A quick comment about my perception of the meaning of "All attachments are no attachments." I take this to mean that anything we are attached to it not ultimately real but partially a mental construct. Thus it is not really an attachment but an illusion of an attachment. On the other hand one could say that it is an attachment to an illusion.
I'm not sure what the difference is between buddha-vision and buddha-cognition. Probably they are interrelated. I am beginning to intuitively understand "buddha-nature." Buddha-nature like human nature is latent within all of us, but buddha nature subsumes human nature in that we still have instincts, impulses and compulsions, but with Buddha nature we recognize them as such. We do not become other than who we are, but with heightened perception of everything, including our own thought processes, we move toward enlightenment. Well that's my provisional idea anyway.
I had a dream last night in which I was explaining to someone that they should recognize the nature of their own compulsions. That's encouraging to me, because it means I am taking these teachings to heart.
Ta ta for now.
2 comments:
The kingdom of heaven is within you.
What struck me most about this passage is its supernatural elements. There is this business about 500 lifetimes, and a Godlike Tathagata who recognizes virtue. In this way, the text seems to suggest that the answer to elijahh's demands is God as it is commonly understood.
Yet, I do not think that is really its import. It's tough, because the text is imperfect. The teachings are not flawless. They are things to think about, not scriptures to follow "religiously." At least in my conception. If they are followed dogmatically, they are not understood.
Another point which bothers me is the nonbeing being. After a point, the affitmation and denial paradox becomes tiresome to me. It's repetitive and starts to lose its meaning. If all perceptions are to be released, what is the difference between the meditating mendicant, the rich debaucher, and the tortured prisoner? None. So why spread this teaching. Buddha nature is already present.
It is somewhat analogous to the christian paradox suggested to the left. If the kingdom of heaven is within each person, what need is there to proseletize. Surely the kingdom of heaven is perfect and sufficient of its own accord. Why must people be enlightened to its presence?
Post a Comment