Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tuesday, February 12, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    **************** JAN SULTAN ... Nirvana is Acceptance of the Present Moment (adapted from The Meaning of Happiness, by Alan W. Watts, 1940, New York 1970) The
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ****************
       
       
      JAN SULTAN
      -----  Nirvana is Acceptance of the Present Moment - Watts

      Nirvana is Acceptance of the Present Moment (adapted from The Meaning of
      Happiness, by Alan W. Watts, 1940, New York 1970)
      The Hinayanists looked upon Nirvana as an escape from the pains of life and
      death, a conception which to the Mahayanists with their Brahmanic
      background appeared as the old error of dualism. Thus the ideal man of the
      Hinayana was the arhat, one who simply attained Nirvana and ceased from
      rebirth, entering into the formless rest, bliss, and impersonality of the
      eternal. But the Mahayanists gave their philosophy of non-duality practical
      expression in the ideal of the bodhisattva, who attains liberation but
      remains in the world of birth and death to assist all other beings to
      enlightenment. In other words, they refused to make any absolute
      distinction between Nirvana and Samsara; the two states are the same, seen,
      as it were, from different points of view. Therefore the Lankavatara Sutra
      (as translated by D.T. Suzuki) says: "False imagination teaches that such
      things as light and shade, long and short, black and white are different
      and are to be discriminated; but they are not independent of each other;
      they are only different aspects of the same thing, they are terms of
      relation, not of reality. Conditions of existence are not of a mutually
      exclusive character; in essence things are not two but one. Even Nirvana
      and Samsara's world of life and death are aspects of the same thing, for
      there is no Nirvana except where is Samsara, and no Samsara except where is
      Nirvana. All duality is falsely imagined."
      In terms of practical psychology this means that there is no actual
      distinction between our ordinary, everyday experience and the experience of
      Nirvana or spiritual freedom. But for some people this experience is
      binding and for others liberating, and the problem is to achieve what the
      Lankavatara calls that "turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness"
      which effects the transformation.
      Now the Mahayana was more thoroughgoing in its statement of this problem
      than even Vedanta. For what is our ordinary, everyday experience? It is not
      just our awareness of external circumstances or even such ordinary
      activities as walking, eating, sleeping, breathing, and speaking; it
      includes also our thinking and feeling: our ideas, moods, desires,
      passions, and fears. In its most concrete form ordinary, everyday
      experience is just how you feel at this moment. In a certain sense Buddhism
      is very much a philosophy and a psychology of the moment, for if we are
      asked what life is, and if our answer is to be a practical demonstration
      and not a theory, we can do no better than point to the moment Now! It is
      in the moment that we find reality and freedom, for acceptance of life is
      acceptance of the present moment now and at all times..
      Acceptance of the moment is allowing the moment to live, which, indeed, is
      another way of saying that it is to allow life to live, to be what it is
      now (yathabhutam). Thus to allow this moment of experience and all that it
      contains freedom to be as it is, to come in its own time and to go in its
      own time, this is to allow the moment, which is what we are now, to set us
      free; it is to realize that life, as expressed in the moment, has always
      been setting us free from the very beginning, whereas we have chosen to
      ignore it and tried to achieve that freedom by ourselves.
      For this reason Mahayana Buddhism teaches that Nirvana or enlightenment
      cannot really be attained, because the moment we try to attain it by our
      own power we are using it as an escape from what is now, and we are also
      forgetting that Nirvana is unattainable in the sense that it already is.



      JOYCE SHORT
       

      Heidi asked:
      > If a person has Awakened - in some sort of reality
      that can be
      > experienced - has his mind undergone some sort of
      tranformation,
      > whereby the dualities have actually BEEN merged, and he
      now sees only
      > seamless unity in all things?
      >
      > If so, how
      could a person stand that for more than a day or so?

      Wild guess here.  Person has awakened to the fact that there is no "person".
      Thus liberated from person's problems which were always only fictions and
      were removed when person-fiction dropped.  Seamless unity continues on as it
      always has, nothing to "merge" or transform-the picket-fence view has been
      removed as part of the home renovation.  There would be "seeing" but no
      person who sees; hearing but no person who hears, etc. Living might become
      full and spontaneous.  How could any "person" stand anything but that? What
      persons can't stand is person-ness. There is no ground on which any person
      could stand. Grounds maintenance a laborious chore.


      MATTHEW & ERIC
       
      (E) ................just remember what queen isabella said to columbus
      on his return: "you did a good job kid, but the west indies aint
      america"
       
      (E) Matthew, this quote/joke is so appropriate for so many terms and the 
            states they are supposed to designate as discussed on HS and NDS.
      Good eye.
      yours in the bonds,
      eric
      (M).....................yah i thought so too. it actually is a
      paraphrsed quote that someone told me their teacher wrote to them,
      having to do with a particularly transcendent state the person was
      in, and the conclusions they were making about it. it is so easy
      (habitual) to draw conclusions about what we have "disvovered", about
      where we feel we are at, what we understand or dont understand or
      when we believe all sense of me-ness has dropped away, you know,like
      when  people refuse to use pronouns like I and me in their writings,
      ("here it is percieved as".....)as if refering to themselves could
      somehow actually reinforce their identity. LOL. You could say that
      there is no america to discover as that implies an end, a finality, a
      finishing point. realization of all ready present enlightenment is
      just the begining, kindergarten, and there is no end. And it is
      always possible to get stuck. even realized people, people who
      Understand get stuck, wallowing around in Understanding, mesmerized
      by the Light.
      ..............matthew
       

      SU GANDOLF
       
      Jody wrote:
      > The moment when experiential knowledge arrives.
       

      This moment? Just now?

      How about now?

      Or?

      Yes.

      This is it.

      This.

      Umm hmm.

      Ouch.

      Aaahh.

      Ooohh.

      Aaww.

      Yeah.


      DAN BERKOW
      on Buddha's enlightenment
       
      Dear Greg,

      Assuming this version of enlightenment isn't
       pure fantasy, then it must be based on the actuality
         of having achieved it.

      That is, it can't be discussed as achievable unless achieved,
        and this is the rationale for inventing a Buddha-figure
          to whom such an enlightenment can be attributed.

      Having been achieved, this enlightenment allows omniscience.
        Would it not also allow omnipresence?
          How could a localized being of limited capacities be
             omniscient?

      Being omnipresent and omniscient, the realized Buddha/bodhisattva
         is now appearing to all sentient being skillfully helping
           them in whatever way is best suited.

      Because this has happened, all sentient beings are being
         taken care of exactly in the way that best suits.

      There is, therefore, no need for any other being to achieve
         enlightenment.  Nor is there any need for any additional
           help to be added.


      GREG GOODE
       
      Hi Dan,

      This version of enlightenment is based on the Mahayana sutras and commentaries, which are vast and numerous.  What are they based on?? :-)   In this particular slant, the Buddha is still a localized being.  He is very skillful but not omnipotent, and as a being not omnipresent.  There *are* aspects of the Buddha that are omnipresent however, such as the Dharmakaya or Dharmadhatu or emptiness nature.  (But omnipotence is not always thought to accompany omniscience.  For example Harold Kushner's version of God in his book _When Bad Things Happen to Good People_.  Kushner's revision of God in this book makes God omniscient but not omnipotent.  This is a solution to the traditional Judeo-Christian problem of evil -- for Kushner, God knows all things but is not powerful enough to make only the good stuff happen.)

      Some forms of Mahayana Buddhism, especially Ch'an, include a wonderfully rich, fascinating and companionable interplay between the simultaneous teachings that (a) all beings are now being saved and (b) one must work to save all beings.  Seung Sahn writes about it a lot, and lots of the great old dialogues and koans tread on the razor edge between (a) and (b).  In Middle Way Buddhism, (a) and (b) are looked at as in two different senses, corresponding to its "two-truths" doctrine.  (a) captures the ultimate truth that all beings are empty of inherent existence so in that same sense do not need to be saved, and (b) captures the conventional truth that beings hurt, suffer and die, and desire to end the suffering. 


      HEIDI
       
      Su wrote:
      > It is often said here that there is no one to be enlightened, and
      > no experience of enlightenment to be had. Have you inquired into
      > this?

      Yes.
      It's a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a thought that eats its own tail and
      explodes with a whimper. Is that your starting point or ending point
      with all this? It seems that it is the similar refrain from many here.

      "There is nothing to do or to know, because there is no one to do it
      or to know it, so, just REALIZE yourself as you are, and smile big
      and wide (or not)". Doesn't that just about sum it up? Oh, I know
      some will be offended by this, so please rephrase it, so that it
      captures the full aliveness of the non-dual experience, if you must,
      and imagine that THAT is what I actually wrote.

      That anyone would be satisfied with that kind of simplistic logic
      thoroughly amuses me.

      Here, you have this thing between your ears that easily is the most
      complex structure in the Universe, capable of conscious thought, and
      possibly comprehension OF the Universe, and the best that it can come
      up with is, "Don't think about it - just accept reality as it is",
      and the human who hears this echo in his head goes: "yeah, that
      sounds right, ok, got it!"

      Here is a question for you.
      Have you considered that the brain (mind, arm, lips, whatever you
      choose to call it) responsible for writing your paragraphs TO ME,
      does not want you to get past that dead-end thinking. That it would
      be in-con-veeeeenient, to say the least, if you did, especially if
      many people did.

      And, if you could START there, and think a little further, that would
      mean that, maybe, 'reality' is not what you believe it is, that
      'enlightenment' is not what you imagine it is, and 'thinking' is not
      what you think it is, that "seeing things as they are" doesn't really
      MEAN what you think it means, but something else entirely.

      -------Love Heidi

      (that was a command, don't get your hopes up.)


      SU
       
      Hi Heidi,

      I said: "It is often said here that there is no one to be enlightened,
      and no experience of enlightenment to be had. Have you inquired into
      this?" Inquired, not accepted. Big difference. I love your last
      paragraph, it's fierceness. These "maybes" are more the kind of open
      inquiry I was wondering if you had tried. I'm not saying you should.
      It has been a helpful inquiry for me. But if something doesn't seem
      helpful, better to drop it.
       

      JAN B. & JODY
      JODY
      > ºI really don't know how Nirvana figures in, but those who
      have
      º> ºcome to this understanding are under no illusions about their
      º> ºbeing eternal Being absolute.  That's what I always thought
      º> ºNirvana was. 
      JAN
      º> Nirvana is about a fundamental and irreversible change regarding
      º> the mind-body. The same goes for moksha, the resurrection of
      º> Christ and the annihilation of the lover in the beloved: all terms for
      º> the same psycho-physical event, in the NT also called 'first death'.

      º> It simply means  "   "  as the sole 'factor' determining life, hence
      º> unconditional. Thus, every thread comes to an end as the fire
      º> (of desires) extinguishes. That is why 'nirvana' sometimes is translated
      º> with "making cool by blowing".  At "enlightenment", the fire still is
      º> raging even if that seems different: as long as the ashes are glowing,
      º> the fire will resume when new fuel is added. In other words, then the
      º> thread continues.
      JODY
      ºBurn baby, burn!
      JAN
      Read the poems of Lalla - one of the few women covertly describing
      "the" change. It pales the "apperception event" to an invisible star in
      the sky on a lasting bright sunny day in the tropics.
      The human interface holds a few surprises which cannot be
      predicted nor "understood" by the finite mind, just intuited which
      is more the exception than the rule.

       

      JOYCE & JAN B & DAN
       
      ºProbably stupid question-but, could you say if there is
      º"only understanding" without the "you" (an owner of the understanding -
      ºseparation of understanding and some entity having it)
      ºit just might be "God"?
      º
      ºJoyce

      Understanding always is secondary: no thoughts arise so what is there to be understood?
      Hence the issue of 'understanding' is quite a laugh as it only signifies a mind in motion
      whereas the silent mind is the proverbial bliss forever.

      Jan
       
      Yes.

      Zero is clarity that nothing is lacking,
        so now nothing to be understood,
        and what use is claiming "Understanding"?

      -- Dan




      now
       
      > We're still left here with two:  thoughts
      >   and
      awareness of thoughts.


      That inference was not intended.  What was said was
      "thoughts [have] no substance apart from the borrowed light [ie. awareness]
      in which they appear."   the exact opposite was intended -- we are awareness
      (if in fact "we" are at all) and there is nothing truly separate from
      awareness. Separable things (ie. non-dependent things) can merely be implied
      by thought but they are not therefore established.

      so what can be said by way of conclusion?

      how about "there are no non-dependent things"?


      --now

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.