If all is mind then how is Zen not monistic? II

[Giovanni]

People who practice have of a chance of awakening, especially if they have good conditions, good teacher, good sangha, and something like a good practice and an element of good luck and timing. I'd say it's "incumbent" on each practitioner to awaken at least once, so we may see that we have not been lied to by Buddhas and Ancestors. Hakuin reputedly had multiple awakenings, and we know that multiple awakenings are possible. But so is at least one.

Hey Joe,
Do you consider yourself to be "enlightened "? ~ I'm just curious! .

Hey Berry,



Fellow using screen-name "Malcolm" asked nearly the same in this thread, and I replied.

By the way, in our time the word "enlightened" has been deprecated, along with other archaic-seeming words, such as "Hinayana", at least in most polite conversation. "Enlightened" was always a mis-translation, by some of the early Brits hundreds of years ago who tried, however valiantly, to put the sutras into our vernacular. Not everything was gotten right, because none of them had practiced. In any case, the Buddha is given to have said about himself -- when asked what he "is" -- "I am Awake".

"Hey Joe" is the title and beginning of a Jimi Hendrix song, BTW.

It should be noted that as viewed in Ch'an and Zen circles, awakening is not necessarily (and is rarely) a permanent condition, and, note too -- as given above -- that multiple awakenings are possible (in one lifetime; on which, see Hakuin). My own late teacher viewed awakening as the start of real practice, when it becomes very clear which direction to take.

But again, returning to topic, I'd claim monism does not apply because the mind of no-mind does not admit of dualities, much less unities.

With best wishes for strong practice,

Malcolms name is Malcolm .It’s not a screen name. He doesn’t feel the need to assume an online identity. He us actually well known in Vajrayana circles, and is a great spotter of b.s.

[desert_woodworker]

Thanks, Berry. Ch'an and Zen have been my path to date, I'm happy and lucky to say.

I have very great admiration for the teaching of Vajrayana Meditation Master Lama Urgyen Rinpoche, and feel at home with him. Also the Vipassana teachers who contributed interviews to Shankman's book on ...SAMADHI seem like family.

Yes, this is OT. Now at an end.

--Joe

[desert_woodworker]

[He doesn’t feel the need to assume an online identity. He us actually well known in Vajrayana circles, and is a great spotter of b.s.

Maybe you're his/her online identity, then.

--Joe

[Natan]

Mod note: Because of necroing the topic has been split from here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 83#p483083



Not solipsistic, really, because if there is just One Mind, well, there's no other mind, actual or hypothetical, to be solipsistic against.

But the fact of One Mind and one mind only is not evident AT ALL until one awakens. At (after) which time, categories, such as we're dealing in here, are dust in the wind. "Gone, gone, gone 'beyond' ".

In my old early 1970s Philosophy department, we had a joke as students: "Are YOU the Solipsist responsible for all this?"

Not monistic, because, again, the fact of the One Mind (of no-mind) that is revealed and liberated at awakening is a fact that is outside the dualism of monistic or not-so, ...which are distinctions only possible to make with a dualistic mind. That mind dies at awakening! Make no mistake about that. And, don't wish for it unless you think "you" can withstand that death.

But... it may revive again! That false-mind. The awakened state may erode if not cared-for. Thus, one must never suspend or deprecate "practice", after awakening. See your teacher!

"The Three Poisons Rise Endlessly", e.g.

Best,

Good to be on board,

--Joe

Philosophers are always examining what might be true, always in doubt. The Middle Way path is there to help you relax. It's not your responsibility. There's nothing true there. You can let it all go and stop analyzing. You will never be free until you give up the truth enterprise. Phenomena are only our own experience. And the holder of all these experiences is untouchable. There is no changing that. The upshot is it is a peaceful refuge.

[Giovanni]

[He doesn’t feel the need to assume an online identity. He us actually well known in Vajrayana circles, and is a great spotter of b.s.

Maybe you're his/her online identity, then.

--Joe

I’m flattered.

[desert_woodworker]

Philosophers are always examining what might be true, always in doubt. The Middle Way path is there to help you relax. It's not your responsibility. There's nothing true there. You can let it all go and stop analyzing. You will never be free until you give up the truth enterprise. Phenomena are only our own experience. And the holder of all these experiences is untouchable. There is no changing that. The upshot is it is a peaceful refuge.

I feel that what you say is right (and from what you say, I'll stop before saying it's "true").

But, I gave my take to the OP. That's what we're here for, when asked to do so, especially when there's a question-mark in the thread title, no?

Now, going O.T., here... but I'd say, though, still -- for one thing -- it's worthwhile and enriching to remember that Philosophy is an Art: and so it is treated as such in university environments, curricula and degree-granting, as well, i.e., not as a Science, instead.

Now, an art need not interfere with nor displace one's Dharma practice (viz., e.g., Ikebana, Tea, Bonsai, Martial Arts, Poetry, Letters, Philosophy, Suiseki, Origami, Painting, Carving, Metal-Working, and others. Arts can be adjuncts to our practice. For many, they are.

For Nāgārjuna, Philosophy was a major enterprise. I think philosophizing did not keep him from also being a great Practitioner. And I think his art of truth-seeking and philosophizing was informed by his practice, and the mentality that can be liberated within practice. I myself feel closer to the Yogacārins' work, because I don't need convincing via logic (such as Nāgārjuna applies at every step) of anything about emptiness: it is self-revealing when practice enables it to be.

Thanks for your take. Yours is a civil and kind reply and I appreciate it.

(note that this is not a thread begun by me; it was split-off by Admin when I replied in a "necro"-fashion [new to me!] to a thread begun some months earlier, I think, and I didn't know the threshold of "old")

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think taking Madhymaka as straight ‘philosophy’ is a bit of an error personally. It is no more ‘philosophy’ than a koan is, regardless of the conventional (ha, see what I did there) wisdom.

[desert_woodworker]

Interesting. I don't think I claimed above that Madhyamika is straight philosophy personally. I am sympathetic to the view that it is not (pls see below).

I think that to the extent that Madhyamika gives a way (unrelentingly) to dis-empower mere thinking about emptiness and leave it available to no other means of knowing but by direct experience and dwelling within it, it is certainly or can be a type of practice, as koan practice between teacher and student more directly ideally is.

Then there's the matter of philosophy: does Madhyamika present any views, which are descriptive or to be taken as "right" or "guided" views of emptiness, outside of Madhyamika's potential "therapeutic" impacts as practice? I think so, yes-and-no. It views emptiness of course from the standpoint of the awakened mind, and makes statements about it, even though in its thoroughness it demolishes its own statements or conclusions (now, THAT'S Compassion). Yogacara I'd say oppositely takes the mind in hand from the standpoint of delusion, instead, and models its various discernable features which appear while awakening has not yet cleared the decks. The theory of the Alaya is of course a major philosophical position (something posited), based on introspection and reasoning, like our hints that dark matter is real although invisible, based on observations of its gravitational-only interactions (a "strong-intimation" that, "it must be there").

Still loose ends, and unconsolidated ideas unexpressed here; having to see to an ailing cat, apologies. And thank you,

[Natan]

Philosophers are always examining what might be true, always in doubt. The Middle Way path is there to help you relax. It's not your responsibility. There's nothing true there. You can let it all go and stop analyzing. You will never be free until you give up the truth enterprise. Phenomena are only our own experience. And the holder of all these experiences is untouchable. There is no changing that. The upshot is it is a peaceful refuge.

I feel that what you say is right (and from what you say, I'll stop before saying it's "true").

But, I gave my take to the OP. That's what we're here for, when asked to do so, especially when there's a question-mark in the thread title, no?

Now, going O.T., here... but I'd say, though, still -- for one thing -- it's worthwhile and enriching to remember that Philosophy is an Art: and so it is treated as such in university environments, curricula and degree-granting, as well, i.e., not as a Science, instead.

Now, an art need not interfere with nor displace one's Dharma practice (viz., e.g., Ikebana, Tea, Bonsai, Martial Arts, Poetry, Letters, Philosophy, Suiseki, Origami, Painting, Carving, Metal-Working, and others. Arts can be adjuncts to our practice. For many, they are.

For Nāgārjuna, Philosophy was a major enterprise. I think philosophizing did not keep him from also being a great Practitioner. And I think his art of truth-seeking and philosophizing was informed by his practice, and the mentality that can be liberated within practice. I myself feel closer to the Yogacārins' work, because I don't need convincing via logic (such as Nāgārjuna applies at every step) of anything about emptiness: it is self-revealing when practice enables it to be.

Thanks for your take. Yours is a civil and kind reply and I appreciate it.

(note that this is not a thread begun by me; it was split-off by Admin when I replied in a "necro"-fashion [new to me!] to a thread begun some months earlier, I think, and I didn't know the threshold of "old")

Maybe so re philosophy and I can appreciate that if that helps some folks relax and enjoy. From the Vajrayana standpoint the art is about feel. It's about energy. I'm not talking about woo woo energy, but emotions and strong sensations and transformations with mantra. I have said a few times it's a unique aesthetic, one that is not similar to any other aesthetic. So if aliens came down from outer space and asked what's the most beautiful thing in our world, this would be it.

[desert_woodworker]

Beautiful. Thanks.

The late Aitken Roshi, founder of the Diamond Sangha of Hawai'i (now with 26 affiliate sanghas over the Earth) said, "This is the most important thing in the world". He means the identity we feel (and know) when we are awake, with all beings.

Maybe, like you (?) (I don't know you... & vice versa), I came to practice because of beauty. So many Dharma friends I know of have come to practice because of what they call "suffering", but in my history, it was beauty. From an early age, maybe 4 or 5, when all of Nature shined (shone), as I sat on my window-seat and admired all the outdoor sights for hours of "samadhi". Years later, this kind of vision returned strongly during good-enough (sev'l hrs per day of sitting) and sufficient 3x per day hatha-yoga practice and good diet. Then I finally met my Ch'an teacher and had a coherent practice which brought many elements together, more than 40 years, now. Many changes, since; the beat goes on.

Hmm, maybe Beauty is my "suffering". Tortured by the lovely Sirens' singing... . I'll take it! (not that I have much choice, and not that I've ever tried to escape it. But, awakening, I'd attest, is not permanent. And multiple awakening periods are possible, and -- mercifully! -- practicable).

,

Very best,