--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:44 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>>> And what difference is there between > >>>>> paths to enlightenment? There is > >>>>> One Reality which is known or not > >>>>> known. This Reality is all that is. > >>>> > >>>> Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. > >>>> But no, > >>>> I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But > >>>> absolutists do believe that. > >>> > >>> I don't know what "absolutists" > >>> say and believe, but I question > >>> what is absolute about the statement > >>> that there is one reality. It is a very > >>> large and all-inclusive statement. > >>> It acknowledges everything that > >>> appears to exist and everything that > >>> doesn't. > >> > >> It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's > >> common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, > >> Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. > >> > >> If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni > >> was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know > >> about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet > >> (relatively speaking). :-) > > > > > > Technically, I didn't say "all is one". > > I said that there is one reality. How > > can you argue against the existence > > of reality? As I am using the word, > > it includes everything in the > > phenomenological world and everything > > outside of it, all that exists, everything > > that doesn't. And haven't you heard the > > story about the buddhist monk who > > reached enlightenment only to discover, > > to his surprise, that everyone else was > > enlightened too? > > Well if it's the same story, everyone was provisionally > enlightened. :-) Big difference from the way you are presenting it.
The story expresses an aspect of enlightened POV which sees the quality of awakened consciousness everywhere and in everyone. That's not the same as saying that everyone else also experiences enlightenment. > > Neoadvaitin's often make a similar mistake in not getting the > relative distinction. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> We live in the illusion of many > >>>>> teachings and many paths, but > >>>>> when the One Reality is known, > >>>>> it is found to be everywhere > >>>>> equally, in all teachings and > >>>>> paths. > >>>> > >>>> I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia > >>>> perennis. > >>>> Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... > >>> > >>> > >>> Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism > >>> and the "so-called philosophia perennis" > >>> which you object to. I'm only speaking from > >>> my own experience and reflections on > >>> reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is > >>> something Real to be known, and it > >>> is not limited or obstructed by any of > >>> our beliefs about it. It expresses through > >>> all that is. All of this is an expression > >>> of it. When we try to describe and > >>> define it, we are the metaphorical > >>> blind who describe the different parts > >>> of the elephant. > >> > >> All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are > >> relative difference between them. > >> > >> Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead > >> to the same state of consciousness. > >> > >> As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) > > > > > > And everything is real. The relative > > differences between paths are an abstract > > and academic matter. > > Not according to Hinduism and Buddhism: the relative distinctions are > actual and they can lead to differing states of consciousness. > > > The only path > > that matters is the one you are on. > > In the midst of this experience of reality > > that we find ourselves in, we seek to > > discern value and meaning and purpose, > > gravitating towards the teachings and > > practices that seem most relevant to us. > > In the process of discriminating between > > what has value to us and what doesn't, > > consciousness is refined and hones in on > > that which is Real. > > Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine > or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word > "real". From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of > Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations > (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even > know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution > that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience > "reality" via nonceptutal cognition. Isn't this what I was also saying? We form the deepest intention to see beyond these obscurations and know the true nature of reality, to see directly, via nonceptual cognition. You've stated it very precisely and beautifully. If you feel like it, say more about the Path of Seeing. > > > It is this one-pointed > > intention which becomes formed in the > > deepest levels of consciousness that finally > > delivers us to the goal. > > Delivers us? Does this word choice evoke theism? None intended. > > > No path is a recipe > > that automatically produces enlightenment > > or states of consciousness. Enlightenment > > reconciles all the relative differences, and > > reveals the path to be illusory because there > > was never anywhere to go anyway. > > Well, you're welcome to your POV, but at least from the POV of > Tibetan Buddhism and it's view, path and result there are important > distinctions that give rise to important differences in the goal. > Similarly, in Hinduism someone practicing a yoga- or samkhya- > darshana would tend towards a dualistic "CC" style of awakening, a > Vedantin would tend more towards a unified result, etc. > > The way you're describing things is more a Mean Green Meme view of > reality, it feels it has to include everything, and that's also it's > downfall. Very common nowadays. > I'm not refuting the existence of distinctions between paths and differences in resulting states of consciousness. But I am speaking of an awakening which encompasses everything, and in which previous distinctions also merge. This conversation might be easier if you actually described Buddha Mind or enlightenment, as you understand it.
