Some nice parallels

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Some nice parallels

Postby monktastic » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:54 pm

Thought I'd share some nice parallels from two great teachers from different traditions (and hope nobody gets their knickers in a twist from me quoting heathens :smile:)

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche wrote:Repeatedly you hear, 'recognize mind essence; attain stability in that'. What this really means is that we should repeatedly look into what thinks. We should recognize the absence or emptiness of this thinker over and over again, until finally the power of deluded thinking weakens, until it is totally gone without a trace. At that point, what remains to prevent the state of enlightenment?
...
In the recognition of mind nature, the thought has no power to stand on its own. It simply vanishes. Just as our nature is emptiness, so is the nature of the thought. The moment of recognizing the thinker as empty cognizance is like the snowflake meeting the water.

Ramana Maharshi wrote:Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the 'I'-thought and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is only through the inquiry 'Who am I?' that the mind subsides. Moreover, the integral 'I'-thought, implicit in such enquiry, having destroyed all other thoughts, gets itself destroyed or consumed, just as the stick used for stirring the burning funeral pyre gets consumed.

Even when extraneous thoughts sprout up during such enquiry, do not seek to complete the rising thought, but instead, deeply enquire within, 'To who has this thought occurred?' No matter how many thoughts thus occur to you, if you would with acute vigilance enquire immediately as and when each individual thought arises to whom it has occurred, you would find it is to 'me'. If then you enquire 'Who am I?' the mind gets introverted and the rising thought also subsides. In this manner as you persevere more and more in the practice of Self-enquiry, the mind acquires increasing strength and power to abide in its Source.


Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche wrote:Samsara is mind turned outwardly, lost in its projections;
Nirvana is mind turned inwardly, recognizing its true nature.

Ramana Maharshi wrote:It is only when the subtle mind is externalized through the activity of the intellect and the sense-organs that gross name and form constituting the world appear. When, on the other hand, the mind stays firmly in the Heart, they recede and disappear.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: Some nice parallels

Postby Jikan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:09 pm

If you select your quotations right, you can run a similar thought experiment between Nagarjuna and Marx (the first part of the Grundrisse is the place to start). Or Nagarjuna and certain parts of the Phenomenology of Spirit. These kinds of thought experiments can be entertaining, and it's possible to learn something from them I suppose.

What would you like us to learn from these parallels between Tulku Urgyen and Ramana?
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5769
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Some nice parallels

Postby monktastic » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:37 pm

I can only share what I've found personally: that Maharshi's wisdom is more valuable than I had expected, and have been a welcome addition to my practice. I post this primarily for those who may otherwise have never looked in that direction; not to convince people who have already considered his teachings and found them lacking or antithetical to their own path.

Edit: and I find this parallel in particular to be solid. This is more or less Maharshi's primary practice advice, and it shares "something" with trekcho. How much, only the practitioner can decide.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: Some nice parallels

Postby monktastic » Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:03 pm

Just ran across this in The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa, Vol 2:

You see, the problem is that analytical mind cannot be freed by another aspect of analytical mind until the questions of analytical mind are dissolved. This is the same as the method of "Who am I?" in Ramana Maharshi's teaching. If you regard "Who am I?" as a question, then you are still analyzing yourself, but when you begin to realize that "Who am I?" is a statement, the analytical mind becomes confused. One realizes there is something personal about it. Something instinctive which is freed by the actual living situation.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: NYC

Re: Some nice parallels

Postby greentara » Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:41 pm

monktastic, Yes some very nice parallels. I have also been influenced by Ramana Maharshi and even though he advised most to attempt self enquiry, I have read that most devotees were unable to put it into practice. Ramana understood this and accepted, prayer, japa, even joyful kirtans .....as long as it was done with sincerity.
His quiet statement 'iru' just be, is simplicity itself. The simplicity is deceptive as people have always wanted complicated rituals, magical incantations, involved philosophy but the bareness of 'iru' is powerful, primeordial.
greentara
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am


Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests

>