Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Bodhicitta but no Bodhisattva
Talisman
Veteran
(As always, this is just my opinion, and as I am constantly changing my opinion, open discussion is greatly appreciated. Let me know what you think 
)
So it's been a little bit since I've posted anything here. There’s been a lot going on in my life recently. But my studies and practice have still continued through everything, and I figured I would share some recent thoughts I have had.
For a little while I have had this feeling of conflict regarding the concepts of the Sravaka and Bodhisattva paths. Like there is this concrete distinction between seeking liberation for one's self in order to end the suffering of life as opposed to "postponing" personal liberation until the skills necessary for instructing others have been completely perfected. There is this idea that these paths are somehow exclusive from one another and brought about through either choice or inclination.
I don't like this idea. It doesn't seem to make any sense when considering the fact that the Buddha makes it perfectly clear that Arahantship is the pinnacle and prize of the contemplative life, considered the unexcelled perfection of the mind and absolute liberation from suffering.
So then one must consider what makes the Buddha different from those he teaches. Specifically, he is the teacher. Not only is he a teacher, but he knows and can properly articulate the correct instruction to any being based on their level understanding, disposition, and habitual inclinations. He is perfect, self-perfected, without need of instruction, exalted, unexcelled, the knower of worlds, the awoken one. The big thing here is that he is "self-perfected." He discovered the dharma on his own without the aid of a living Buddha.
So then I consider those who the Buddha teaches. In the absolute sense of interconnectivity, the liberation attained by any man or woman taught by the Buddha is an extension of the Buddha's self-attained liberation. They are one and the same. This is reflected in the way that the Buddha describes his disciples as his children, born of his insight and liberating wisdom, arisen from refuge in the Dharma preached by the exalted one. And when the disciples go on to teach the dharma, having practiced well and attained nirvana, they are like an arm that reaches far, an extension of the Buddha himself. They are part of the Buddha since it was through the Buddha’s instruction that they achieved liberating insight.
This extrapolation only goes so far though. Like the ray of a star expanding into space, eventually the light dims and fades the further is escapes it's source, the liberating wisdom shining forth from the Buddha that helps to awaken others also dims and fades as time stretches onward from the day of his parinirvana. So then, as we get into modern times, although there are still those who uphold, realize, and continue to preach the true dharma as instructed by the Buddha 2500 years ago, it is no wonder that the faith in the effectiveness of such a doctrine has wavered considering the lack of formal instruction by a living Buddha.
And so there is the great vehicle, the Mahayana. These traditions, in opposition to the Sravaka tradition, no longer adhere to the instruction of a living Buddha. Instead they appeal to the notion of giving rise to the perfections necessary for a living Buddha to arise in the world once again. Of course the concept of the Bodhisattva is extremely romantic, in the sense that he endures the suffering and tribulation of countless lives until finally achieving self-perfection and liberating insight in order to give birth to a new Sangha and thus turn the wheel of Dharma for the sake of all sentient beings.
There is one problem I have with this though. COUNTLESS LIVES. In my honest opinion, and to be quite frank, this is bull$*#@. Belief in reincarnation, be it of an eternal soul or rebirth of an eternal/subtle consciousness, is not adherence to the nature of reality. The only thing that remains after death is the fruition of karma.
In my opinion, the idea of a "Bodhisattva path" is an oxymoron. How could someone teach a person that which must be self-taught? How could a process as complex and unimaginable as the awakening of an exalted Buddha be conceptualized and laid out like some sort of map?
So taking that in mind, there are only two teachings in the Mahayana tradition that hold any weight in regard to the arising of a Samyaksambuddha.
The first is meditation. Bar none perfection of Samahdi is extremely important to the Buddhist path.
)So it's been a little bit since I've posted anything here. There’s been a lot going on in my life recently. But my studies and practice have still continued through everything, and I figured I would share some recent thoughts I have had.
For a little while I have had this feeling of conflict regarding the concepts of the Sravaka and Bodhisattva paths. Like there is this concrete distinction between seeking liberation for one's self in order to end the suffering of life as opposed to "postponing" personal liberation until the skills necessary for instructing others have been completely perfected. There is this idea that these paths are somehow exclusive from one another and brought about through either choice or inclination.
I don't like this idea. It doesn't seem to make any sense when considering the fact that the Buddha makes it perfectly clear that Arahantship is the pinnacle and prize of the contemplative life, considered the unexcelled perfection of the mind and absolute liberation from suffering.
So then one must consider what makes the Buddha different from those he teaches. Specifically, he is the teacher. Not only is he a teacher, but he knows and can properly articulate the correct instruction to any being based on their level understanding, disposition, and habitual inclinations. He is perfect, self-perfected, without need of instruction, exalted, unexcelled, the knower of worlds, the awoken one. The big thing here is that he is "self-perfected." He discovered the dharma on his own without the aid of a living Buddha.
So then I consider those who the Buddha teaches. In the absolute sense of interconnectivity, the liberation attained by any man or woman taught by the Buddha is an extension of the Buddha's self-attained liberation. They are one and the same. This is reflected in the way that the Buddha describes his disciples as his children, born of his insight and liberating wisdom, arisen from refuge in the Dharma preached by the exalted one. And when the disciples go on to teach the dharma, having practiced well and attained nirvana, they are like an arm that reaches far, an extension of the Buddha himself. They are part of the Buddha since it was through the Buddha’s instruction that they achieved liberating insight.
This extrapolation only goes so far though. Like the ray of a star expanding into space, eventually the light dims and fades the further is escapes it's source, the liberating wisdom shining forth from the Buddha that helps to awaken others also dims and fades as time stretches onward from the day of his parinirvana. So then, as we get into modern times, although there are still those who uphold, realize, and continue to preach the true dharma as instructed by the Buddha 2500 years ago, it is no wonder that the faith in the effectiveness of such a doctrine has wavered considering the lack of formal instruction by a living Buddha.
And so there is the great vehicle, the Mahayana. These traditions, in opposition to the Sravaka tradition, no longer adhere to the instruction of a living Buddha. Instead they appeal to the notion of giving rise to the perfections necessary for a living Buddha to arise in the world once again. Of course the concept of the Bodhisattva is extremely romantic, in the sense that he endures the suffering and tribulation of countless lives until finally achieving self-perfection and liberating insight in order to give birth to a new Sangha and thus turn the wheel of Dharma for the sake of all sentient beings.
There is one problem I have with this though. COUNTLESS LIVES. In my honest opinion, and to be quite frank, this is bull$*#@. Belief in reincarnation, be it of an eternal soul or rebirth of an eternal/subtle consciousness, is not adherence to the nature of reality. The only thing that remains after death is the fruition of karma.
In my opinion, the idea of a "Bodhisattva path" is an oxymoron. How could someone teach a person that which must be self-taught? How could a process as complex and unimaginable as the awakening of an exalted Buddha be conceptualized and laid out like some sort of map?
So taking that in mind, there are only two teachings in the Mahayana tradition that hold any weight in regard to the arising of a Samyaksambuddha.
The first is meditation. Bar none perfection of Samahdi is extremely important to the Buddhist path.
0
Comments
So when a birth occurs, dependent upon the persistent state of becoming, that birth and consequent state of becoming are subject to the fruition of prior karma. Specifically, the former Bodhicitta as expressed in the past by a being whose state of becoming gave rise to this new birth will affect the habituation, mental formations, and volition of the new being. And so the Bodhicitta arises once again as a mental formation of a new being.
In this way there is a sense of continuity. This new being could be said to be the “future life” of the former being. He/she could be said to be a “Bodhisattva” reborn once again with the hope of perfecting himself in order to achieve self-liberation in some “future life.” But when it comes down to it, there is no Bodhisattva and no path and no future life. These are all just contrivances, illusions, grasping at the notion of abiding selfhood.
When Gotama was born into our world and subsequently achieved liberation, it was not as if he had existed in some former life and chose to be born here to become the Buddha and teach the dharma and form the Sangha. No. Some being, somewhere, some incalculable length of time ago gave birth to the notion of Bodhicitta, sat in meditation, and devoted himself to finding the truth on his own, without the help of others, and for the sake of all sentient beings.
So then when considering the differences between the northern and southern traditions, there is truly no difference at all. To achieve liberation through the Sravaka path as ascribed to the Buddha of this world is to shine forth with that original ray of insight achieved by Gotama 2500 years ago. To foster and realize Bodhicitta is to feed the habituation necessary for giving rise to a new ray of insight to be realized at some point beyond the range of this world, this body, and this life.
"In the absolute sense of interconnectivity, the liberation attained by any man or woman taught by the Buddha is an extension of the Buddha's self-attained liberation. They are one and the same."
This is the idea of a bodhisattva. They connect with beings in the world. Form karmic bonds? No! Heart connections. That is where love comes in.
The bodhisattva has bodhicitta which is the wish to become a buddha. And they realize that all beings may become buddhas.
By their enlightened mandala (eventually) they draw all the beings together that they have known. They know eachother not as the grasping small mind. Rather the big mind.
Do you believe in love?
"There is one problem I have with this though. COUNTLESS LIVES. In my honest opinion, and to be quite frank, this is bull$*#@. Belief in reincarnation, be it of an eternal soul or rebirth of an eternal/subtle consciousness, is not adherence to the nature of reality. The only thing that remains after death is the fruition of karma."
You got it backwards. Karma is non-existent smoke. It can be picked apart as delusion by the madyamaka logic of nagarjuna. Even an instant in time is divisible add infinitum and so karma is just apparent but it lacks any nature or storyline I guess you could say.
There is no death and no life. No karma. No path. Yet we walk it.
The reality is the clarity openness and sensitivity...
"Specifically, the former Bodhicitta as expressed in the past by a being whose state of becoming gave rise to this new birth will affect the habituation, mental formations, and volition of the new being. And so the Bodhicitta arises once again as a mental formation of a new being."
It is awakened heart and it is unconditioned and indestructible. In scripture it is said to be the only tree that bears fruit again and again, a metaphor.
"When Gotama was born into our world and subsequently achieved liberation, it was not as if he had existed in some former life and chose to be born here to become the Buddha and teach the dharma and form the Sangha. No. Some being, somewhere, some incalculable length of time ago gave birth to the notion of Bodhicitta, sat in meditation, and devoted himself to finding the truth on his own, without the help of others, and for the sake of all sentient beings."
Bodhicitta is unborn.. It is said to be discovered but never found (pinpointed)..
Milarepa wrote:
I bow at the feet of my teacher Marpa.
And sing this song in response to you.
Listen, pay heed to what I say,
forget your critique for a while.
The best seeing is the way of "nonseeing" --
the radiance of the mind itself.
The best prize is what cannot be looked for --
the priceless treasure of the mind itself.
The most nourishing food is "noneating" --
the transcendent food of samadhi.
The most thirst-quenching drink is "nondrinking" --
the nectar of heartfelt compassion.
Oh, this self-realizing awareness
is beyond words and description!
The mind is not the world of children,
nor is it that of logicians.
Attaining the truth of "nonattainment,"
you receive the highest initiation.
Perceiving the void of high and low,
you reach the sublime stage.
Approaching the truth of "nonmovement,"
you follow the supreme path.
Knowing the end of birth and death,
the ultimate purpose is fulfilled.
Seeing the emptiness of reason,
supreme logic is perfected.
When you know that great and small are groundless,
you have entered the highest gateway.
Comprehending beyond good and evil
opens the way to perfect skill.
Experiencing the dissolution of duality,
you embrace the highest view.
Observing the truth of "nonobservation"
opens the way to meditating.
Comprehending beyond "ought" and "oughtn't"
opens the way to perfect action.
When you realize the truth of "noneffort,"
you are approaching the highest fruition.
Ignorant are those who lack this truth:
arrogant teachers inflated by learning,
scholars bewitched by mere words,
and yogis seduced by prejudice.
For though they yearn for freedom,
they find only enslavement.
(edit: sorry if that sounds imposing or rude, just debating)
What is that feeling? It is the sensitivity of your mind, in response to the letting go...
The heart of the universe! The dharmakaya when you let go has a direction, a motion, a yearning,,,,,
but all the things we try to fill that yearning don't..
they are conditional things... and they are dukkha when grasped to
Using them as a raft is fine but the whole point is that we DONT grasp the aggregates...
Future buddhas won't be created by karma..
They will be caused by letting go..
I am not angry at all. I'm trying to help you understand what my post is trying to convey. I know that what I wrote is correct because it is the result of direct realization. What is incorrect is your understanding of what I said.
My post is not about clinging to the agregates. It is about the fact that there is no difference between the enlightenment of a disciple and the enlightenment of a Buddha. They are one and the same.
"I wrote a while ago about citta as I was a bit confused by the usage of the word. I think I've clarified my thinking around it.
In brief : citta means heart/mind so can be referred to with possessive noun or as the citta. Bodhicitta is heart/mind of a Buddha and can be referred to as the Absolute Bodhicitta.
There is only one Bodhicitta even though this appears to manifest within individuals. It can be likened to clear white light being split by a prism into rainbow colours and this then can be referred to as the relative Bodhicitta."
Lama Shenpen
I would prefer not to call this relative Bodhichitta. Our individual Bodhichitta, our chitta, is absolute and real even though hidden and even though not graspable as an object of perception.
If we were to take it as an object of perception, however subtly (and it can be very subtle) then it is mere labelling, concepts, empty in itself, it is not the chitta itself.
So any conceptual sense of chitta we have is a false version of the real thing - so its samvrti, kundzop, apparent reality (that is ultimately false) - this is often translated as 'relative' by western writers.
I would say that when we make the aspiration to attain enlightenment like the Bodhisattvas of the past have done we make that aspiration because of the ultimately real Bodhichitta within us that is the essence of our being.
It is moved by the inspiration coming through the stories and the living presence of those following the Bodhisattva path - this is all interpreted using words and concepts to point to some reality that lies beyond them.
Since we take the Bodhivattva vow while not really being able to rest in the Awakened Heart in a sustained way, our Bodhichitta at that time is mixed in with a lot of stuff that is perhaps best described as apparent Bodhichitta. It is taking a form very close to the real Bodhichitta but we havent quite got there yet - so that kind of Bodhichitta that we use to follow the path - that could be called relative Bodhichitta I suppose.
In the end we won't need all that because the real Bodhichitta will be fully emerged, awoken, fully functioning. Yet each of us as an Awakened Bodhisattva will be our own person - we will not have merged into one structureless blob of Bodhichitta - we would still have our own mandala and sphere of activity but totally inseparable and interpenetrating all other mandalas ... how amazing!
However the way others would see us would be mere appearance - so again the way we appear in the world would be samvrti - apparent reality again. But when the vision of beings in this world is pure, they will see the true nature of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas appearing in this world and that is what is called pure vision. They would see what they really are and each would be distinct and yet not separate.
Student:
"When I am open and aware my citta begins to resonate with the Absolute Bodhicitta and through confidence and practice my view becomes less and less obstructed, I see more clearly, my view of life becomes less and less conditioned by what I want it to be and I am able to respond more sensitively and appropriately to what is actually there.
There is in some way a meeting of that individual heart/mind in me with the universal heartmind of the Buddhas."
Lama Shenpen:
Well that makes a kind of sense to think like that - the danger of thinking like this too much is that it begins to sound as if the individual chittas are somehow different from the universal chitta.
It does feel like that to us while we are on the path and so you are right that it feels like we are aligning with something that is coming to us and wakening us - and we are responding and resonating with that. I think it's true to say that.
Then as we respond you could think of that as the influence or adhistana of the absolute Bodhichitta - I think that is absolutely right. So it is a kind of meeting.
That is what faith and devotion are all about - opening to the living truth. But it is not as if we have a separate smaller, incomplete or inferior version heart/mind that is trying to merge with a greater more complete heart/mind - it is more mysterious than that.
If we think too strongly in this way we will find ourselves stuck in concepts. It's tricky isn't it?
But you seem to be thinking along the right lines as long as you keep moving along. It's hard to talk about such subtle and deep things isn't it? It is best to talk about them face to face to be sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and grasping at concepts.
Student:
"I don't know if this is correct but it has helped to reflect on it in the light of trusting my own heartmind and that in it lies the possibility of becoming totally awake and in harmony with all that lives."
Lama Shenpen:
That is the main point. So that is good!
I misunderstood your post about the buddha and his disciples..
But your wrong that citta can be described as karma.. If you pursue that you would have to conclude that a buddha is conditioned: impermanent, compound, dukkha..
But I know the daffodils won't be an ultimate refuge..
I know that if I dust everything in my house it will be granting a happiness..
But non-dusty isn't the nature of my mind and thus it is not an ultimate refuge to create karmic conditions..
Clarity is the nature of mind and it is clarity that responds to the dusty room and finds an appropriate response....
That clarity is unconditioned... It can respond to any conditions and find an appropriate response...
But yes the idea of karma is very important to operate in this world.
I don't find bodhicitta particularly useful in my practice because it sounds so advanced to me and high a level... But I do believe love exists.. It is like forgiveness between people... or giving eachother a chance! A cheerful will to work with any situation and not close off.
Bodhicitta, in my understanding, is the wish to attain self-perfected enlightenment for the sake of all other sentient life. This wish is a volitional mental formation, which is conditioned. However, formations are karmic and give rise to fruition. That's what I am talking about in my post.
when one awakens to their inherent clear, spacious consciousness that is the true bodhicitta. as such bodhicitta functions naturally with clarity.
this isn't what you are, rather it is just a functioning of body/mind freed from ignorance and clinging.
out of such natural bodhicitta arises compassion action moment to moment. this isn't necessary the end of becoming (nirvana) but rather learning how to live in relation to the becoming. learning to give space. you don't do anything, space is naturally there. it is mere recognization.
How could bodhicitta "function naturally with clarity?" how is it possible for Bodhicitta to function "unnaturally?" How is it possible for Bodhicitta to arise without clarity? How can Bodhicitta arise without compassion?
Bodhicitta is NOT "inherent clear, spacious consciousness." Do you see what you said there? "Inherent consciousness" You are asserting the existence of an inherent soul, an abiding essence, an eternal mind. This is literally cleaving to self. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF SUFFERING
Bodhicitta is the spontaneous desire to achieve enlightenment by means of one's personal efforts in order to aid sentient life. It is not a thing, or a consciousness, or a mind, or an inherent universal essence. It is a thought, a wish, a desire, a mental formation, a construct, a phenomenon, a conditoned action that leads to fruition.
bodhicitta does function normally. it is just clouded by ignorance, fear, aversion, lust, jealousy, etc. emphasis on ignorance.
bodhicitta is clear, spacious consciousness. you are the one making it into an atman, i never said that it was independent. it is totally dependent on all conditions.
there is no self to cling to. even if you cling to consciousness, where is it?
true bodhicitta is clear seeing.
From what you have stated, you believe that a Buddha is or has or is marked by the pressence of an abiding and unconditioned citta. This is not correct. This is wrong view. The Buddha is not a state of mind. The Buddha's state of mind is conditioned as are all states of mind. What makes the Buddha's citta different from that of a non-buddha is that the Buddha's happiness and liberation are not effected in any way by his state of mind and his state of mind no longer contributes to his happiness opr liberation. What is unconditioned is not his state of mind but instead the cessation of his suffering.
Liberation is the key. And liberation is seeing that nothing can be grasped. Thus it is not about creating karma.
I think that is the difference between simplicity and spiritual materialism. With simplicity its not such a big deal. Upekka.
I know you have studied this. But didn't you say the bodhicitta operated on the principle of volition.
You said: "Bodhicitta, in my understanding, is the wish to attain self-perfected enlightenment for the sake of all other sentient life. This wish is a volitional mental formation, which is conditioned. However, formations are karmic and give rise to fruition. That's what I am talking about in my post."
So you are saying citta is the fourth skanda?
in such spacious awareness, you are both in nirvana and samsara. to be in total acceptance of what is, is nirvana itself.
pain will always exist, but suffering is optional. suffering is not accepting what is.
when the mind has clear seeing, then all can be watched with such clear vision. no grasping and clear insight. everything is not self, impermanent, and not satisfying. with wisdom compassion arises naturally. one lets go by watching.
once insight is penetrated, then all that is left is to accept what is.
bodhicitta accepts what is naturally. a buddha or a normal human have the same consciousness. one just sees clearly without the three poisons.
the only difference between a buddha and a normal human is that the buddha does not cling. not clinging is total acceptance of what is.
these are my disections of the mahayana schools. they reign true based on my meditative practices.
am i fucked up?
I'm not sure what you mean by "chasing karma."
Karma is intentional thought, speech, and action. The formations are karma. Right thought, speech, and action guided by right intention gives rise to the conditions necessary for achieving right concentration and right view. Right effort and mindfulness help to maintain right thought, speech, and action. In what way is karma not intrinsically related to the path to liberation? Without fruition of cause, there would be no path to liberation.
Bodhicitta is not Citta
Bodhicitta means "enlightenment mind," the mind that is inclined toward enlightnement. The volitional part of this is "I will achieve enlightenment for the sake of others." That right there is karma. It is a mental formation and volitional thought. The true Bodhicitta is not simply an afterthought like I have written, it is a spontaneous volitional activity brought about through concentrated awareness and compassion for all living things. But even as an afterthought, it is still a powerful volitional activity, and the effects of such a thought can be extremely transformative.
Once again, when I say "Bodhicitta" I am not talking about the "citta" in general. I am talking about the wish to attain enlightenment for the sake of others.
I asked my teacher about karma and letting go some time ago. I do think its an important point not to crave letting go. That can happen..
Here is my teacher interacting with me:
A student asks:
"When I think of a good feeling when my heart is really alive I wonder how this could be."
Lama Shenpen:
Yes! That is what we should really be wondering about.
Why should that be indeed? There is such deep significance in this fact.
Student:
"I have read numerous times that any good feeling I am having now is because of virtuous actions in the past. But is this true?
It seems like it should also be something to do with opening into space. That when I truly open into space and let my heart be unblocked it is only natural that the spontaneous heart nature is quite wonderful."
Lama Shenpen:
You are right. So why is it said that happiness is the result of positive karmic actions?
It is important to think about why that might be. I think the answer is that the happiness is actually non-conceptual intuitive awareness, unborn and unceasing.
The teaching about karma belongs to samvrtisatya - it is apparently true - it is how things appear to work - like the sun seems to rise in the east. Actually it is stationary and the earth is moving.
Student:
"I mean even if I felt fear or confusion or something, if I were letting go and not conceptualizing on top of that it would have the alive quality 'that certain something' (elusive)."
Lama Shenpen:
Yes - though you could think of the letting go as a volition and so a karmic action with an immediate effect couldn't you?
This is both apparently true and maybe also simply the way the uncontrived mind is � its ultimate truth in a way - although ultimately there is nothing letting go of anything and so letting go doesn't mean anything.
But then, of course, intuitively it does. It transforms the whole world.
Anyhow I think you should try harder to understand different traditions. Maybe they are not so ludicrous!
What matters is what helps you when the chips are down and the shit hits the fan..
All other dharma practice is trivia and brain candy.
I agree that "ludicrous" is a strong word. I apologize to you and @taiyaki
Anyhow I wish you well!
ur not "fucked up" at all lol
I'd say that a big thing you need to reconsider is the whole "you are both in nirvana and samsara" thing.
That is incorrect. Samsara means that suffering remains. Nirvana means that suffering is extinguished like a flame.
There is no "you" in the mix at all.
It seems just a mental exercise and I haven't found it to bear fruit in my own difficult experiences.
On the other hand I have found fruit in having confidence that the indestructible heart essence of openness clarity and sensitivity is intact. And that the suffering is my experience and I need not believe the overlay of thinking that tells me to reject my experience. Thus by having confidence in the nature of mind I am steadied and let go of transitory things such as thoughts and impressions.
There is no "indestructible heart essence." There is in my sangha :mullet:
The Buddha describes it in a sutta that I cannot find right now. To summarize, before nirvana when a person is injured there is both the bodily injury, which is a source of suffering, and there is the thought "I have been injured," which is also a source of suffering. After nirvana is achieved this second form of suffering is gone. After the aggregates have dissolved, the first form of suffering is gone as well since there will be no further becoming and as such no further bodily injury.
"Hence the purpose of the holy life does not consist in aquiring alms, honor, fame, nor in gaining morality, concentration or the eye of knowledge. The unskakeable deliverance of the HEART: that indeed is the object of the holy life, that is its essence, that is its goal."
~Shakyamuni Buddha
This implies there is a heart to deliver in the first place. If there wasn't then buddha would not have said that there could be liberation.
Other places in the dhammapada speak of the self... I'll find some..
"Self is the lord of self, who else could be the lord? With self well subdued, a man finds a lord such as few can find."
"The evil done by oneself, begotten, selfbred, crushes the foolish, as a diamond breaks a precious stone."
"By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left undone, by oneself one is purified. The pure and the impure (stand and fall) by themselves, no one can purify another."
Buddha refers to the heart's liberation as the object of the holy life. This heart IS the indestructible essence of clarity openness and sensitivity.
When the Buddha says that it is by oneself that one is liberated, it is a conventional truth because it is individual, not to be shared, impossible to convey to another. In the absolute sense there is no self to be liberated. Only suffering and the cessation of suffering.
You didn't answer that question...
Assumption: right view rids suffering
Thus if:
there is no I to get rid of = talismans view
And:
question: does your view above get rid of suffering?
Then:
Yes - Talisman is free of suffering and a buddha and its all that simple
No - Talisman is not free of suffering so he should be open
Partial Yes - Something is working but not quite..
Anyhow I point you to examine your own experience...
1) Right view is always in reference to the 4 noble truths. Specifically, "This is suffering, this is the cause of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering."
2) There is no I to get rid of = truth not Talisman's view.
3) I am not rid of self view. I am not an arya. I am not a stream-entrant. I have self view. Suffering has not met its cessation. The cause of suffering remains.
the only option is to accept what is.
who grasps? not sure!
where is the grasping? can't find it!
who is looking? can't find it.
who am i? can't find it.
where is this clear mind? can't find it.
where is suffering? can't find it.
everything arises and falls. has nothing to do with "me" (process).
i don't deny what the buddha taught. there is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
where is this grasping? where is this process?