"But can we really have any control over any of this?"
Yes. :)
We can break it at "doing the same thing, expecting different results." We can learn that doing the same thing results in the same results, and to get different results, we have to do something different. And if we maintain mindfulness in all of our actions, we can learn not to do things out of habit, out of repetitive history, but always out of choice. Then that leads directly up the chain.
I think, philosophically speaking, the Theravada Buddhist view is more like what I posted. They view the steps in Dependent Origination as a process, a certain point at which one can break into the chain of events and break the process. If one misses that point, several subsequent steps occur of their own accord and one is "destined" to the effect.
In contrast, the Mahayana view is that, while all of the above might be true (and they generally think it is, being the First Turning of the Wheel which Mahayana does not contradict but rather just changes the focus), it is not the important thing to focus on. More important, from the Mahayana perspective, is to see one's true nature, the wisdom of emptiness and compassion.
So, in one sense, yes, Dan, I think these two comments could be viewed as examples of the non-dual and dual approaches.
What are we going to do, not suffer from illusion? That's foolish. We'll suffer and we'll damn well enjoy it or learn to deal with it. Only through Samsara can we emerge from Samsara and know our truest nature.
The arising is nothingness and allness at once- in the emptiness, which is the nature of enlightenment- we understand the true face of Sunyata and Pratityasamutpada.
How can one be separate from that from which he emerged?
Ultimately we return, having never left, after all that has seemingly occurred- to find it was all completely necessary and utterly useless.
Nagarjuna elaborates more poetically than me and yes, how can one be without the other.
Control? Naw. Just blowin' in the wind, brother Dan. We can't really even hold on. Think about it. All we can do is practice holding on. And then laugh out loud.
Very good, ladies! Both and neither. Add these to yes and no. This is another of Nagarjuna's devices; the truth is beyond (or within, same thing) these four categories. And speaking of Nagarjuna and 'Pratityasamutpada is sunyata', (or, if you're a Pali person, 'Paticcasamuppada is sunnata' --although I don't suppose Theravada folks would buy that statement), check out an online Sanskrit dictionary or just Google those terms... And yeah, a big laugh! From the no-we Self!
11 Comments:
Can any of this really have any control over us? :)
"But can we really have any control over any of this?"
Yes. :)
We can break it at "doing the same thing, expecting different results." We can learn that doing the same thing results in the same results, and to get different results, we have to do something different. And if we maintain mindfulness in all of our actions, we can learn not to do things out of habit, out of repetitive history, but always out of choice. Then that leads directly up the chain.
A further question:
Are the two previous comments examples of the non-dual and dual approach to this "problem"?
I think, philosophically speaking, the Theravada Buddhist view is more like what I posted. They view the steps in Dependent Origination as a process, a certain point at which one can break into the chain of events and break the process. If one misses that point, several subsequent steps occur of their own accord and one is "destined" to the effect.
In contrast, the Mahayana view is that, while all of the above might be true (and they generally think it is, being the First Turning of the Wheel which Mahayana does not contradict but rather just changes the focus), it is not the important thing to focus on. More important, from the Mahayana perspective, is to see one's true nature, the wisdom of emptiness and compassion.
So, in one sense, yes, Dan, I think these two comments could be viewed as examples of the non-dual and dual approaches.
So, as Nagarjuna said, "Pratityasamutpada is sunyata"?
What are we going to do, not suffer from illusion? That's foolish. We'll suffer and we'll damn well enjoy it or learn to deal with it. Only through Samsara can we emerge from Samsara and know our truest nature.
The arising is nothingness and allness at once- in the emptiness, which is the nature of enlightenment- we understand the true face of Sunyata and Pratityasamutpada.
How can one be separate from that from which he emerged?
Ultimately we return, having never left, after all that has seemingly occurred- to find it was all completely necessary and utterly useless.
Nagarjuna elaborates more poetically than me and yes, how can one be without the other.
Everything is always in divine order.
Control? Naw. Just blowin' in the wind, brother Dan. We can't really even hold on. Think about it. All we can do is practice holding on. And then laugh out loud.
Very good, gentlemens!
Yes and no.
Does it matter?
wow... no idea what some of this means... buddhist terminololgy... hmmmmm what "Pratityasamutpada is sunyata"? mean... exactly?
who is the "we" that is experiencing any of this...
everything that rises is the Self... everything... :)
(and ditto what Don said... especially the laugh part...)
LOVE!
Very good, ladies!
Both and neither. Add these to yes and no. This is another of Nagarjuna's devices; the truth is beyond (or within, same thing) these four categories.
And speaking of Nagarjuna and 'Pratityasamutpada is sunyata', (or, if you're a Pali person, 'Paticcasamuppada is sunnata' --although I don't suppose Theravada folks would buy that statement), check out an online Sanskrit dictionary or just Google those terms...
And yeah, a big laugh! From the no-we Self!
Post a Comment
<< Home