Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Seeming paradox? Do tell us how how ordinary mind is really the same as "Buddha mind". How can a conditioned mind be the same as an unconditioned mind? I don't understand it, but apparently you do, so please explain.

Don't ordinary men sometimes realize they are none else than The Buddha?

Before conditioning, what state was the mind in?

"Monk Hui-hai... often told his audiences: "Your mind is the Buddha, it is unnecessary to use the Buddha to search for another Buddha; your mind is the Law, it is, unnecessary to use the Law to search for another Law."

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Philosophical/Absolute_in_Chan.htm

 

[godnotgod]

So.... Ultimate Reality is expressing itself through a world of illusion. Yep... that makes a great deal of sense.

Can Illusion be a form of play?

 

[godnotgod]

You haven't "settled" anything, you're just trying to gloss over stuff which doesn't fit in with your "theory".

But why are you going on about "Perfect View"? If it just means wisdom or insight why not just say that? Why do you keep churning out these jargony phrases? The Heart Sutra is all about wisdom, right?

The discussion centered around the idea of Perfection, and whether it is a reality or not. The Heart Sutra is The Perfection of Wisdom. This is Perfect View. Yes, Perfection is real, but must be cultivated by eliminating ideas and concepts that get in the way of seeing it.

As Shunryu Suzuki once told his students:

"You're all perfect just as you are, and, you can all use a little improvement"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The discussion centered around the idea of Perfection, and whether it is a reality or not. The Heart Sutra is The Perfection of Wisdom. This is Perfect View. Yes, Perfection is real, but must be cultivated by eliminating ideas and concepts that get in the way of seeing it.

I'm still not clear what you actually mean by "Perfect View". It's the usual problem, you introduce these jargony terms and don't define them.

If you're trying to say that "Perfect View" is the same as prajna ( wisdom ) then why not just say "prajna"?

Maybe you could stop making up these jargony phrases and use the correct language?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't ordinary men sometimes realize they are none else than The Buddha?
Before conditioning, what state was the mind in?

So you meant to say original mind rather than ordinary mind? There's a big difference.

 

[godnotgod]

So you meant to say original mind rather than ordinary mind?

No. Ordinary Mind is Buddha Mind!

Look at it this way:

"For even though we have the same inner nature as Buddha, we have not recognized it because it is so enclosed and wrapped up in our individual ordinary minds. Imagine an empty vase. The space inside is exactly the same as the space outside. Only the fragile walls of the vase separate one from the other. Our buddha mind is enclosed within the walls of our ordinary mind. But when we become enlightened, it is as if that vase shatters into pieces. The space "inside" merges instantly into the space "outside." They become one: There and then we realize they were never separate or different; they were always the same."

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/mind_sogy.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I will only summarize by saying that there is self and there is Self. I have explained Perfect View in several ways. Suffice it to say that there is no Viewer of Perfect View; there is only Perfect View, which is partly why it is so called. Not-Perfect View is Self-View.

Again with the jargon! How exactly are you distinguishing "self" from "Self"? And how exactly are you defining "Perfect View"?

It's confusing because in your language I would have thought "Not-Perfect View" would be self-View rather than Self-View....what a muddle!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. Ordinary Mind is Buddha Mind!
Look at it this way:
"For even though we have the same inner nature as Buddha, we have not recognized it because it is so enclosed and wrapped up in our individual ordinary minds. Imagine an empty vase. The space inside is exactly the same as the space outside. Only the fragile walls of the vase separate one from the other. Our buddha mind is enclosed within the walls of our ordinary mind. But when we become enlightened, it is as if that vase shatters into pieces. The space "inside" merges instantly into the space "outside." They become one: There and then we realize they were never separate or different; they were always the same."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/mind_sogy.html

From this account ordinary mind is clearly not the same as Buddha mind. It portrays ordinary mind as something to be got rid of.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm still not clear what you actually mean by "Perfect View". It's the usual problem, you introduce these jargony terms and don't define them.

If you're trying to say that "Perfect View" is the same as prajna ( wisdom ) then why not just say "prajna"?

Because the topic was not about prajna, but about the idea of Perfect View. I then gave the example of The Heart Sutra to show that Perfection is a reality, because the idea of Perfection perse was being challenged as unrealistic.

Wisdom alone cannot suffice. The Heart Sutra is called The Perfection of Wisdom, not just Wisdom. So the word would not be prajna, but prajnaparamita.

Perfect View: a view unborn and unconditioned.

 

[godnotgod]

How exactly are you distinguishing "self" from "Self"?

self: 'I'
Self: The Absolute

 

[godnotgod]

From this account ordinary mind is clearly not the same as Buddha mind. It portrays ordinary mind as something to be got rid of.

There is nothing to be got rid of! The text indicates clearly that the 'two' become one, not that ordinary mind must be got rid of. Only the vase must be shattered.

In reality, there never was 'two' minds; there was always only Buddha Mind. It is the same as Ordinary Mind.

This is exactly why Zen says that The Ordinary and The Miraculous (ie Supernatural) are one and the same, whereas Christianity, for example, says that The Miraculous is over and above The Ordinary implying two realities, when there is but one. This is a crucial difference between the two religions, because the Buddha said that all sentient beings are capable of Enlightenment, while orthodox Christianity says that only the historical Jesus is divine and recipient of the gifts of the Incarnation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wisdom alone cannot suffice. The Heart Sutra is called The Perfection of Wisdom, not just Wisdom. So the word would not be prajna, but prajnaparamita.

Wisdom is progressive and paramita also has the meaning of "complete".

"Perfection" can be a misleading word in this context.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is nothing to be got rid of! Only the vase must be smashed.

So the vase must be got rid of.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Self: The Absolute

No explanation at all because you're just defining one bit of your jargon with another bit of your jargon.

So you now need to define what you mean by "The Absolute".

By the way, if you're talking about a non-dual view then using "Self" isn't a good idea, it just confuses things.

 

[godnotgod]

So the vase must be got rid of.

It's just a metaphor, of course. 'Vase' is a physical object, whereas 'mind' is not. That Buddha Mind can be contained/encapsulated by 'I' is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

No explanation at all because you're just defining one bit of your jargon with another bit of your jargon.

So you now need to define what you mean by "The Absolute".

By the way, if you're talking about a non-dual view then using "Self" isn't a good idea, it just confuses things.

Do you know the meaning of the word 'Absolute'?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you know the meaning of the word 'Absolute'?

In general use "absolute" has the meaning of "complete". What do you mean by it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's just a metaphor, of course. 'Vase' is a physical object, whereas 'mind' is not. That Buddha Mind can be contained/encapsulated by 'I' is an illusion.

But that thing you quoted talked about the vase ( ordinary mind ) being shattered.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some channels are clearer than others because some are more awakened than others, and have less baggage in the way.

But as I observed to another contributor recently, you're not a preacher and we ain't your congregation, so maybe you should stop talking down to people. It's a discussion forum and people are going to have different views.

Evangelising is against forum rules, by the way.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Would you rather just lecture?

Indeed. Being preached at is very tiresome.