The story of the Buddha makes direct reference to this. Buddhism is a rejection of the "all or nothing" approach. It is about living through every moment as a workable situation, and developing a gradient sort of outlook, rather than seeing things as "black vs white".
This kind of perspective is a bit tricky and IMO a bit misleading in our modern era, considering that the focus is not on "weirdness" or the paradox of a double negative. There is a hindu expression used to describe this approach, which is "neti, neti" or "not this, not this". It is the description of transcendence, and has nothing to do with the kind of symbol-oriented discrimination which designates "self" as opposed to "other".
Neti, neti describes an eternal movement, or an infinite activity. There is no "v. It is an expression of non-dualism. The problem with these transcendental ideas and perspectives comes into play when they become objects in themselves, rather than being recognized as intimations of a deeper process. This is why the existence of so-called "neo-advaita" has become possible. The idea of a "divine" or "enlightened" end result, being all there is to begin with, is already completed and perfect, so there is no need for practice or anything else… except bhakti for the guru or devotion to the teacher.
Its quite the lucrative business for such "gurus". Its very appealing for seekers to hear they dont really have to do anything, just pay some donations and sit around soaking up the good vibrations. They are playthings for the mind.
Such logical abstractions can be explored endlessly, and can provide a great deal of distraction. In taking responsibility for your life, the first thing to realize is that the situation is temporary.
Death comes swiftly for all living beings. The physical remembrance of this measurement echoes throughout our bodies, as our heart beats. It will only beat for a certain number of times. We will only take a certain number of breaths. Since our life itself is the basis for all thoughts, as well as emotions, sensations and so forth — we should regard our life with the significance it truly holds. This will inspire respect for the living experience of all beings, and that is something of true value.
Thanks for your comment! Perhaps what I have written has some flavour of "neti,neti", but the inclusion of the Dogen story was meant to thwart this kind of perspective: the old man doesn't get lost in absolutes, he does what is required. It is Dogen who is stuck in the "spiritual" view, and his meeting with the old man knocks this stuckness out of him.
Again, thanks! The universal teachings are applied universally… and they often stretch beyond barriers of "you" and "me". For example, as you wrote your peice, I am sure you learned things about yourself, just as did I when I wrote my response to you. In the same way we learn from the things others have shared with us, others will learn from us through what they have shared.
In the context of a sangha, I think it is best to fully express any views, without fear of error. Essentially, all we do is error to some degree. We live in a sea of errors. They are not "bad", but rather the entire crux of the matter of learning, cultivation and so forth.
They are the entry points into the path, an invitation for unfolding. As soon as we get a sense of having things "figured out", it becomes another blind spot. The knowing that is beyond contemporary knowledge is indescribable for good reason. You are one with everything. That is more true than I can say, and more true than you can hear. You cannot do it. The best way to control people is to encourage them to be mischievous.
Then they will be in control in a wider sense. To give your sheep or cow a large spacious meadow is the way to control him. So it is with people: first let them do what they want, and watch them. This is the best policy. To ignore them is not good. That is the worst policy. The second worst is trying to control them.
The best one is to watch them, just to watch them, without trying to control them. That is, we have to believe in something which has no form and no color--something which exists before all forms and colors appear No matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self-centered idea.
But right there in the imperfection is perfect reality. This is Buddhism. We exist for the sake of ourselves. So when you try hard to make your own way, you will help others, and you will be helped by others. That is why He created this flawed, fractured world. The Victorian poet G. He wakes up just before seeing God. The movie Being John Malkovich presents an a-religious version of this nightmare. A puppeteer discovers an air-conditioning shaft that serves as a portal into the brain of actor John Malkovich.
Those who enter the portal see and feel what Malkovich does. These works pose deep questions. Do we really want to live in a world in which there is no other? There are no selves but only a single Self? Is that heaven or a solipsistic hell? Love, the sublime emotion, requires at least two things, the lover and the beloved. So does consciousness. During a psychedelic trip in , I had a taste of oneness. I became the only conscious entity in existence, an all-powerful cosmic computer at the end of time.
It started out as a good trip, but then it became very bad. I felt excruciating loneliness and fear. The trip convinced me that the reduction of all things to one thing is a route not to cosmic consciousness but to un consciousness, oblivion, death. One thing equals nothing. The iconoclastic spirituality teachers Diana Alstad and Joel Kramer raise other objections to oneness in their book The Guru Papers.
Oneness appeals to modern westerners, they argue, because it seems superficially less authoritarian and more abstract—and hence easier to reconcile with liberalism and science—than monotheistic theologies. Oneness also seems to counter our innate selfishness.
0コメント