tobes wrote:I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?
Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.
Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition.
The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view.
The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.
So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it."All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche