Andrew108 wrote:Buddhism isn't about understanding the mind or even the nature of mind....
But really it's very simple.
Andrew108 wrote:Buddhism isn't about understanding the mind or even the nature of mind. When it is presented like that then it becomes a huge project that actually makes it also more mystifying. We think we are looking for something illusive that is hidden or we want to polish something to make it shine. This just isn't possible.
Buddhism is very simply an analysis of 'presence'. Of what constitutes 'presence' and what 'presence' is like. That 'presence' seems to be here but is not. That we seem to inhabit 'presence' but do not. That suffering is taken to exist but exists only as a quality of 'presence'. That 'presence' is fresh and energetic but can't be seen. That 'presence' has no realization it can sustain. That 'presence' contains everything that can be contained and is pervasive, but at the same time contains nothing at all. That everyone experiences 'presence' in the same way shows that it is not created by causes. That in 'presence' actually things taste the same in that they have no essential flavor apart from 'presence'. 'presence' being empty of other is what logicians aim to get. 'presence' being the foundation for creation and completion stages is what union means.
Study as much as you like but in the end unless you meet a teacher who points out this 'presence' to you, you will always be struggling. And when this is pointed out you can integrate with 'presence' - not with higher mysterious mind.
Buddha didn't mean for the dharma to be difficult to understand. He didn't mean that the dharma should become a PhD program, with meditating in caves being the practical. He presented the truth that we take 'presence' to be the five aggregates and cling accordingly when in fact there is no self in 'presence'. That we crave continuation or success or pleasure or achievement when in fact in 'presence' none of these fit. That when we understand the nature of 'presence' we can easily turn away from the misunderstanding that takes 'presence' to be a self with duration. And that all of the 'right' things to do are a consequence of an understanding of the nature of 'presence' and don't move from an understanding of just 'presence'.
But of course no one will believe this because they think I'm debating something. Or trying to be better than them. Or they may be worried that their path was not taken seriously enough. But really it's very simple.
Andrew108 wrote:Because there is no enlightenment that can be achieved or sustained.
Tilopa said there is nothing to teach.
Astus wrote:Is this 'presence' vegetarian or omnivore? Does this 'presence' sleep at night? Is it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or asexual? And if these are irrelevant questions, what is 'presence' good for?
dharmagoat wrote:From what source do you get this term 'presence' from?
seeker242 wrote:I don't know man! Presence, true nature, Buddha Nature, mind, suchness, thusness, true self, Bodhi, Bodhi mind... it all sounds like the same thing, just using different words.
Andrew108 wrote:I didn't mean to start a new thread about this topic, so it's a bit out of context. It seems that I'm trying to promote the idea when in fact I was replying to someone in the previous thread.
Andrew108 wrote:dharmagoat wrote:From what source do you get this term 'presence' from?
Actually in Mahamudra its called ordinary mind.
For the contemplative traditions of Kagyüpa and Nyingmapa the ordinary mind’s vision of the clear and valid perception is not only the right approach but a reliable aperture to the dawn of insight. The ordinary mind and the worldly mind are the two aspects of human consciousness. The one is inherent and pure, the other acquired and impure. These conflicting inner realities can be differentiated in terms of the two truths. The ordinary mind, as a valid sensory perception, consists of a mirror-like clarity and an awareness with an insight into its innate simplicity. The perceptive clarity, being conditioned, is on the level of apparent reality. The awareness of the innate simplicity, being unconditioned, is on the level of the ultimate reality. The two are compatible and, in fact, nondual. However, the worldly mind, being deluded, perceives reality in a distorted way. It cannot, therefore, be identified with any valid perception of an ordinary mind. The deluded mind and its distorted view of dualism represent the false nature of the apparent reality. Through each valid perception the ordinary mind reveals its primordial state and its intimate link with the ultimate reality. This is the reason why the ordinary mind is looked upon as natural enlightenment. However, such understanding and insight cannot automatically come to untrained minds. Only to an experienced meditator will the ordinary mind manifest itself as pure and simple but at the same time profound and transcendental.
Andrew108 wrote:It's more like the fact of perception rather than an object of perception. It's not an object to be perceived.
greentara wrote:The trouble is we can't just be. The latent tendencies and emotional thoughts come bubbling to the surface so 'presence' is obscured but not lost.
Astus wrote:How come then that someone called 'teacher' can point it out for another?
Astus wrote:Would you say that it's the presence of perception? The fact of being conscious? It is basic to all living beings.
Astus wrote:there is nothing to be perceived about it, what do you call an analysis here?
Users browsing this forum: Tashi Gonpo and 23 guests