Right vision and conditioning
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
I have heard… that in Buddhist circles right vision — a crucial element of the path to enlightenment — is defined as being in accord with the Dhamma. Does that not mean that a practicing Buddhist is expected to learn what constitutes the Dhamma, and live by it? It would seem that one has to learn all the sutras of the Buddha, to truly be able to be in accord with it.
It sounds to me like you would have to turn yourself into a living library of Buddhist sutras, many of which are several thousand years old and have been transcribed and translated many times. Does that mean that you have to live in the footsteps of ancient sages all the time?
It sounds to me that this is a form of conditioning. That you apply yet another layer of conditioning onto the mind, on top of parents, school teachers and society, to acquire right vision, to see things “in the right way”. But what then happens to the unique you, the person you were born as?
It seems to me that to truly live an original and authentic life, you need to shed as much of your conditioning as possible.
Comments
Right vision, right view… I obviously wasn’t entirely awake this morning.
The Buddhist Dharma can be likened to a diamond where each of its facets is a reflection of all of the others. Within each facet is an understanding of its whole.
Here, a finger pointing at the moon gets mistaken for the moon itself.
What is conditioning but the patterning of a previous moment affecting the arising of the next. How could consciousness even arise without it? The Buddha's path towards suffering's cessation is just a conditioning that when in contact with arising phenomena, lends itself more toward responses of selflessness than selfishness.
@Jeromesaid:
>
Is there a baby in that bathwater you're throwing out?
When is a search for an original and authentic life not just another spa day for an Ego?
>
I think you're holding it all a bit too tightly. Like @how said, finger pointing at the moon, its not about getting the finger perfect, its about getting to the moon.
I think this is along the lines of my comment that kicked off our disagreement on the other thread. The Buddhist path is a form of conditioning, subject to all the worldly laws of impermanence, dukkha and so forth. But it is said, with exemplars, that it will lead to freedom. Where we then set down the raft once on the other shore.
I strive to be authentic as well to some degree. But I feel I have qualities I'd like to change and areas I'd do well to develop. I also think some of my authenticity lies in my conditioning. Like what I have uniquely learned about the world. A good example, not about me, is someone from an abusive home who uses that conditioning to help others who are in similar situations.
Humans have a dual nature, in that they are cooperative and also tribal. I'd say society does well when it helps channel our instinctive qualities in prosocial directions.
This reminds me of this
Karma = Cause-Condition-Effect
Tis just causes, conditions, and effects that create the ego, driving me and you.
For we are vibrating bundles of energy flux, bound by karmic glue.
And to live one's life authentically, one must understand the karma flow,
For once understood, the energy flux can be released from the glue that binds us so.
Which in my mind raises a number of questions:
It’s taken a while for these to arise in me, I’m not by nature a very questioning person.
A friend of mine said the other day, I’m beginning to believe that an enlightened masters teachings are only valid in the time and culture and even for the person to whom they were given, and that the whole process of making books out of them is a waste of time. I thought he might be onto something. I think it might be as true for Osho, who taught the flower power hippies, as it is for Buddha, who taught in Ancient India and Nepal.
Maybe these doubts are impossible to resolve, except by saying ‘have faith in your teachers’.
All valid questions, that I think are hard to give a conclusive answer to.
There is this split in Tibetan Buddhism between Gelug and Kagyu/Nyigma about whether enlightenment is attained or realized/uncovered. It gets complicated with plenty of nuance but they haven't settled it in all this time. There are lots of extraordinary people who have become that way following each path though.
I don't know if the heights, or depths, of the practice are within reach for a modern person. But it seems clear that positive change is possible.
There are pitfalls to everything. Its certainly possible to make the spiritual path an ego reinforcement and turn it into an identity.
I guess to the extent that a teacher and sangha are necessary and aren't available or sufficient in a culture similar to one's own?
Are there any modern humans who have realized the end of any spiritual path?
The right vision: To see clearly without preconception, without prejudice, without judgement.
Current events tell us that, for a great many, this is a all bu impossible task.
This again comes back to faith, doesn’t it? There are plenty of people who say they have, but how are you to know what the end of a spiritual path looks like, or even if there is an end?
Nature says there is only endless transformation, and quiet days of silence at home or in the wilderness, and a few moments of terror.