Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[senseless virtue]

9 hours ago, C T said:

One may adopt the practice of mercy and compassion, but to say that one has the capability to forgive implies a kind of superior thinking that may even be tinged with subtle arrogance, and as for Buddhist practitioners, to hold to the idea that one can be forgiven of wrongdoings then compels other unnecessary and complex considerations to arise, like deference to gods, higher powers, emotional placations, and so on. 

 

The teachings are clear that we are heirs to our karma, and that each individual being must take responsibility to work for their own emancipation. Not even buddhas can reduce the ownership of karma by one iota, let alone forgive anyone of their transgressions.

Whether we have the capability to forgive leads to the questions what is or should be forgiven. Is it our or their selfing habit that is forgiven, or the unfortunate circumstance of someone being hurt? Even the Enlightened beings still experience pain and uncomfortable emotions and can even make mistakes such as losing balance while walking. They just don't abide in them and create selfing habits out of the circumstances. Forgiveness never was about eliminating karma, but precisely about consciously substituting bad with good in a world in which favorable conditions wax and wane often very unpredictably and fast. Neither mercy and compassion are directly dissolving karma, but who could deny that they are Buddhist teachings?

 

Let's make the terms clear. Merit relates to doing good without self-grasping, while karma relates to self-grasping. Karma was the deepest teaching of the Gautama Buddha, but not the only one. We all have the capability to react with either positive or negative way in merit, and selfish or selfless way in karma. These two moods are orthogonally complementing each other.

 

Being greedy for merit is good despite the fact that we in samsara naturally engage in subtle forms of self-grasping along with it. Thus merit remains incomplete and it's not enough to accumulate merit, but it is what we need to do along the way for the continuity of favorable conditions and will naturally persist in doing after realizing the complete non-duality of mind. Karma can be finished and done with, merit not.

 

Ownership of karma is an interesting topic. The initiative for renouncing self-grasping must begin with each of us, and then the Buddhas can in fact help reduce the karmic ownership. This is why there exists tantric Buddhism where Enlightened beings are called to intervene and help us with our karma. First we must volunteer to dissolve it.

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, virtue said:

 

Let's make the terms clear.

 

Hi virtue,

 

Very good choice of words - the personal perspective is apparently thought through throughout your post.

 

TDB will surely to be proud of you for shining thus in one of its threads.

 

Kudos.

 

- LimA

[senseless virtue]

I agree it was poor way of bringing it up as it really needed a necessary caveat that it reflects my own understanding how karma and merit relate, and not any exact wording from an established source.

 

Since this type of feedback is not isolated, I think I am going to desist from writing any more on the public fora. My deficiencies as a person should not be the one and only reason to prompt a sarcastic reply. If there is a disagreement with the proposed definitions, then these should be discussed instead of issuing boring ad hominems.

[C T]

14 minutes ago, virtue said:

I agree it was poor way of bringing it up as it really needed a necessary caveat that it reflects my own understanding how karma and merit relate, and not any exact wording from an established source.

 

Since this type of feedback is not isolated, I think I am going to desist from writing any more on the public fora. My deficiencies as a person should not be the one and only reason to prompt a sarcastic reply. If there is a disagreement with the proposed definitions, then these should be discussed instead of issuing boring ad hominems.

 

This thread appreciates all topical feedback that is relevant and meaningful to readers, more so from authentic perspectives, and not simply copy and pasting new age memes that recently occurred.  

 

I am thankful that you are participating with genuine interest in sharing your personal thoughts. 

 

I dont think Lim was being disingenuous/sarcastic, but the presumption to speak on behalf of TDB was a little off-putting. I do understand why he felt compelled to insert that though. 

[senseless virtue]

Just now, C T said:

I dont think Lim was being disingenuous/sarcastic, but the presumption to speak on behalf of TDB was a little off-putting. I do understand why he felt compelled to insert that though. 

This is just my conversational style: "Let US make the terms clear" in which we all should be actively considering whether these premises are any good.

 

It's an open invitation for anyone to challenge the perspective provided and not an inviolable imperial decree. Usually I put a bit more polish and tact in, but sometimes there are simple slips. It's really unfortunate that it's instantly viewed as arrogance and generalizations on the behalf of others.

[Limahong]

5 hours ago, virtue said:

I think I am going to desist from writing any more on the public fora.

 

Hi virtue,

 

When I was a new kid on the TDB block, I was shot down a few times. It hurt when it was never my intention to hurt others.

 

But Bum XYZ encouraged me to be myself. Can I pass on his support to you?

 

I have dedicated this song to XYZ -

 

 

Bro/Sis - you are an original. Please remain this way at TDB - you owe it to yourself. No pressure intended.

 

- LimA

Edited January 25, 2018 by Limahong
Correct errors.

[manitou]

Does the idea that we are all the same essence, not different beings but the same essence in different skin-bags, explain BES's original question about self-forgiveness?  If one retains a resentment toward  another , we are hurting ourselves equally as much, as we are the same essence.  Don't know if that fits into dogmatic Buddhist thought or not -

[dwai]

Reading all these exchanges (and I seldom come to the Buddhist discussions...so apologies to CT and others if I'm going astray), two things struck me. 

 

1. Love and Hatred as two opposite poles
2. The concept of forgiveness 

Love (or non-hatred) is not a mental position at all. Hatred is. Love is the natural condition of the heart-mind. Hatred is an artificial "veil" created by the thinking mind. Whenever we 'see' from the heart-mind, we are in effect expressing love, seeing love and experiencing love. When we use our rational mind to 'see', we are creating divisions and separation and hatred is a very short path from there.  

 

Forgiveness - I thought that metta or Maitri (loving kindness) is one of the primary pre-conditions of Buddhist practices. So with that in mind, why is forgiveness not a natural result of that? Can one continue to exhibit metta without forgiveness? Isn't metta a result of operating from the heart-mind anyway? If so, then where is the case of "not forgiving"?

 

I think others have pointed out that forgiveness is not something to give to the "other", but rather is a "letting go" of the sense of being wronged by another. Or in other words (a bit more deeper sense), forgiveness is about letting go of duality of me and you. 

 

[silent thunder]

If I were to release absolutely everything this moment... now.

 

what would remain? 

 

awareness seems to remain

[C T]

32 minutes ago, dwai said:

Reading all these exchanges (and I seldom come to the Buddhist discussions...so apologies to CT and others if I'm going astray), two things struck me. 

 

1. Love and Hatred as two opposite poles
2. The concept of forgiveness 

Love (or non-hatred) is not a mental position at all. Hatred is. Love is the natural condition of the heart-mind. Hatred is an artificial "veil" created by the thinking mind. Whenever we 'see' from the heart-mind, we are in effect expressing love, seeing love and experiencing love. When we use our rational mind to 'see', we are creating divisions and separation and hatred is a very short path from there.  

 

Forgiveness - I thought that metta or Maitri (loving kindness) is one of the primary pre-conditions of Buddhist practices. So with that in mind, why is forgiveness not a natural result of that? Can one continue to exhibit metta without forgiveness? Isn't metta a result of operating from the heart-mind anyway? If so, then where is the case of "not forgiving"?

 

I think others have pointed out that forgiveness is not something to give to the "other", but rather is a "letting go" of the sense of being wronged by another. Or in other words (a bit more deeper sense), forgiveness is about letting go of duality of me and you. 

 

 

Thank you for the rare visit, Dwai. You're welcome anytime. 

 

I have also ruminated on the subject of forgiveness many times, both in theory and in the observation of the dynamic flow of human interactions. It seems to me that it is a habit where discrimination, and even judgement, as a premise, seems unavoidable. Would forgiveness have meaning in the absence of some form of discrimination? 

 

In forgiveness, there is right and wrong, subject and object. In kindness, mercy and compassion, there is no such consideration. In my opinion, this is where the apparent difference lies.

 

It does not make sense to develop a pervasively forgiving attitude - it might even be somewhat disempowering if circumstances are made more complex by the presence of other powerful emotional states, and this could easily reinforce resentment and drive greater confusion. 

 

On the other hand, loving kindness, mercy and compassion are predicated on empathy - with compassion comes a deep understanding that all beings have the same aspirations - everyone wishes to be free of unhappiness, and everyone is in their own boat on this vast river attempting to make their own way across. If someone have less ability to safely manoeuvre their craft, and knocks into yours, I suppose one who practices forgiveness and another who cultivates loving kindness would respond differently. That kind of sums up the point I am wanting to make. 

 

 

 

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Thank you for the rare visit, Dwai. You're welcome anytime. 

Thank you too  

Quote

 

I have also ruminated on the subject of forgiveness many times, both in theory and in the observation of the dynamic flow of human interactions. It seems to me that it is a habit where discrimination, and even judgement, as a premise, seems unavoidable. Would forgiveness have meaning in the absence of some form of discrimination? 

 

In forgiveness, there is right and wrong, subject and object. In kindness, mercy and compassion, there is no such consideration. In my opinion, this is where the apparent difference lies.

Yes i can see that. However, the empirical fact is that most people in this world operate primarily from the "rational mind". So the mental patterns of judgement, discrimination start getting programmed from very young ages.  Would you not agree that this is a reality of the human condition?

 

That's why various traditions have the exhortations to follow certain types of behaviors...yamas and Niyamas of Yoga or the Paramis and brahmaviharas of Buddhism. 

Quote

 

It does not make sense to develop a pervasively forgiving attitude - it might even be somewhat disempowering if circumstances are made more complex by the presence of other powerful emotional states, and this could easily reinforce resentment and drive greater confusion. 

 

On the other hand, loving kindness, mercy and compassion are predicated on empathy - with compassion comes a deep understanding that all beings have the same aspirations - everyone wishes to be free of unhappiness, and everyone is in their own boat on this vast river attempting to make their own way across. If someone have less ability to safely manoeuvre their craft, and knocks into yours, I suppose one who practices forgiveness and another who cultivates loving kindness would respond differently. That kind of sums up the point I am wanting to make. 

 

Isn't forgiveness also a result of loving kindness and non-attachment? A letting go of a position (of being negatively affected by someone else's (or one's own) actions or inactions)?

 

As we all know, it is one thing to say we forgive someone and a totally different thing to actually forgive.

 

Also thought I'd add the following --

 

For me, I found that when I'm not attached to any position, I don't experience others' actions as being inherently harmful to me. So even if there is no inherent lack of separateness, there is no defensive reaction to others' actions.

Subsequently, when we realize that the separation between two individuals is apparent only, then no question of "forgiving" arises, as there is no separate being to forgive. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by dwai
Adding more context

[C T]

At the point where you completely resolve all doubts that every other being share the same fundamental longings as everyone else, what ought to arise then is a realisation of profound equanimity, so profound that it transcends all divisions and differentiations in all their forms. Where sameness is, there is no need to practice forgiveness. Only where high and low prevails does charitable positions take form.  

 

You brought up a great point about being positionless - we should reflect on this seriously and inquire what it really implies, and then ask how one without a position exercise forgiveness. 

 

Imo, one free of position is free from the influence of both negative and positive even though immersed in a relative world that operates and are bound in within those two limits. 

 

Another thing to bear in mind in relation to Buddhism is that there are acknowledgments of misdeeds but not of doership. In the absence of a doer, actions based on attitudes like forgiveness is moot. 

[C T]

34 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Also thought I'd add the following --

 

For me, I found that when I'm not attached to any position, I don't experience others' actions as being inherently harmful to me. So even if there is no inherent lack of separateness, there is no defensive reaction to others' actions.

Subsequently, when we realize that the separation between two individuals is apparent only, then no question of "forgiving" arises, as there is no separate being to forgive. 

 

Aah, this is another point thats totally valid, imo. You said: "The question of 'forgiveness' does not arise", whereby I'd respond further by saying, "because one has resolved all separation and attained/realised wholeness". Is it necessary to practice forgiveness then in order to reach this realisation, or is it attained by applying some other methods that are more conducive to reducing dualistic mentations? For example, reflection, contemplation and meditation, as I have already mentioned in a previous post yesterday. 

[dwai]

Just now, C T said:

 

Aah, this is another point thats totally valid, imo. You said: "The question of 'forgiveness' does not arise", whereby I'd respond further by saying, "because one has resolved all separation and attained/realised wholeness". Is it necessary to practice forgiveness then in order to reach this realisation, or is it attained by applying some other methods that are more conducive to reducing dualistic mentations? For example, reflection, contemplation and meditation, as I have already mentioned in a previous post yesterday. 

In my opinion, each of us go through precisely the journey that we need to go through and nothing else. For some it might not be necessary to practice forgiveness. For others it might be.  I think forgiveness is a powerful tool to, to use in removal of dualistic mentations. It is a form of non-attachment. I suspect the word "forgiveness" connotes a transaction. It is not. Imho, it is a relinquishment, a letting go. 

[C T]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

In my opinion, each of us go through precisely the journey that we need to go through and nothing else. For some it might not be necessary to practice forgiveness. For others it might be.  I think forgiveness is a powerful tool to, to use in removal of dualistic mentations. It is a form of non-attachment. I suspect the word "forgiveness" connotes a transaction. It is not. Imho, it is a relinquishment, a letting go. 

 

Partially agree 

[manitou]

3 hours ago, C T said:

At the point where you completely resolve all doubts that every other being share the same fundamental longings as everyone else, what ought to arise then is a realisation of profound equanimity, so profound that it transcends all divisions and differentiations in all their forms. Where sameness is, there is no need to practice forgiveness. Only where high and low prevails does charitable positions take form.  

 

You brought up a great point about being positionless - we should reflect on this seriously and inquire what it really implies, and then ask how one without a position exercise forgiveness. 

 

Imo, one free of position is free from the influence of both negative and positive even though immersed in a relative world that operates and are bound in within those two limits. 

 

Another thing to bear in mind in relation to Buddhism is that there are acknowledgments of misdeeds but not of doership. In the absence of a doer, actions based on attitudes like forgiveness is moot. 

 

I think it's also a case of making no judgments, as there is no good or evil - there is just an is-ness about it.  But I do think that until we reach the place of the masters, where we dwell in the Supreme Consciousness, we need to remove our defects in order to reach that type of clarity, and one of the ways of doing so would be either forgiveness of someone who has 'seemingly' harmed us (although in the Supreme Consciousness this doesn't apply) or alternatively make amends to those we have harmed.  IMO, this is part of the journey to that Supreme Consciousness.  

 

P.S.  Please forgive me for stupidly using the word 'dogmatic' when referring to Buddhism - I was thinking more of one of the several Traditions of Buddhism, and I just hastily wrote it wrong.  Dogmatic doesn't apply at all when the journey is experiential.  My bad.

Also, I just finished studying the Siva Sutras, the Yoga of Supreme Identity - Wow!  Hence my mention of Supreme Consciousness - which may not be a Buddhist term at all, but seems to fit right in to what is spoken of here and reaches the same destination.  The Siva Sutras seem to be categorized as Kashmir Shaivism - but it sure sounds like Buddhist masters to me.

 

[C T]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

 

I think it's also a case of making no judgments, as there is no good or evil - there is just an is-ness about it.  But I do think that until we reach the place of the masters, where we dwell in the Supreme Consciousness, we need to remove our defects in order to reach that type of clarity, and one of the ways of doing so would be either forgiveness of someone who has 'seemingly' harmed us (although in the Supreme Consciousness this doesn't apply) or alternatively make amends to those we have harmed.  IMO, this is part of the journey to that Supreme Consciousness.  

 

P.S.  Please forgive me for stupidly using the word 'dogmatic' when referring to Buddhism - I was thinking more of one of the several Traditions of Buddhism, and I just hastily wrote it wrong.  Dogmatic doesn't apply at all when the journey is experiential.  My bad.

Also, I just finished studying the Siva Sutras, the Yoga of Supreme Identity - Wow!  Hence my mention of Supreme Consciousness - which may not be a Buddhist term at all, but seems to fit right in to what is spoken of here and reaches the same destination.  The Siva Sutras seem to be categorized as Kashmir Shaivism - but it sure sounds like Buddhist masters to me.

 

 

If forgiveness works the way it is claimed to work as a process to remove defects, one would assume there ought to be clear indications of western cultures that are quite contented and free of mental anguish and destructive habits, but in all honesty, this is not the case. An honest evaluation reveals overwhelming repression and deeply ingrained guilt and anger. It is hard to imagine that these destructive emotions will release thru the practice of forgiveness. Yet, it is understandable why this concept is crucial to the Western mindset - without it what other workable alternative is there to bring forth closure for all the wrongs and the hurts. 

 

Buddhist practice is quite radical. It takes courage, perseverance and patience to allow karmic knots to disentangle by their own momentum, and they will, due to the infallible principle of impermanence. We learn to interfere less and less in trying to hasten the process thru various meditative practices, while other systems might promote different methods that is completely opposite of this. That is ok - we cannot say which is right and what is wrong. People are free to work with methods that align with their own understanding and needs.

 

The beauty of learning to deepen meditation is that when one gets used to non-interference, what follows is a kind of natural peace and inner okayness that at the same time also frees up one's intrinsic clarity and awareness. Then we get to equanimous poise quite effortlessly. At that point, other enlightened qualities like loving kindness and compassion will flow unhindered. We dont need to forgive others, nor seek to be forgiven, where, with clarity, we begin to recognise the one true buddha nature in all beings.

 

Something i thought up recently - It is beauty that looks thru us and sees itself. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by C T

[doc benway]

On 1/24/2018 at 2:19 AM, Bud Jetsun said:

 

Can you list the successful Buddhas created by that method? 1 per 10,000? 100,000? 1 per 1,000,000? 

No disagreement if all experience is greeted with appreciation no bonds form to require the severing of forgiveness, and this would be the most compassionate to self method to maintain in real-time.  

 

10 hours ago, C T said:

 

If forgiveness works the way it is claimed to work as a process to remove defects, one would assume there ought to be clear indications of western cultures that are quite contented and free of mental anguish and destructive habits, but in all honesty, this is not the case. An honest evaluation reveals overwhelming repression and deeply ingrained guilt and anger. It is hard to imagine that these destructive emotions will release thru the practice of forgiveness. Yet, it is understandable why this concept is crucial to the Western mindset - without it what other workable alternative is there to bring forth closure for all the wrongs and the hurts. 

 

Yes, no methods are nearly as effective as we would like them to be and yet all have their place for the right person at the right time in their lives.

 

Thank you CT for presenting such a wonderful point of discussion and it's wonderful to see all the helpful and insightful input.

It has helped me to see a little deeper into the subtle elements of the Judeo-Christian paradigm that are ingrained in my thought and behavior. Similarly, I would expect an Indian or Chinese who has adopted Christianity to be influenced to some degree by their exposure to principles of karma and Confuscian values...

 

Each of us has to work with what we have, who we are, and where we are at this moment. We can adopt a set of practices and ideology from a foreign land and culture but we can't simply step out of our deep seated values and beliefs as if they were an old pair of socks. Just like one can't expect someone just beginning to walk the sutric path to allow all of their challenges to self-liberate, those of us with Western backgrounds on the Buddhist path can't simply ignore our culture and religious foundation and act and feel as if we were born in Tibet or Thailand. If we feel wronged, that is what we have to work with and forgiveness is an appropriate and effective tool. As we begin to be transformed by our practices, our feelings of being wronged and the need to forgive will lessen. Feeling wronged gives way to feeling as if our karma is playing out as a lively display of the base. Feeling the desire to forgive gives way to simply letting go of our identification with the one who feels wronged and that lively energy can liberate without effort. Even within Buddhism there are profound differences in how we respond to challenges. Just like a Buddhist doesn't feel the need to forgive, the Dzogchenpa doesn't feel the need to renounce.

 

So it is wonderful to look back at my reaction to the OP that got this discussion rolling and see my resistance, my defensiveness, my desire to be right, and so forth. It wasn't all that powerful but those things were definitely there. I've been extremely busy at work this past week and haven't read all of the posts but look forward to catching up over the weekend.  I feel like this line of discussion has helped me have a little deeper understanding of Buddhism, the Western mind, and myself and for that I am grateful.

 

_/\__/\__/\_

[C T]

Happy to see Manitou gradually engaging with the thread again 

 

 

[manitou]

11 hours ago, C T said:

Happy to see Manitou gradually engaging with the thread again 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, CT.  It's been a tough four months.  the Grief thread was the best I could do, and it has helped immensely.  I can see some light.  Love you.

Edited January 27, 2018 by manitou

[C T]

 

Grief has a mysterious energy that clarifies in such ways

that without it 

who could imagine darkness contains this many shades ~

 and layers within layers. 

 

Before that burden

who can know 

pain wills such depths of awareness. 

 

Have we ever heard

the path to freedom 

to be stainless of despair? 

If it was

who would want to be free? 

 

 

[manitou]

10 hours ago, C T said:

 

Have we ever heard

the path to freedom 

to be stainless of despair? 

If it was

who would want to be free? 

 

 

 

Brilliant prose, if you ask me.

 

That last paragraph.  The choices seem to be either ending one's life or transcendence through understanding. That depth of grief is a huge nudge.

Edited January 27, 2018 by manitou

[cold]

4 hours ago, manitou said:

 

Brilliant prose, if you ask me.

 

That last paragraph.  The choices seem to be either ending one's life or transcendence through understanding. That depth of grief is a huge nudge.

 

 

 

manitou as was said earlier its great to see you back!

[Bud Jetsun]

Did Gautama join a club with a rigid set of rules and spend decades in scheduled practice sessions until awareness of enlightenment occurred? 

 

Did Gautama's own life example or lessons advise that clinging hard enough to some set of rigid constructs or lifestyle reveals the nature of reality? 

 

Would a sincere bodhisattva commitment or effort involve even a single day spent at a temple rather than helping the hungry and sick? 

 

Many have appreciated the moon, and some beautifully (and inherently incompletely) described some of the moons aspects.   The beauty of the moon is missed by clinging to someone else's descriptions of its beauty.

 

Discovering appreciation of the real must be both sincere and genuine or its a charade and becomes motions in a ritual. Ritual may consume as much or as little of one's moment as they give it. 

 

Appreciation of the real in Now may also consume as much or as little of one's moment as they give it.

 

Unlimited Love, 

-Bud

[C T]

Excellent input, Apeiron&Peiron! Thanks.