Enlightenment is not something to be grasped. It is something we have within us that we cultivate. That doesn't mean the process of cultivation is passive. It takes practice. On the other hand, one of the ways we practice is by not clinging to things, by not clinging to dharmas. Thus part of enlightenment is not grasping at the slightest dharma, just as enlightenment itself cannot be grasped. One metaphor I recall hearing, I believe in a different context, is that we can wear our ideas like a loose garment, one we can change when we need to. We live in a world, and we need to constantly conceptualize it. There's no way around it. But if we don't cling to those concepts, if we are ready to change our clothes when they become dirty and smelly, that is fundamentally better than clinging to a delusion simply because we have decided to cling to it.
A personal example might be helpful. I was talking with E. about Buddhism and philosophy and he talked a bit about Christianity. I have had a deep prejudice against Christianity, but part of the beauty of Buddhist teaching is that it encourages us to overcome prejudice. Rather than concentrating on what I believe to be the negatives in Christianity, I am trying also to see its numerous positive sides. In particular, I went and read a book by Thich Nhat Hanh which really is a wonderful book. It also looks for the beauty in Christian teaching, and draws many parallels between Buddhism and Christianity. Basically, I realized that I didn't want to read the book earlier because I was afraid it would mitigate my prejudice, and I wanted to cling to that prejudice. Once I realized that's what was going on, I felt like I should transcend my prejudice.
3 comments:
I don't know whether this comment relates to your post at all: I just had a moment of conceptual clarity to share.
I just came across an idea in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind which is helpful in conceptualizing how something can be many and one at the same time. A pyramid for example has four distint sides which could be viewed separately and taken individually, but which are still part of a whole and really indistict from said whole. Also, this is instructive regarding dualism or lack thereof: the pyramid is both one and several at the same time.
Okay, now that I've read your posts, I can respond specifically to them.
So perfect enlightenment has no teaching because perfect enlightenment has no attachment whatsoever. The dharma of the teaching is an attachment not to cling to.
Pema Chodron phrases it as "I must gain ground." It is interesting to think, when something is disturbing me, about what kind of clinging is going on; to see in what way I am frantical trying to hold on to what's already gone or what has not occured.
thanks for the infomation
Post a Comment