“Relatively there can be free will but ultimately the concept does not hold water (which ones do?). Relatively we choose from a predetermined set of variables (what is known) from the infinite unknown. How in any radical sense can that be freedom? From the Buddha’s perspective, everything that temporally existed arose conditionally in dependence. How can there be freedom when there is conditional dependence? It seems Alan is talking ideally about relative existence. “ – e
Hi e – Yes, all concepts are relative in nature. However, the obverse is also being imputed if not overtly stated, that of the absolute. While Gautama did talk about dependent arising, Allan mentioned the Buddha's notion of ‘brightly shining mind’ in his paper. Note carefully the words that follow from it: “…Another dimension of awareness is posited in Buddhism. It is called the “brightly shiningmind”.This is something contemplatives in different schools of Buddhism have discovered. Buddha says that this mind when cultivated is enormously pliable, not set in granite, not absolutely predetermined by anything: not genes, biochemistry, God, karma, or anything else. It’s a promising note here. He declared, “Monks, I know of no other single process so quick to change as is this mind.” When we go into that ground from which thoughts, emotions, memories, and so forth emerge, there is a substratum that can be accessed through meditation. Its very nature is luminosity, it makes manifest appearances. “This mind is brightly shining, but it is veiled by adventitious defilements.” So this luminous dimension of consciousness is covered over, it is obscured by conceptual grasping, by hatred, by craving, and other afflictions of the mind. Which is to say, when one plumbs the depths of awareness, one discovers a dimension that is not sullied, not contaminated, not shrouded by these mental afflictions or defilements. It is, by nature, pure. If this is true, then it suggests that freedom might be something that can be achieved by purifying the mind of its afflictive tendencies and cultivating greater insight. It also suggests that freedom is something that might be discovered by penetrating the veils of the ordinary functioning of our psyche to a deeper dimension…. The brightly shining mind that is uncontaminated by afflictions is a source of freedom. So freedom is not something we have to create but something that can be discovered….” - AW Here we are approaching the absolute…something that is not relative nor is it dependent. He specifically and, in my opinion saliently, said (above) that: “…When we go into that ground from which thoughts, emotions, memories, and so forth emerge, there is a substratum that can be accessed through meditation. Its very nature is luminosity, it makes manifest appearances…” The operative words as I see it are: “ground from which…emerge”, and “it makes manifest appearances”. So, if anything, Allan appears to be talking relatively about ideal or objective emptiness (the absolute) rather than the obverse. On Oct 26, 2:02 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > Relatively there can be free will but ultimately the concept does not > hold water (which ones do?). Relatively we choose from a predetermined > set of variables (what is known) from the infinite unknown. How in any > radical sense can that be freedom? From the Buddha’s perspective, > everything that temporally existed arose conditionally in dependence. > How can there be freedom when there is conditional dependence? It > seems Alan is talking ideally about relative existence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
