1 – 7 of 7
Blogger DarkDream said...

So what we are calling the unconditioned is an experience in which there is no attachment to, or attempt to hold onto the experience; nor is there any pushing away or denial of the experience; and one is clear that this is simply an experience not something more (i.e. real) or less (i.e. illusion, or unreal).

I believe you are so close to getting to the essence of what the Buddha is teaching. If you can take this one quote of yours and gain insight from it -- you are there.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Blogger Jayarava said...

Or "I" am not there, as the case may be ;-)

JR

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Blogger Chodpa said...

I thought I'd respond from a Mahamudra POV, as you mentioned this in your post ...

One can experience 'unconditioned' and 'unborn' directly through resting in the knowing of experience. Asking where a particular appearance arose from, and resting in the gap that opens in response to this (without attempting to conceptually 'answer' this question) can allow you to directly experience the unborn and unconditioned nature of appearances (if you've sufficient capacity to rest in that knowing).

Asking what knows this experience can again lead to a gap wherein knowing directly 'knows' the unborn-ness and unconditioned nature of awareness as well.

Resting in the knowing of the ungroundedness of experience, one can also directly experience that this groundlessness is also groundless, unborn, and unconditioned.

What appears to arise in experience is unconditioned and unborn, awareness of this is unconditioned and unborn, and the unconditioned and unborn nature of these are themselves unconditioned and unborn.

Though we speak conventionally of 'conditions', when we rest in knowing, we never find these conditions. And yet, at one and the same time, inseparably, in terms of appearances, it is as if what appears to arise arises in dependence on conditions.

There is nothing there whatsover, yet appearances seem to arise and vividly appear.

For what it's worth, your comment about talking about this as a state or place is also something I've come across many times. Talking of 'the transcendental' also seems to often exemplify this.

One aside, which may be an inadvertent use of language as it's sometimes hard to avoid, but is a point which is crucial in Mahamudra - "we watch the play of dhammas" ... at no time to we attempt to 'watch' experience rather than 'know' experience. Mind is to be known, not watched, as there is no implied sense of separation in practice as the term 'watch' can suggest. Awareness and the sense of 'I' both appear to arise, but in neither case do we associate ourselves with them in distinction to something 'other' which is being experienced by either.

I hope that might be of some interest ....

best wishes in the Dharma,

Chodpa

Friday, December 05, 2008

Blogger Jayarava said...

Hi Chodpa,

Thanks this is interesting, although the language is quite unfamiliar for me.

It seems as though your pov is idealist - ie you seem to be saying that everything is just an illusion. "There is nothing there whatsoever". This begs the question "how do you know"? How could anyone possibly know this - because if everything is illusion then so is all knowledge including the knowledge of groundlessess?

The view seems to have crossed over into nihilism, because if everything is illusion on what would you base your practice? The view that everything is illusion is one that is specifically denied in the Pali texts.

I agree about the distinction between simply watching and understanding. From the pov I'm arguing from it is important to understand, or gain insight into, the process of having an experience. Although of course one knows by "watching" and reflecting on what one "sees".

Best wishes
Jayarava

Friday, December 05, 2008

Blogger Chodpa said...

Hi there ... a quick response ...

"idealist / everything is illusion / nihilism?"

:-) .. no, not at all .... what I tried to point directly to what how things *appear* as well as how they *ultimately are* .. these two are inseparable. If you grasp one or other of these you are liable to fall into either nihilism or eternalism. However the nature of things is at once both empty and seemingly apparent. There's a relationship here between inseparable emptiness and appearance and the two truths approaches from Nagarjuna onwards.

Also, going back to what you said about "This begs the question "how do you know"? How could anyone possibly know this - because if everything is illusion then so is all knowledge including the knowledge of groundlessess?" ....

.. when one rests in knowing - pristine awareness or jnana, then whilst nothing can ultimately be found, including this knowing .. when one knows or 'sees' this directly ... it's unmistakable, though it has no object, and though it itself cannot be found.

For what it's worth, I don't think one can think oneself through this ... what may seem a paradox rationally most certainly isn't in direct experience.

have a good weekend,

Chodpa

Friday, December 05, 2008

Blogger Jayarava said...

Hi Chodpa,

Thanks for the clarification. I have been immersing myself in the Pali way of talking about Buddhism for a couple of years now. I think I can see where you're coming from. And yes of course one cannot think oneself out of ignorance - I can't see any substitute for meditation.

Best wishes
Jayarava

Friday, December 05, 2008

Blogger Chodpa said...

Hi once again ... I just wanted to add my gratitude at your sharing your understanding of Pali terms and their meanings. It's been extremely illuminating reading ...

many thanks indeed,

Chodpa

Friday, December 05, 2008

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot