Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, rene said:

 

 

These two quotes, Jeff's and especially the bolded line in Apech's, point to an idea that is on the way - but incomplete in its understanding, and therefore usefulness, imo.

 

Like the flower desires, and turns toward, the sun - so it is natural for us to desire things: food, shelter, love. Most may agree there is nothing wrong with desiring those things, yes? But what about things pleasurable yet not necessary for survival? Those are the things the two quotes are pointing at.

 

One quote (and more than one tradition) seem to suggest eliminating all desire by removing exposure to the things that are the sources of desire - which I find to be an unnatural method. The other quote (and still other traditions) suggest to not be attached to "things" to avoid desire for them. This idea is less severe than the first - but still lacking, imo.

 

To me, (my) desires are natural - but unimportant. Both in their existance and fulfillment. They are unimportant  because I also know there is "no way" that I can predict if fulfilling them would be to my betterment or detriment. Would getting the pony turn out well? Who knows? Not me, lol, so whatever comes is okay!

 

I have a favorite tea cup! ☕

 

Unlike the Master who quickly broke his when realizing he did too (to avoid attachment) - I'm going to keep, use & cherish mine, until it breaks which it eventually will, then say 'Aw..damn,' sweep up the pieces..and pick a new favorite one! Life is good. 🌻

 

 

I think you raise some really good points. For me, abandoning the origin of suffering, is more about simply dropping the attachment aspect of it. Sure, pursue a goal, have fun with it, just don’t get attached to the outcome. If you get the pony, fine, if not, oh well, equally fine.

 

A flower has a “desire” to grow into the sun, but is not attached to the outcome. Growing and expansion is natural, getting attached to aspects of that growth is where the suffering comes in.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Jeff

[silent thunder]

Rene, your insight resonates for me what is at the heart of the ancient saying.

 

The Sage is in the world, but not of it.

 

Participation in the process of duality and the play of the 10,000... is not the same as identifying with it.

 

 

[rene]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I think you raise some really good points. For me, abondoning the origin of suffering, is more about simply dropping the attachment aspect of it.

 

It might be a difficulty with the word 'Attachment'... some folks think you're not supposed to like anything at all.

 

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Sure, pursue a goal, have fun with it, just don’t get attached to the outcome. If you get the pony, fine, if not, oh well, equally fine.

 

Yeppers, that's me! 🎈

[rene]

8 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Rene, your insight resonates for me what is at the heart of the ancient saying.

 

The Sage is in the world, but not of it.

 

Participation in the process of duality and the play of the 10,000... is not the same as identifying with it.

 

 

 

Aaaand that's me too!! LOLOL

 

Kind words, thanks! 🏂🌲

[Jeff]

19 minutes ago, rene said:

 

It might be a difficulty with the word 'Attachment'... some folks think you're not supposed to like anything at all.

 

Yeppers, that's me! 🎈

 

Even a Buddha has a “desire” to help sentient beings realize (even embedded in the vow). Just doesn’t wory about (get attached) it if it takes a long, long time for us mortal types.  

[manitou]

I, like Silent Thunder, see an overlap with Daoist thought here.  Paraphrasing the many translations, there are two way of looking at and understanding things.  One is to become entrenched in the situation, the evaluation, the emotions.  The other is to transcend and see the true essence behind it and see it as part of the whole.  We have the choice at any given moment.

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by manitou

[rene]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Even a Buddha has a “desire” to help sentient beings realize (even embedded in the vow). Just doesn’t wory about (get attached) it if it takes a long, long time for us mortal types.  

 

I agree... so why, then, would that Master have a problem with having a favorite teacup? I get the point of the teaching - but it ALSO conveys that having even the smallest thing (teacup) should be avoided. On its own it's too extreme, too extreme.

 

Better, perhaps, to find another way to convey Even in the small, the large resides.

 

Perpetual imo applied.

[rene]

9 minutes ago, manitou said:

I, like Silent Thunder, see an overlap with Daoist thought here.  Paraphrasing the many translations, there are two way of looking at and understanding things.  One is to become entrenched in the situation, the evaluation, the emotions.  The other is to transcend and see the true essence behind it and see it as part of the whole.  We have the choice at any given moment.

 

 

 

 

That we do. And yes! there is much Daoist thought/overlap here...

 

As this is a Buddhist thread in the Buddhist section - perhaps CT would prefer if it heads back more in that direction?

 

Apologies for my OT posts. Sweeping up teacup now. Cheers! (-:

[Jeff]

30 minutes ago, rene said:

 

I agree... so why, then, would that Master have a problem with having a favorite teacup? I get the point of the teaching - but it ALSO conveys that having even the smallest thing (teacup) should be avoided. On its own it's too extreme, too extreme.

 

Better, perhaps, to find another way to convey Even in the small, the large resides.

 

Perpetual imo applied.

 

To me, it is having a “favorite” teacup (or an attachment to it), not a problem with having a teacup in general. More like my earlier example of loving just one person as compared to more universal love. 

[Stosh]

I dont know if this answer is needed ,but If the master holds the epitome of a certain perspective, then by its very nature it may appear extreme.

A favorite cup is granted a status burden or importance on the owner, the cup is just an object.. If that cup is the only thing upon which one heaps their requirement for happiness , then one is still relying on an intermediate object between themselves and their joy.

Does one really need this tiny insignificant trinket out of an entire world of things?

I mean ,really? that little thing is whats important to you?

Its a sort of negotiated evasion of the principle. The cup is tiny and therefore my attatchment to it is .. excusable.

This would be reasonable to me but the master understands it means more. 

...I think.

[rene]

11 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I dont know if this answer is needed ,but If the master holds the epitome of a certain perspective, then by its very nature it may appear extreme.

A favorite cup is granted a status burden or importance on the owner, the cup is just an object.. If that cup is the only thing upon which one heaps their requirement for happiness , then one is still relying on an intermediate object between themselves and their joy.

Does one really need this tiny insignificant trinket out of an entire world of things?

I mean ,really? that little thing is whats important to you?

Its a sort of negotiated evasion of the principle. The cup is tiny and therefore my attatchment to it is .. excusable.

This would be reasonable to me but the master understands it means more. 

...I think.

 

Thanks, Stosh, for your ideas on this. What you say makes sense (in explaining the "difficulty of having a favorite anything" concept) - and it is a philosophy I do not share.

 

To me, there is little difference between stand-alone materialism ~and~ stand-alone spiritual-materialism.... guess I prefer the natural balance of Both, same time.

[C T]

18 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I dont know if this answer is needed ,but If the master holds the epitome of a certain perspective, then by its very nature it may appear extreme.

A favorite cup is granted a status burden or importance on the owner, the cup is just an object.. If that cup is the only thing upon which one heaps their requirement for happiness , then one is still relying on an intermediate object between themselves and their joy.

Does one really need this tiny insignificant trinket out of an entire world of things?

I mean ,really? that little thing is whats important to you?

Its a sort of negotiated evasion of the principle. The cup is tiny and therefore my attatchment to it is .. excusable.

This would be reasonable to me but the master understands it means more. 

...I think.

This way of consideration is consistent with the contemplation of what constitutes Right View in Buddhist practice. 

 

Some questions do not need answers. All that is deemed of temporary importance are the considerations being reflected upon, not if they have some closure or finality. Getting used to such an approach is one way that will gradually allow the contemplator, after making progress, to exert less effort, leading eventually to a complete relaxation, in noting and acknowledging the presence of a mind fixated on any one thing, even if this one thing turns out to be a desire not to fixate on anything. 

 

Fixations are by nature movements of the mind that create tension in a person. These can manifest on gross, subtle, and subtlest levels. It will be futile to try and scrutinise the modes and levels of manifestation, according to teachers like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Instead, the contemplator is encouraged to only cultivate the habit of relaxing into all manifestations, regardless, by continually observing the mind and objects of mind, and eventually penetrating into mind's very essence. 

[rene]

21 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

To me, it is having a “favorite” teacup (or an attachment to it), not a problem with having a teacup in general.

 

Right, I was talking about having a "favorite" - sorry my post wasn't more clear.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

More like my earlier example of loving just one person as compared to more universal love. 

 

'As compared to' -

 

You mean like 'either/or' ?

You mean like once one expands into universal love that 'individual love' is no longer also there?

You mean I cant have a favorite teacup and not be attached to it?

You know: Both, same time?

 

You sure? (-:

 

[Stosh]

Would it be true, to say that Daoist view allows for the unattached favorite? and the Buddhist does not?

Edited September 30, 2017 by Stosh

[Jeff]

25 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Right, I was talking about having a "favorite" - sorry my post wasn't more clear.

 

 

 

'As compared to' -

 

You mean like 'either/or' ?

You mean like once one expands into universal love that 'individual love' is no longer also there?

You mean I cant have a favorite teacup and not be attached to it?

You know: Both, same time?

 

You sure? (-:

 

 

Guess it depends on the connotations to the “favorite”. The difference can be found If you would miss that teacup when gone. The “missing it” is the suffering part. If favorite simply means most useful, than no big deal, you move on to the next teacup.

 

The individual love is still there, but if you say love the people in your neighboorhood more than some other town, there is still attachment and it is not what I am calling universal love.

 

The concept that I am trying to describe in these examples is more “pure desire” as compared to more individually attached desire. In Buddhism, it is found in the concept of ”bodchitta”, and Taoism, it is found in “de”. The pure (unattached) universal flow to expand (or realize in spiritual terms).

[Jeff]

25 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Would it be true, to say that Daoist view allows for the unattached favorite? and the Buddhist does not?

 

I would say that the Daoist and Buddhist view are the same on this point.

 

Chapter 20

 

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?

Is there a difference between good and evil?

Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!

Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox. In spring some go to the park and climb the terrace,

But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.

Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile, I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing. I am a fool.

Oh, yes! I am confused. Others are clear and bright, But I alone am dim and weak.

Others are sharp and clever, But I alone am dull and stupid.

Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea, Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy, But I alone am aimless and without desire.

I am different. I am nourished by the great mother.

 

Does a newborn babe have a favorite teacup? Being aimless and without desire, drifting like the waves, and having nothing, kind of implies no favorites.

[rene]

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Guess it depends on the connotations to the “favorite”. The difference can be found If you would miss that teacup when gone. The “missing it” is the suffering part. If favorite simply means most useful, than no big deal, you move on to the next teacup.

 

For me, it is the former. I would miss the teacup for maybe 5 seconds; I will miss my (deceased) mother forever. But neither 'missings' are a source of suffering for me. The teacup is fondly in my memory; my mother is always in my heart. Recalling both brings a smile to me and feelings of warm love.

 

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

The individual love is still there, but if you say love the people in your neighboorhood more than some other town, there is still attachment and it is not what I am calling universal love.

 

I know what you are referring to with the term 'universal love'. Maybe there needs to be a better term for that too, lol. What you speak of is unboundaried and 'degrees' are undefined.

 

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

The concept that I am trying to describe in these examples is more “pure desire” as compared to more individually attached desire. In Buddhism, it is found in the concept of ”bodchitta”, and Taoism, it is found in “de”. The pure (unattached) universal flow to expand (or realize in spiritual terms).

 

No. Not in De. This is not the thread for that discussion, however.

 

Thanks for your reply!

 

[Stosh]

25 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I would say that the Daoist and Buddhist view are the same on this point.

 

Chapter 20

 

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?

Is there a difference between good and evil?

Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!

Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox. In spring some go to the park and climb the terrace,

But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.

Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile, I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing. I am a fool.

Oh, yes! I am confused. Others are clear and bright, But I alone am dim and weak.

Others are sharp and clever, But I alone am dull and stupid.

Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea, Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy, But I alone am aimless and without desire.

I am different. I am nourished by the great mother.

 

Does a newborn babe have a favorite teacup? Being aimless and without desire, drifting like the waves, and having nothing, kind of implies no favorites.

Thanks thats a really well comprised answer

[rene]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I would say that the Daoist and Buddhist view are the same on this point.

 

 

The long term influence of Buddhism on Daoist view is almost as complex as the Jesuit bias in their translations of the DDJ.

 

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Chapter 20

 

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?

Is there a difference between good and evil?

Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!

Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox. In spring some go to the park and climb the terrace,

But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.

Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile, I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing. I am a fool.

Oh, yes! I am confused. Others are clear and bright, But I alone am dim and weak.

Others are sharp and clever, But I alone am dull and stupid.

Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea, Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy, But I alone am aimless and without desire.

I am different. I am nourished by the great mother.

 

Read that literally, do you? :-D

 

Perhaps those words are pointing at the underlying peace and acceptance that simultaneously dwelling in both the 'local and universal' (your terms) brings. You are right, however: those unfamiliar with these things would view it as you described.

 

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Does a newborn babe have a favorite teacup? Being aimless and without desire, drifting like the waves, and having nothing, kind of implies no favorites.

 

I bet the newborn babe has a favorite teat, and desires it!

 

Enjoyable conversation, Jeff, thanks!

[C T]

1 hour ago, rene said:

 

 

No. Not in De. This is not the thread for that discussion, however.

 

Nor was it made clear by the poster that making allusions to bodhicitta in that particular reference is merely a subjective view, one based on approximations and confined within the limits of mere opinion, and in no way reflect the vast scope of Mahayana, and Buddhism in general, relating to the concept of bodhicitta. Said poster appears to have demonstrated a nonchalant stance towards such a vital core concept by failing first to acknowledge that what was written was his personal take, and not necessarily one that corresponds to profound Buddhist commentaries and treatises expounding on the concept (of bodhicitta). 

 

Quote

 

Jeff said:

The concept that I am trying to describe in these examples is more “pure desire” as compared to more individually attached desire. In Buddhism, it is found in the concept of ”bodchitta”, and Taoism, it is found in “de”. The pure (unattached) universal flow to expand (or realize in spiritual terms).

 

I will continue to appreciate the contributions made here by everyone, but will at the same time vigilantly continue to make readers aware of the presence of subjective views on Buddhist concepts and notions, especially if these are misguidedly presented as authoritative representations of Buddhism. (for eg. the bolded statement header). Perhaps the poster is aware of his limited understanding, and have simply overlooked the importance of acknowledging that in this particular instance. 

 

Furthermore, I would also encourage readers to be aware that my notes in this thread are also based on my limited knowledge and understandings of certain concepts, and do not indicate, nor have the intention to indicate otherwise, and readers will remember to use their discernment with due care whenever coming across these inclusions, though they will be fairly limited. 

 

The main objective of this thread when it was initiated was to serve as a sort of storehouse of wise encouragements and reflections by Buddhist teachers, in the main, that other Buddhist practitioners share with me, or some which I happen to come across myself. They are essentially not meant to be used as points of comparison, contention, and especially not for debates with other philosophies or systems. 

 

Thank you for your continued patience and respect. 

Edited September 30, 2017 by C T

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

To me, it is having a “favorite” teacup (or an attachment to it), not a problem with having a teacup in general. More like my earlier example of loving just one person as compared to more universal love. 

 

That makes no sense at all and certainly isn't Buddhist.  I think you need to have a look at dependent origination as CT mentioned earlier.  If it is your personal view fine, but if you think its dharma then no.

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, C T said:

Nor was it made clear by the poster that making allusions to bodhicitta in that particular reference is merely a subjective view, one based on approximations and confined within the limits of mere opinion, and in no way reflect the vast scope of Mahayana, and Buddhism in general, relating to the concept of bodhicitta. Said poster appears to have demonstrated a nonchalant stance towards such a vital core concept by failing first to acknowledge that what was written was his personal take, and not necessarily one that corresponds to profound Buddhist commentaries and treatises expounding on the concept (of bodhicitta). 

 

I will continue to appreciate the contributions made here by everyone, but will at the same time vigilantly continue to make readers aware of the presence of subjective views on Buddhist concepts and notions, especially if these are misguidedly presented as authoritative representations of Buddhism. (for eg. the bolded statement header). Perhaps the poster is aware of his limited understanding, and have simply overlooked the importance of acknowledging that in this particular instance. 

 

Furthermore, I would also encourage readers to be aware that my notes in this thread are also based on my limited knowledge and understandings of certain concepts, and do not indicate, nor have the intention to indicate otherwise, and readers will remember to use their discernment with due care whenever coming across these inclusions, though they will be fairly limited. 

 

The main objective of this thread when it was initiated was to serve as a sort of storehouse of wise encouragements and reflections by Buddhist teachers, in the main, that other Buddhist practitioners share with me, or some which I happen to come across myself. They are essentially not meant to be used as points of comparison, contention, and especially not for debates with other philosophies or systems. 

 

Thank you for your continued patience and respect. 

 

 

Thanks CT I am a bit disappointed that this thread seems to have gone off on a strange tangent

 

 

[manitou]

I have just lost my partner of 35 years, who died suddenly from a stroke.  I am not looking for sympathy or even kind words here relating to that on this thread.

 

But I am going to soon be walking through exactly what we are talking about.  I must eliminate most things other than the most basic necessity - including even my two beloved dogs - to fit into a one bedroom condo.  I have beautiful things that I have treasured for years - collections of pottery, native american jewelry, and beautiful furniture and art - from two houses.  The challenge of ripping these things from me will be welcomed in a way, dreaded in another.  And yet it must be done. I must strip myself down to nothing.  I so appreciate the line that this thread has taken here; if it doesn't appeal to some, please know that one of our members, namely me, certainly needed to hear everybody's input and is most grateful that this came up at this particular time.  Love to all.  I waver between transcending the situation and being entrenched in it.  Grief comes in waves.

[rene]

Love and peace to you, friend; difficult times ahead. We're here for you. 💜

[Jeff]

Much love. Terribly sorry for your loss.