It's a moving target - there is no goal post

[3bob]

15 hours ago, steve said:

I get what's being suggested in the OP and it's a valid and worthwhile perspective.

I don't mean to denigrate that position.

Reading it, I noticed my habitual tendency to look at the contrary position, which in itself was instructive; and I'd like to share what came up.

My perspective is that the "goal post" and the process, which in the teachings I follow is referred to as resting in the Nature of Mind, is alway perfectly clear and still.

It has never moved, it is changeless essence, unborn, undying, boundless, centerless; stillness, silence, and spaciousness...

The mind is that which is always moving, expanding, contracting, searching, growing, departing, and arriving.

When we allow that one to fully rest and gain confidence and stability with that, it may settle into it's essence, like silt settling in still water, from which it has never for a moment departed.

 

Hi Steve,  I've heard similar pointers like what you are saying before,  and maybe it is just a far different usage of the term "mind" than how it is used in Vedic teachings that point beyond mind....   anyway it also  sounds contradictory to me  in descriptive meaning to say that the nature  of mind is  different from the mind.

 

Btw. here is the Buddhist saying (from Udana VIII.3).that we hear variations of and which sound like what you are getting at: 

"There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated."

Edited October 20, 2018 by 3bob

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

This is certainly a valid perspective also.  From my limited understating and with some minor glimpses I got, what Jeff explained above makes perfect sense to me.  I feel what you mentioned perhaps covers only one part of the that equation in the Heart sutra.  The form is Emptiness.  When we consider the whole equation, then the infinite expansion makes sense.

 

Then the Second Kukuraja perfectly understood the meaning of the primordial state and expressed his realization thus:

 

I am Khenpo Dhahuna! I have understood that the five aggregates and the five elements Are the male and female deities of the various families in union. Their non-dual condition is bodhicitta, the universal ground. All of existence is the pure mandala of the enlightened ones!

[s1va]

52 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

Hi Steve,  I've heard similar pointers like what you are saying before,  and maybe it is just a far different usage of the term "mind" than how it is used in Vedic teachings that point beyond mind....   anyway it also  sounds contradictory to me  in descriptive meaning to say that the nature  of mind is  different from the mind.

 

Btw. here is the Buddhist saying (from Udana VIII.3).that we hear variations of and which sound like what you are getting at: 

"There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated."

 

There is local body/mind and then the Universal mind.  This universal mind sounds similar to Self/Atman in Hindu philosophy.

 

The universal mind is explained very well in Lankavatara Sutra.  Please check the link below.  It is this universal mind that is ever expanding.  Only, Buddha goes on to determine, that is also empty.

 

http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm

[s1va]

32 minutes ago, Jeff said:

All of existence is the pure mandala of the enlightened ones!

 

Can we say it's the mandala of everyone, but only the enlightened ones are conciously aware of it?

[3bob]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

There is local body/mind and then the Universal mind.  This universal mind sounds similar to Self/Atman in Hindu philosophy.

 

The universal mind is explained very well in Lankavatara Sutra.  Please check the link below.  It is this universal mind that is ever expanding.  Only, Buddha goes on to determine, that is also empty.

 

http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm

 

one can not ascribe to or honestly espouse Buddhist and Vedic summations at the same time, thus follow or pick one or the other ...although appreciation can be given for both. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by 3bob

[s1va]

Just now, 3bob said:

 

one can not ascribe to Buddhist and Vedic summations at the same time, thus follow or pick one or the other ...although appreciation can be given for both. 

 

I understand your reservation in mixing things, that's your choice.  I appreciate what tallies with my own understanding and realizations, doesn't matter to me where they come from.  Similarly I discard things that do not tally no matter where they come from.

 

This is what Gautam Buddha also did and advocated.  He taught that we can't accept anything at face value if it contradicts our own experience.  This critical thing is forgotten and Buddhism has become another dogma for some.  Something that Buddha was completely opposed to.

[3bob]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

I understand your reservation in mixing things, that's your choice.  I appreciate what tallies with my own understanding and realizations, doesn't matter to me where they come from.  Similarly I discard things that do not tally no matter where they come from.

 

This is what Gautam Buddha also did and advocated.  He taught that we can't accept anything at face value if it contradicts our own experience.  This critical thing is forgotten and Buddhism has become another dogma for some.  Something that Buddha was completely opposed to.

 

ok, btw I'd say accepting or discarding can also backfire at times which is why I put some things on the shelf for awhile for later consideration.

[s1va]

13 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

ok, btw I'd say accepting or discarding can also backfire at times which is why I put some things on the shelf for awhile for later consideration.

 

Agreed.  Certain things become clearer as our clarity increases.

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

It is also the mind that defines some perceptional state as changeless essence, unborn, boundless... To me, the danger of this position is that the mind can grasp upon such an perceptional view and declare “done” or arrived. These two diffent sides of the equation, is why I find the Heart Sutra so beautiful and sublime.

 

As the Heart sutra states... Form is emptiness, but Emptiness is also form.  Everything dissolves down to nothing, but also nothing expands out to everything. Always infinite potential in that empty bucket. 

Agreed, the mind is not other than its essence like a wave is not other than water. The mind is a manifestation of its essence. 

The safeguard against grasping at the essence is a proper understanding of the view.

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

Hi Steve,  I've heard similar pointers like what you are saying before,  and maybe it is just a far different usage of the term "mind" than how it is used in Vedic teachings that point beyond mind....   anyway it also  sounds contradictory to me  in descriptive meaning to say that the nature  of mind is  different from the mind.

Not different so much as a matter of what we identify with. Mind is a limited manifestation of the Nature of Mind like a wave is a limited manifestation of water. When we identify with the mind we are moving, searching, arriving, and departing like a wave. When we identify with the essence, water, there is nowhere to go, we are always already that. The tricky part is what it means to identify with essence rather than a manifestation. It’s not an intellectual exercise or something to be understood. It is the core practice of Dzogchen. In the teachings I follow it is what is referred to as the view, meditation, and conduct, or resting in the Nature of Mind. The fruition is the manifestation of that and a essentially a measure of whether we are hitting the target.

 

 

Quote

 

Btw. here is the Buddhist saying (from Udana VIII.3).that we hear variations of and which sound like what you are getting at: 

"There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated."

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by steve

[3bob]

3 hours ago, steve said:

Not different so much as a matter of what we identify with. Mind is a limited manifestation of the Nature of Mind like a wave is a limited manifestation of water. When we identify with the mind we are moving, searching, arriving, and departing like a wave. When we identify with the essence, water, there is nowhere to go, we are always already that. The tricky part is what it means to identify with essence rather than a manifestation. It’s not an intellectual exercise or something to be understood. It is the core practice of Dzogchen. In the teachings I follow it is what is referred to as the view, meditation, and conduct, or resting in the Nature of Mind. The fruition is the manifestation of that and a essentially a measure of whether we are hitting the target.

 

 

 

 

I don't use the mind terms like that....to me mind could be said to be like a spin off of the Self, never the Self or the same as Self that is beyond mind.  Btw. not to many broad minded Buddhists will accept that because at that point they would no longer be Buddhist since it is against a key Buddhist precept.  Thus we are at an irreconcilable point related to Vedic and Buddhist teachings. 

[3bob]

regardless of what I say ...it is well known by most that the historic Buddha and founder of Buddhism rejected the  "Self" precept of the Vedas,  it is also well known by most that the last lineage holder of KS, Swami Lakshmanjoo, rejected the Buddhist precept of no-self or no Atman.  Thus anyone who is mixing things up or cherry picking so to speak is doing it on their own outside of the founders of both schools teachings and can not make any claim to be following those founders and related schools if they do so.

 

Btw. neither of the Masters mentioned above put the ideas of other schools on the shelf for further consideration, they both came to and made final conclusions 180 degrees apart.

Edited October 21, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

regardless of what I say ...

Yes, I often disregard what you say.

 

[doc benway]

15 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

I don't use the mind terms like that....to me mind could be said to be like a spin off of the Self, never the Self or the same as Self that is beyond mind.

 

If the mind is something other than the Self, that would be a dualistic position, would it not?

 

Quote

  Btw. not to many broad minded Buddhists will accept that because at that point they would no longer be Buddhist since it is against a key Buddhist precept. 

 

 Not sure what “that” you are referring to here.

 

Quote

Thus we are at an irreconcilable point related to Vedic and Buddhist teachings. 

 

That would assume we have a perfect understanding of the teachings. I certainly can’t claim that. We may from time to time having differing perspectives but [spelling edit] I wouldn’t conflate that with irreconcilable differences in the teachings. While there may be differences in the teachings, it’s my opinion and experience that reconciliation can be achieved through practice.

Edited October 21, 2018 by steve

[silent thunder]

is it a flowing target that one must strive to maintain or to acquire?

is it a flowing state that requires some things to be abandoned before it is achieved?

 

is it achievable?  maintanable? 

 

does it require skill?

 

or is it always flowing regardless of what story our local mind is telling and all the seeking, skill making, abandoning and acquiring are noise so to speak that masks the silent unfolding presence underlying all else?

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

regardless of what I say ...it is well known by most that the historic Buddha and founder of Buddhism rejected the  "Self" precept of the Vedas,  it is also well known by most that the last lineage holder of KS, Swami Lakshmanjoo, rejected the Buddhist precept of no-self or no Atman.  Thus anyone who is mixing things up or cherry picking so to speak is doing it on their own outside of the founders of both schools teachings and can not make any claim to be following those founders and related schools if they do so.

 

Btw. neither of the Masters mentioned above put the ideas of other schools on the shelf for further consideration, they both came to and made final conclusions 180 degrees apart.

 

While it has been very valuable for me to follow teachings, I don't take them as dogma.

I prefer to relate to them as a guide to practice and living.

Understanding can be approached through concepts but ultimately confidence is born of direct realization.

Such direct realization is generally not expressible by and far more powerful and convincing than words.

 

I would be very comfortable claiming to follow a teacher or tradition and not accept all conceptual elements of that tradition.

A good example in my own practice and study is reincarnation. What most people tend to think of as reincarnation never sat well with me, particularly with my understanding of emptiness, and I've never simply accepted it as a belief. Over time, I've come to understand what I prefer to label rebirth in a way that is consistent with my own paradigm but that understanding is particular to my own circumstances and proclivities, and may be at odds with Bön and Buddhist dogma. That gives me no pause.

 

I am equally comfortable embracing elements of disparate traditions to whatever degree they support positive growth in my practice, namely elements from Christianity, Judaism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Bön. All are guiding us in the direction of love and openness, each in its own unique and beautiful way. I'm not afraid of contradictions and will once again offer a beautiful quotation from a Celtic poet and spiritual teacher.*

 

At the end of the day what counts for me and those around me is my own experience and how I live my life, not conceptual labels.

Over time, as my experience and understanding deepen, it is likely that my disagreements with those conceptual elements will diminish. I have a deep trust in the teachings I currently follow as well as the different teachings I've studied in the past. Nevertheless, I feel no obligation to simply believe all tenets or label myself a devout follower. 

 

*  "And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

 

[Jeff]

13 minutes ago, steve said:

 

While it has been very valuable for me to follow teachings, I don't take them as dogma.

I prefer to relate to them as a guide to practice and living.

Understanding can be approached through concepts but ultimately confidence is born of direct realization.

Such direct realization is generally not expressible by and far more powerful and convincing than words.

 

I would be very comfortable claiming to follow a teacher or tradition and not accept all conceptual elements of that tradition.

A good example in my own practice and study is reincarnation. What most people tend to think of as reincarnation never sat well with me, particularly with my understanding of emptiness, and I've never simply accepted it as a belief. Over time, I've come to understand what I prefer to label rebirth in a way that is consistent with my own paradigm but that understanding is particular to my own circumstances and proclivities, and may be at odds with Bön and Buddhist dogma. That gives me no pause.

 

I am equally comfortable embracing elements of disparate traditions to whatever degree they support positive growth in my practice, namely elements from Christianity, Judaism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Bön. All are guiding us in the direction of love and openness, each in its own unique and beautiful way. I'm not afraid of contradictions and will once again offer a beautiful quotation from a Celtic poet and spiritual teacher.*

 

At the end of the day what counts for me and those around me is my own experience and how I live my life, not conceptual labels.

Over time, as my experience and understanding deepen, it is likely that my disagreements with those conceptual elements will diminish. I have a deep trust in the teachings I currently follow as well as the different teachings I've studied in the past. Nevertheless, I feel no obligation to simply believe all tenets or label myself a devout follower. 

 

*  "And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

 

 

I would be very interested in hearing your view on rebirth, as I would also disagree with the classical view on reincarnation.

 

But, to be fair with 3bob’s original point, you have basically stated that you personally disagree with with Buddhist and Hindu thought, not supported that they are both really saying the same thing in the first place. Why cannot those two traditions disagree based upon their shared experiences, just like you are disagreeing on the reincarnation point?

[doc benway]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

I would be very interested in hearing your view on rebirth, as I would also disagree with the classical view on reincarnation.

 

But, to be fair with 3bob’s original point, you have basically stated that you personally disagree with with Buddhist and Hindu thought, not supported that they are both really saying the same thing in the first place. Why cannot those two traditions disagree based upon their shared experiences, just like you are disagreeing on the reincarnation point?

 

I don't feel that I disagree with either really, it's more a matter of not simply accepting conceptual positions as truth.

In my mind there is no such thing as Hindu or Buddhist thought, there is only human thought that may align with Hindu or Buddhist positions to one degree or another.

Our individual positions are unique and far more complex and flexible than any dogma.

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly but that's what I'm trying to say.

I am slowly cultivating my own understanding through a lot of practice and a little study.

That understanding is mostly in alignment with the teachings I'm currently following but I'm not a believer or dis-believer.

They can certainly be in disagreement, although I don't really think they disagree in a meaningful way, only in terms of superficial labels.

As mentioned, I feel they are both pointing in the direction of love and connection in their own idiosyncratic ways.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I don't feel that I disagree with either really, it's more a matter of not simply accepting conceptual positions as truth.

In my mind there is no such thing as Hindu or Buddhist thought, there is only human thought that may align with Hindu or Buddhist positions to one degree or another.

Our individual positions are unique and far more complex and flexible than any dogma.

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly but that's what I'm trying to say.

I am slowly cultivating my own understanding through a lot of practice and a little study.

That understanding is mostly in alignment with the teachings I'm currently following but I'm not a believer or dis-believer.

They can certainly be in disagreement, although I don't really think they disagree in a meaningful way, only in terms of superficial labels.

As mentioned, I feel they are both pointing in the direction of love and connection in their own idiosyncratic ways.

 

I completely agree regarding your point regarding one’s individual view.  An individual view can potentially refine such that it transcends some written dogma, while not necessarily disagreeing relative to a specific perspective. Also, two views can be relatively correct, but not fully contain the perspective (since they have not noticed) the other’s aspects of view. Sort of like focusing on different aspects of the spectrum.

 

But, if one does not accept a conceptual position as truth, and posits a different position based upon personal experience, how is that really not disagreeing?  

 

Thanks again for the discussion.  Also, I really would be interested in your reincarnation perspective.

[s1va]

16 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Thanks again for the discussion.  Also, I really would be interested in your reincarnation perspective.

 

Yes, I would also like to hear both of your perspectives about reincarnation.  I am interested in knowing how this differs from the classical view.  Please feel free to discuss it here.  I see all of this as part of this topic in a broader context.

[s1va]

And thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion so far.

[Jeff]

7 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, I would also like to hear both of your perspectives about reincarnation.  I am interested in knowing how this differs from the classical view.  Please feel free to discuss it here.  I see all of this as part of this topic in a broader context.

 

Sure.  While I get how things can be perceived like reincarnation from the relative perspective of a flow of time. To me, it is much more like their are fractured components of a greater whole in time and space. “Outside of time and space” it is all really happening concurrently as part of a greater whole. So each life is more like a limited aspect view of the greater whole.  As an aspect clears some major issues/fears/Karma, the can cascade through the greater whole and relatively effecting each of the components. At higher levels of realization one begins to have access to and later integrate those components.

[doc benway]

52 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

But, if one does not accept a conceptual position as truth, and posits a different position based upon personal experience, how is that really not disagreeing?  

 

I don’t see individual positions as mutually exclusive, just descriptions of how different parts of the elephant feel... My experience is such and such and I am open to other positions which may not comport with my own. I respect your perspective as accurate through your eyes and equally legitimate as my own. I accept the Vedic position  as credible from its unique cultural and temporal perspective and the Buddhist view as equally valid from the perspective of one for whom that position makes sense. No position can capture truth, just point to it from our individual islands. This is at the heart of my understanding of emptiness, in fact.

 

A good illustration of this is individual descriptions of deep meditative experience. One may describe great openness, another as brilliant clarity, yet another boundless joy, or profound peace. This is not because they are describing different realities or that one is right and another wrong. It’s because each is feeling what was previously blocked and so that is what comes through most dramatically fresh and new.

 

Gotta run right now but would be happy to discuss rebirth at some point.

[3bob]

6 hours ago, steve said:

 

While it has been very valuable for me to follow teachings, I don't take them as dogma.

I prefer to relate to them as a guide to practice and living.

Understanding can be approached through concepts but ultimately confidence is born of direct realization.

Such direct realization is generally not expressible by and far more powerful and convincing than words.

 

I would be very comfortable claiming to follow a teacher or tradition and not accept all conceptual elements of that tradition.

A good example in my own practice and study is reincarnation. What most people tend to think of as reincarnation never sat well with me, particularly with my understanding of emptiness, and I've never simply accepted it as a belief. Over time, I've come to understand what I prefer to label rebirth in a way that is consistent with my own paradigm but that understanding is particular to my own circumstances and proclivities, and may be at odds with Bön and Buddhist dogma. That gives me no pause.

 

I am equally comfortable embracing elements of disparate traditions to whatever degree they support positive growth in my practice, namely elements from Christianity, Judaism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Bön. All are guiding us in the direction of love and openness, each in its own unique and beautiful way. I'm not afraid of contradictions and will once again offer a beautiful quotation from a Celtic poet and spiritual teacher.*

 

At the end of the day what counts for me and those around me is my own experience and how I live my life, not conceptual labels.

Over time, as my experience and understanding deepen, it is likely that my disagreements with those conceptual elements will diminish. I have a deep trust in the teachings I currently follow as well as the different teachings I've studied in the past. Nevertheless, I feel no obligation to simply believe all tenets or label myself a devout follower. 

 

*  "And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

 

 

ok, thanks for your explanation.

 

I'd say some teachings can more or less get lost in translation and become dogma like, which doesn't mean to me that all teachings become dogma like,  many are known as powerful revealed doctrine, thus more than just intellectual speculation and concepts to be cherry picked in whatever way one might please.  (if one is to become part of a related lineage or school that goes by same)

Edited October 21, 2018 by 3bob

[doc benway]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Sure.  While I get how things can be perceived like reincarnation from the relative perspective of a flow of time. To me, it is much more like their are fractured components of a greater whole in time and space. “Outside of time and space” it is all really happening concurrently as part of a greater whole. So each life is more like a limited aspect view of the greater whole.  As an aspect clears some major issues/fears/Karma, the can cascade through the greater whole and relatively effecting each of the components. At higher levels of realization one begins to have access to and later integrate those components.

 

My perspective of rebirth is very personal and rudimentary.

It starts with emptiness.

The me I experience in life is a construct dependent on causes and conditions, not an independent entity.

It is not that which is reborn. This seems to be the stumbling block for many, it certainly was for me at one point.

As a living being I affect my environment through karma, as it affects me.

Those effects persist beyond the death of this body and mind.

Those better versed in the language of Buddhist sutra and the Vedas can speak far more accurately and eloquently about that which carries the karmic traces forward. I'm not able to do that effectively nor do I relate to the idiosyncratic language and concepts.

Rather, I consider the factors that make sense to my life experience (genetics, environmental factors, interpersonal factors, and so on) and I am open to the fact that there are many more factors one could potentially describe that are beyond my understanding.

The birth of each new life is, to me, rebirth as it is yet another manifestation of the lifeforce, the undifferentiated "I-ness" which manifests in all sentience. Each new birth is impacted by those karmic factors in ways which are far too complicated to predict or understand fully and yet the effects are very clearly present. 

That's more or less how I see it at this point.

I can't say how reasonable or accurate it is, nor how consistent it is with any of the ancient traditions, but it works for me.