Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[Brian]

When I received transmission for dream practices, I had a very powerful vision (a rare event for me).

It was a bit complex but at one point I felt and saw myself being outfitted in armor and with a weapon as a dream warrior.

There is no greater battle than that with our ignorance.

Kindred spirits, steve.

[manitou]

Kindred spirits, Steve and Brian...

[doc benway]

I like that...

[C T]

A middle path yogi is released from extremes. 

 

Being free from extremes, 

 

even the middle path is released. 

 

How else can one use conventions in absolute appropriation? 

 

 

 

"Since there are no extremes, 

there is also no middle; 

The view that is without middle 

and without extremes

is the perfect view."

 

~ Atisha ~

[C T]

“Genuine compassion is egoless. It is the inherent essence expressed, inseparable from awareness. This natural essence, which is genuine compassion, does not need to be formulated or even expressed as something like “compassion.” We see this exemplified in our great teachers. Their genuine compassion does not require phrases and expressions or even actions. Just their presence, who they are, is nothing other than the quintessence of compassion. We, in contrast, have to invent and demonstrate compassion. Our contaminated compassion still requires effort and deliberation. That is conventional or general compassion. The good thing about the use of deliberate or conventional compassion is that it matures the mind so that ego- grasping diminishes. It definitely has that effect and is therefore a skillful method for developing awareness compassion.”    

 

~ Jetsun Khandro Rinpoche ~ 

[C T]

By distinguishing the conventional from the ultimate, it is tempting to disparage

the former in contrast to the latter, developing a sort of theory of one truth and one falsehood.

This is done if one reifies the entities associated with the ultimate, such as emptiness or impermanence or the Four Noble Truths, or the Buddha.

Then one treats these as real, intrinsically existent phenomena.

 

The conventional then become the world of illusion.

 

~ Gorampa ~ 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by C T

[manitou]

 

A middle path yogi is released from extremes. 

 

Being free from extremes, 

 

even the middle path is released. 

 

How else can one use conventions in absolute appropriation? 

 

 

 

"Since there are no extremes, 

there is also no middle; 

The view that is without middle 

and without extremes

is the perfect view."

 

~ Atisha ~

 

I just figured this out.  The theory of relativity.

 

RE:  Post #2, Compassion.  This brings to my mind Mother Theresa.  I read once (and I don't know if the author knew what they were talking about) that Mother Theresa, for all she did, never experienced the joinder with 'God', that she was seeking.  That this was a source of angst for her, a hovering heart pain that was always present.

 

Her compassion was wonderful and certainly needed in Calcutta - but perhaps she was as this post describes - not the compassion done from the true essence of the void nature of self, but rather with an intent to get closer to her god.  She could be seen as an example of an Extreme as notated in the first post.  

 

RE: Post #3,  distinguishing the world of form from the absolute.  I think we are having this physical experience to shed it - it would be like hating the car that took you to the bodhi tree.

Edited April 28, 2016 by manitou

[doc benway]

RE: Post #3,  distinguishing the world of form from the absolute.  I think we are having this physical experience to shed it - it would be like hating the car that took you to the bodhi tree.

 

Clearly, we have no choice but to eventually shed this physical experience. 

 

Another perspective is that perhaps we are having this physical experience to cherish it?

We clean that car and care for it and use it to taxi others who have no transportation or family to help...

 

My teacher, in talking about our relationship to thought during meditation, likes to distinguish 3 levels of progress.

I'll try to capture his message as best I can -

First the thoughts are a distraction and must be controlled, second the thoughts lose the power to distract and are simply neutral appearances as we stabilize in shamatha, and third the thoughts become a support as the rich and endless source of creativity and compassion are spontaneously expressed. 

[manitou]

I love your teacher.  I wonder if he realizes just how far his ripples extend?

 

Thank you for that, Steve.  Cherish the experience.  that is wonderful, I shall wear that one always from this day forward.

 

Edit:  And this day backward.

Edited April 28, 2016 by manitou

[doc benway]

I love your teacher.  I wonder if he realizes just how far his ripples extend?

 

I know that he would be very pleased to hear you say that, as am I.

Thank you for that.

_/\_

[manitou]

Not that he needs the stroke - he doesn't - but please let him know that his ripples extend worldwide, on our physical plane, via the Bums.  He already knows they extend universally.

[C T]

Some advice on how to study Madhyamika

 

I would like to give you some advice on how to listen to or study this teaching. I think we will have many problems with the definition of terms, for example, when I say ‘suffering’, then you have an idea of what is meant by that, and I have an idea. So when I talk about it based on my idea and you listen based on your idea, problems can occur. In everyday life, we often do not entirely mean what we are saying, but now we are studying philosophy, so we need to mean what we say! We must be disciplined when we use words like suffering, and not take their meaning for granted. I think that different definitions of words are one of the root problems between a teacher and student, especially an eastern teacher teaching western students.

 

So, although we are not going to study it here, let me introduce some Buddhist logic, as it will help you. When we talk of definitions, we have to establish what the definition of a ‘definition’ is. Until we can agree upon this, some loopholes could arise, and we do not want any loopholes when we study. Dharmakirti’s definition of a ‘definition’ is that it is free from the three kinds of fault of being too all encompassing, not all-encompassing enough, and not possible.

 

You can see that Buddhist scholars do not just teach, “Rest in the nature of the mind” – they go through all sorts of small details! Now, what is the definition of this pink flower that I have just picked up? You have to really listen to me very carefully, as you are a philosopher. Can you create a definition of this particular flower free from the three faults? You can see that the definition has to include me, for example my hand, since I am holding the flower. If you say the flower is pink, it is not specific enough, as there are many other pink things in this room. If you say the flower is round, that is not sufficiently all encompassing, as there are also many other shapes in this flower. An impossible definition is easy, for example if you say that the flower talks.

 

The point of this example is that when we use big words like ‘emptiness’, or small words like ‘suffering’, all these words need a good definition. This is why when Buddhist masters talk about suffering, as in ‘samsara is full of suffering’, people cannot understand. For many people, the definition of suffering is something that is painful. So, they say, “No, I am having a nice time here right now. It is not true that whole world is full of suffering”. Whereas from a Buddhist point of view, even getting a suntan while having a nice time on the beach is a form of suffering, because your body is getting roasted and more wrinkled, and the clock is ticking all the time.

 

I am giving you an idea of the importance of definitions when you study. Later on we will talk a lot about things that are ‘truly existent’, and to understand this, you will need the right definition of what is meant by ‘truly existent’. Many Buddhists take this for granted, and say that everything does not exist, and some careful Buddhists say everything does not truly exist. But even this raises questions, because if you say that everything does not truly exist, then that implies things exist in a relative way. In fact, the definition of ‘truly’ is the reason why many of the Madhyamika philosophers cannot accept the idea of truly existing phenomena.

 

~ Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche ~

Edited May 2, 2016 by C T

[RigdzinTrinley]

that is from Khyentse Rinpoches free ebook on the Madhyamikavatara right?

 

I think without Khyentse Rinpoche as a guiding light - it would be very difficult for many many modern western students(including me) to even feel some kind of "drive" to study these weird subjects

 

I remember living in Boudhanath in Kathmandu - studying tibetan, hating it, trying to do ngondro - hating it, and at the same time I would listen to his recordings for months, slowly making sense out of why exactly do I study this strange language and why exactly do I need to throw my body flat on the floor 100.000 times?

 

May he life long and may his enlightened activity pervade all realms of existence

Edited May 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[manitou]

 

Some advice on how to study Madhyamika

 

I would like to give you some advice on how to listen to or study this teaching. I think we will have many problems with the definition of terms, for example, when I say ‘suffering’, then you have an idea of what is meant by that, and I have an idea. So when I talk about it based on my idea and you listen based on your idea, problems can occur. In everyday life, we often do not entirely mean what we are saying, but now we are studying philosophy, so we need to mean what we say! We must be disciplined when we use words like suffering, and not take their meaning for granted. I think that different definitions of words are one of the root problems between a teacher and student, especially an eastern teacher teaching western students.

 

This feels so important.  I remember back when the Dao Bums were undifferentiated - when threads were just threads and we were all bouncing off each other like rocks in a lapidary - I could never understand what the Buddhists were talking about here.  What the heck are they all suffering about, I would think?  I tended to think of suffering as having an ingrown toenail and wincing with each step, or maybe having a thorn in a sock and being too lazy to take your shoe off and remove it.

 

But now, after learning so much from people on this forum (once I finally decided to start learning and stop talking so much) I realize that I suffer every day.  Perhaps suffering is just the lack of love, of the inner light.  Perhaps suffering is getting real caught up in what appears to be happening in front of us - getting caught up in angst, in sadness, in anger.  With me, it's just hovering tension.  A constant tightness of the muscles, tightness in the shoulders, in the jaw.  Just hovering anxiety.  For what, I don't know.  But I cease suffering momentarily when I consciously relax it all, I realize that Flower Glow of the Sutras resides within me, and that life is like the shadow;  it Is, and it Is Not.  I cease suffering when I remember that we are 99.999% not there at all, that the atomic weight of the atom is minuscule compared to its outer perimeter of gyration.  And probably when our measuring instruments get more refined, we will be able to measure that there is nothing there at all.

 

I cease suffering when I remember that the eyes of 'god' are all around me - in every eye's pupil, whether that pupil is that of a human being, a cat, or an insect.  Or a bear in the woods.  What's to suffer about?  It's all 'god'.  For lack of a better term.

 

I cease suffering when I remember that the Hadron Collider has now discovered that particles not only collide and make their separate paths into the here and now, but into the past!  it's mind boggling.  But it reminds me that past, present, and future are all superimposed over each other, and that this has already all played out, and that we're just playing catch-up.

 

Wow.  You Buddhists are awesome.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[C T]

 

This video, by Prof Brian Cox, although presented from a scientific angle, reminds me somewhat of the Kalachakra Mandala and teaching. Its quite amazing that what he is presenting here is very much in line with what Shakyamuni Buddha discovered and taught more than 2500 years ago.  

[manitou]

What I see in the video is the tendency of low entropy conditions to become high entropy conditions over a matter of time - high entropy defined as high because the matter within form can be rearranged and still retain its shape.  Low entropy, on the other hand, is ordered (the sand castle), and the   probability of the universe to plop down a fully formed sand castle is theoretically possible, but highly improbable.  Am I getting this right so far?  Yes, the tendency would always be for something to disintegrate from form to formless over a period of time.

 

Which brings us to the wheel, which appears to be a time machine of sorts, as per the following paragraph I found on one website about this:

 

"The Kalachakra perfected universe or Buddha land is intended to provide the ideal symbolic environmental matrix, built from transcendent wisdom's five jewel-coloured, laserlike energies from which universal compassion can most effectively reach out to all sentient beings to nudge their histories in the direction of evolutionary progress toward complete enlightenment. As its name indicates, it is a Time Machine - the Sanskrit chakra, "Wheel" is used by extension to mean "machine" - not in the science-fiction sense that it travels through time, but in the special sense that it is the artistic creation with which universal compassion turns time into a machine to produce the enlightenment of all sentient beings."

 

So is this saying that time is truly linear because of the wheel of time that it takes to produce an enlightened being?  Or is it possible that because it's a matrix, as indicated above, that time is not restricted to one direction?  Doesn't the Hadron collider experiment indicate that there is another dimension at play here that our minds cannot comprehend, that movement toward yesterday is indeed a fact?  I'm not sure I'm seeing the true relation between the video and the Kalachakra Mandala as it pertains to the sandcastle revealing the end of all things - unless he's talking about the inevitable dissolution from high entropy to low entropy phenomena.

 

I am delighted to have read this information for two reasons.  First of all, it gives me a greater understanding of Buddha-lands, which I am always wondering about since reading about them in the Lotus and Flower Adornment Sutras.

 

But more importantly, it tells me why CT dwells in a raindrop.  (As per Wikipedia):  "Kalachakra practice - to visualize the complete mandala, including hundreds of deities in perfect detail of the size of a small drop during the Generation stage of practice to achieve a very high level of concentration.

 

Essence indeed, CT.

 

(P.S  I have no idea what I am talking about here.  Reader beware   )

Edited May 3, 2016 by manitou

[C T]

Manitou Barbara, 

 

Please feel free to share your thoughts here whenever you feel like doing so. 

[manitou]

Sometimes i feel like I share too many of them on this thread - that my thoughts are a distraction from the beautiful jewels that you find to share with us.  i've noticed that there's not a lot of back and forth here - and I worry that I've changed the dynamic a bit.  Please let me know if this is the case.  I will sit quietly in class, I promise.  but I'm just so glad you're doing this.  The fact that you said this to me makes me wonder.  Kind of like....when did you stop beating your wife?  

 

I hate to see the jewels brought down into the mundane by the chatter of someone who doesn't understand any of this.  But open for learning I am.  This is actually the only thread I'm participating on for the most part, other than my PPF.  If I'm wrong or if I'm being overly sensitive (I am cutting loose of the Prozac, as you probably know) - this is certainly a possibility.  Please feel free to PM me to discuss further, CT - so this thread doesn't become about 'me'.

 

I love you, my guru!  You are, you know.

 

Barb

Edited May 4, 2016 by manitou

[blue eyed snake]

In another thread i said that you are still gorgeous, but more like a soulquality,

Maybe CT recognizes that too.

 

and...

these teachings are so good, but its what we do with them on the mundane level that makes them come true, and someone writing about them from that mundane level, makes the teaching somewhat more graspable, at least for me.

 

love BES

[doc benway]

I don't mean to speak for CT but I welcome any and all sincere commentary about these wonderful teachings, even questions and criticism. I think that's how we benefit the most - by questioning, challenging, trying to digest. While I agree that it's nice to keep this thread from getting derailed by argument or distractions, that really has not been a problem here.

[manitou]

I love the people participating in this thread.  Like CT's 'finds', this thread is a latent jewel.  I just came into it a bit late in the game and don't want to shake up a dynamic.  So I'll just continue being me.

[C T]

Not so much questions, as wonderments, the way its seen from here. 

 

Wonderments are great. Questions are great. Doubts are great. 

 

These open the mind to inner discovery, don't they? 

 

Beginner's mind is filled with possibilities. 

 

Love it. 

 

[manitou]

 

Wonderments are great. Questions are great. Doubts are great. 

 

 

The Dao is great, lol.

[C T]

"In the natural state of reality, all things are equal. The natural state is beyond any ideas we may have and even beyond our imagination. From the perspective of the natural state, all our plans and actions are merely imaginary, like the play of children that has nothing to do with reality. Once we understand the true nature of the relative level, then we can reach the absolute level, which is enlightenment. When we fully realize the wisdom of self-born awareness, we become buddhas who are liberated in the state of nirvana.

 

In normal awareness we operate on the basis of habits. But continuing to follow habitual patterns will not lead to enlightenment; we will only stay the same and never achieve higher understanding. Our present mind is like a nest constructed of subtle and gross thoughts. We think in terms of subjects and objects, inside and outside. We are constantly judging people and situations, seeing them as beautiful or ugly, pleasant or unpleasant, right or wrong.

 

Who is making all these decisions and judgments? We might say, “I did that, I felt that.” But really, what is this “I”? Where is it? Who is doing all the analyzing and discriminating? To find out, we must look at the mind. It is the mind that does the analyzing and discriminating.

 

If we look carefully at the mind, we begin to understand its nature. When we look for the mind, we discover how difficult it is to find. We cannot put it in our hands. We cannot see it but we can train it.

 

The mind is a vast emptiness called Shunyata, or great Emptiness. The emptiness nature does not mean that it is blank or a black hole. The mind has many beautiful qualities, like clarity and wisdom, yet these qualities are inseparable from emptiness."

 

~ Ven. Khenpo Rinpoches ~ 
The Buddhist Path

[manitou]

As i was gardening on this beautiful spring day in Ohio, blossoms everywhere, gentle breeze, lime green new leaves - it occurred to me that the reason for all of this is 'to love'.  that's all.  When we understand the nature of our mind, the question of "Who?" is answered.  When we realize the reason for our existence is to love, it answers the "Why".

 

This is the question I've been looking to answer my whole life.  Why.  Why any of this?