it. Similarly, the whole world as we experience it, is at best a reflection of reality created by our mind, and that is distorted, so in that sense, my world is created by my mind. Your world is created by your mind. This also leads to the odd conclusion that our relative, conventional world is only our own creation and we actually live in a different world then everyone else around us.
It only becomes the same world for all of us if we look from the ultimate perspective of emptiness. That view is apparently non-dual, and beyond the normal way our mind functions. It is like the real truth is hidden in infrared light, but our camera cannot see that, so we all talk in terms of visible colors to describe something invisible - hence the confusion.
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Dec 17, 2013 16:32:21 GMT 1
So there are 2 perspectives of 'everything is created by mind'.
1. Consciousness actually creates physical matter.
2. Matter exists and consciousness projects onto to it, creating our world.
For me, it's easy to see number 2 but I am focused on number 1...
If mind is the source of everything (a causal mind) and you determine that mind is empty then it is obvious and undeniable (with great impact) that all phenomena, including the self of persons, are empty. If the cause/source is empty so must be the effect.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 17, 2013 22:27:19 GMT 1
Well, it is good to remember that number 2 is the preferred explanation for whole schools of great meditators. You only arrive at number one if you follow the logic of Interdependence and especially emptiness all the way up to Cittamatra and Mahdyamika. According to Lama Jhampa Shaneman, Cittamatra, the Mind Only School asserts that all external reality is a projection of the mind, is empty and interdependent. Mahdyamika takes this one step farther and says that even the mind that projects is empty and interdependent.
The problem with the word creation is it has connotations of there being something inherently existing that has been created. What the mind projects is an illusion, according to Cittamatra and Mahdyamka. There are schools that consider external reality to be in some way real, but misperceived by the mind. These are not considered the highest schools of thought in Tibetan Buddhism, though.
For practical reasons Buddhists usually make a distinction between external and internal reality. The ultimate nature of external reality is usually called voidness, while the ultimate nature of internal phenomena is called emptiness. This is a practical distinction, though. Ultimately any duality, even inner and outer do not hold up under middle way analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Dec 18, 2013 10:37:19 GMT 1
Fully agree with what Matt wrote. One exception perhaps, some people simply use voidness as a synonym for emptiness (like Alex Berzin). As an addition to your first issue: mind creating all matter, I think this should probably also be seen from an interdependence point of view. The direct/prime cause for matter/energy may not even be mind, but mind - in this particular case karma - will at least be a cooperating force for a new universe to arise. You could also turn the argument around following western logic; suppose a universe appears without any influence or interdependence of the mind. It is quite likely that it would be unknown to mind, and no sentient beings would live in it (or even be able to live in it). In that case, it would simply not be perceivable by our mind and practically not exist (for any of us). So from an ultimate point of view that universe may exist, but whether it exists from a conventional point of view becomes debatable. In any case, if such a universe is totally independent of mind and thus imperceivable, it would be totally irrelevant for us. In modern science, there is lots of discussion on all sorts of parallel universes etc., and they could exist (at least on paper) in many different ways. But I think one can argue that probably all of them are utterly irrelevant for us.  |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 18, 2013 19:50:35 GMT 1
Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος, logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The above is from Wikipedia. So this is something to consider, that in the West we have different methods than in Asia. When we think about and analyze cosmology in the West we are usually referring to a material Universe that is gradually known through science and experimentation. In Buddhism it is known through the science of mind, and one way it can be understood is using Nagarjuna's Doctrine of Two Truths. Interdependence is the relative nature of all kinds of phenomena. This is a another way of saying that all phenomena have dependent origination. This is a very profound view of phenomena, and one should not underestimate its importance or its capacity to improve our lives and enhance our practice if we contemplate it. Saying that the Universe is interdependent is saying a great deal indeed. Emptiness is the ultimate nature of all kinds of phenomena. And this can be understood in part as the difference between knowledge and truth. Interdependence is meant to be a way to understand and relate to the world. Emptiness can work this way too, understanding that I or something I want or am afraid of is empty of inherent existence is really helpful in myriad ways. But emptiness, being the ultimate nature of things usually refers to realization, and that is where Buddhists move beyond understanding and into what we consider fact or truth. And that happens when you experience it. Even saying that the universe is a projection of mind is still a relative truth. Even saying it is an illusion is still a relative truth. But Bodhisatvas never really move beyond the need for relative truth- in other words understanding- because we use it to analyze and apply the realization of emptiness. We combine the two, or sometimes we can discover how they were never really separate. This is the union of wisdom and method, combining truth and understanding as a means of purifying our consciousness in ways that can have a beneficial effect beyond our relative selves. So I understand that is very advanced, but there is no knowing reality from the middle way without it, and all the explanations of mahdyamika are carefully worded to allow for (not exclude) this truth, and help us get closer to it. Once it is known, it is proven in the laboratory of experience, then the only point of explanation is to help others know it for themselves, and that does not usually involve explaining the final answer so much as explaining the way to arrive at it for yourself.  |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Dec 18, 2013 20:21:34 GMT 1
Explaining the Universe in terms of ultimate nature is very different. I once told a Dzongchen teacher I understood his teaching by stating simply, "There is no mind." He nodded agreement and smiled. That covers everything, but it has to be understood in the context of middle path analysis and realization. But if you are looking for the truth, what is reality? Well, there is your final answer. But how much good is it really? Depends on the user, for a lot of people and out of context that could mean Nihilism, for others meaningless nonsense. For me there is no other way to encapsulate truth in a statement, though. So I think by necessity you are asking a question about a relative view of the world. |
|
