Diamond Sutra
Chapter 17.
At that time, the venerable Subhuti then asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One,
may I ask you a question again? If sons or daughters of a good family want to
develop the highest, most fulfilled and awakened mind, if they wish to attain
the Highest Perfect Wisdom, what should they do to help quiet their drifting
minds and master their thinking?"
The Buddha replied:
"Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most
fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: 'I
must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings
have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been
liberated.' Why is this so? If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a
person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an
authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing
object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."
"What do you think, Subhuti? In ancient times, when the Buddha was living with
Dipankara Buddha, did he attain anything called the highest, most fulfilled,
and awakened mind?"
"No, Most Honored One. According to what I understand from the teachings of the
Buddha, there is no attaining of anything called the highest, most fulfilled,
and awakened mind."
The Buddha said:
"You are correct, Subhuti. In fact, there does not exist any so-called highest,
most fulfilled, and awakened mind that the Buddha attains. Because if there had
been any such thing, Dipankara Buddha would not have predicted of me, 'In the
future, you will come to be a Buddha known as The Most Honored One'. This
prediction was made because there is, in fact, nothing to be attained. Someone
would be mistaken to say that the Buddha has attained the highest, most
fulfilled, and awakened mind because there is no such thing as a highest, most
fulfilled, or awakened mind to be attained."
"Subhuti, a comparison can be made with the idea of a large human body. What
would you understand me to mean if I spoke of a 'large human body'?"
"I would understand that the lord Buddha was speaking of a 'large human body'
not as an arbitrary conception of its being, but as a series of words only. I
would understand that the words carried merely an imaginary meaning. When the
Buddha speaks of a large human body, he uses the words only as words."
"Subhuti, it is just the same when a disciple speaks of liberating numberless
sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary conception of sentient
beings or of definite numbers, then they are unworthy of being called a
disciple. Subhuti, my teachings reveal that even such a thing as is called a
'disciple' is non-existent. Furthermore, there is really nothing for a disciple
to liberate."
"A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a person, a
living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows that all things are
devoid of selfhood, devoid of any separate individuality."
To make this teaching even more emphatic, the lord Buddha continued,
"If a disciple were to speak as follows, 'I have to create a serene and
beautiful Buddha field', that person is not yet truly a disciple. Why? What the
Buddha calls a 'serene and beautiful Buddha field' is not in fact a serene and
beautiful Buddha field. And that is why it is called a serene and beautiful
Buddha field. Subhuti, only a disciple who is wholly devoid of any conception
of separate selfhood is worthy of being called a disciple."
On Aug 18, 2011, at 12:04 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: X Acto <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts
>
> See, to merely take the culturaly assumed concept of the self,I,free
> agent..ect
>
> As the Self..is the illusion..the appearence of self.
>
> to explore the form of self, what it is and is not...the consequences of each
> conceptualization
> is what we mean by persuing philosphical truth.
>
>
> Ron adds:
> What I mean is that the cultural myth, the metaphysical assumption is the
> appearence of
> what is true and real. Pirsig calls it a ridiculous fiction.
>
> When the cultural concept of the self is subjected to philosophical scrutiny
> it dissolves into
> relational values it both is and is not. Both singular and plural, one and
> many.
>
> Thats what Pirsig really lends to the inquirey the ability to understand
> ourselves as a complex
> ecology of competing forms of value, to subject the idea of the self to a
> radical breakdown in
> meaning in order to emerge from the inquirey with a more accurate, precise
> and truer understanding
> of what it means to "be".
>
> In the process we develope a greater intelligibility of the concept or the
> form of the self, I, active
> agent..ect...and in doing so we are activly seeking the good. The true form
> of morality
> and not the mere appearence of it.
>
> ..
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
