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.
attending to relative / connecting with absolute
hi everyone! :-)
( note: this is a continuation of a discussion started in another thread.)
what effect does attending to relative reality (sensory input, mental formations, everyday actions like drinking coffee) have on one's felt connection to the absolute?
i'm confused about buddhism's exhortation to be aware of "what is." what we perceive as "what is" is a product of our senses (and the other aggregates) and is therefore relative, without essential substance, and illusory. on the absolute level, there is no cup, there is no coffee, there is no drinker. instead of attending to these relative illusions, why not give one's attention over fully to the absolute = pure awareness?
per buddhism, is relative "what is" reality the only doorway to felt connection with the absolute? is it the best doorway? are there other doorways?
or doesn't buddhism care about this thing i'm calling the absolute? does it only care about ending personal suffering, something for which a felt connection with the absolute is not necessary?
thanks for playing. :-)
( note: this is a continuation of a discussion started in another thread.)
what effect does attending to relative reality (sensory input, mental formations, everyday actions like drinking coffee) have on one's felt connection to the absolute?
i'm confused about buddhism's exhortation to be aware of "what is." what we perceive as "what is" is a product of our senses (and the other aggregates) and is therefore relative, without essential substance, and illusory. on the absolute level, there is no cup, there is no coffee, there is no drinker. instead of attending to these relative illusions, why not give one's attention over fully to the absolute = pure awareness?
per buddhism, is relative "what is" reality the only doorway to felt connection with the absolute? is it the best doorway? are there other doorways?
or doesn't buddhism care about this thing i'm calling the absolute? does it only care about ending personal suffering, something for which a felt connection with the absolute is not necessary?
thanks for playing. :-)
0
Comments
This is a Zen perspective, the absolute is found in the full expression of the relative. Emptiness-form = absolute-relative. This means experientially, the absolute is realized in the fullness of the relative, the true subject is realized in the perfect aloneness of the object.
Commentaries on the Heart Sutra speak a lot about that. I like this commentary from Wikipedia
That form is empty was one of the Buddha's earliest and most frequent pronouncements. But in the light of Prajnaparamita, form is not simply empty, it is so completely empty, it is emptiness itself, which turns out to be the same as form itself.... All separations are delusions. But if each of the skandhas is one with emptiness, and emptiness is one with each of the skandhas, then everything occupies the same indivisible space, which is emptiness.... Everything is empty, and empty is everything.
this i don't. what does the - mean?
what is "the fullness of the relative?" and what is "the perfect aloneness of the object?" i want to make sure i understand. :-)
that's very cool. helps me understand how relative attention can nurture (IS, in fact) absolute awareness.
if EVERYTHING is one with emptiness, then ANYTHING is one with emptiness, yes? so attending to anything is just "as good" as attending to anything else. so these might all be equally valid paths to felt connection with the absolute: attention to eating breakfast, attention to a motorcycle piston, attention to a daydream fantasy, attention to a "neurotic" worry, attention to a sutra, attention to a tv game show, etc.
i'm not trying to be contentious or contrary -- neither of which would serve any useful purpose -- rather trying to get at the heart of buddhism's take on experiencing a felt connection with the absolute/divine. (that's a phrase i'm borrowing, btw, from eckhart tolle.)
We can view a cup of coffee as a cup of coffee, and in doing so we've imbued it with "coffeeness", we can list the attributes that make it coffee and different to 'not-coffee'. We give it relationships to other objects, we have coffee mugs, coffee breaks and coffee shops. We recognise the effect it has on us as specifically that of coffee, and how it is different to the effects of water or tea or spongebaths.
In reality there is no coffee. Sure, there is vegetable matter suspended in water. But no matter what you extract from it, be it the caffeine, the tannins, the structural proteins, the fats or the sugars, at no point will you extract the inherent "coffeeness", because "coffee" is a mental construct projected onto reality by our own minds.
Objects are empty of inherent existance.
In a way I suppose that is true, that being mindful of the nature of the coffee as you drink it is how we should approach all things.
But what I was trying to get at was that the cup of coffee exists only as a "cup of coffee" in your mind. You've given it name and form by defining it as a cup of coffee. Ultimately it is the same as everything else, what you call the absolute, it lacks an inherent nature that distinguishes it from its surroundings.
Of course you should give it a chance. It comes from learned and wise Buddhist masters.
That is what things like breath meditation and mindfulness practice are all about. Pure attention to the relative causes the division between the relative and the absolute to disappear, because that division is nothing more than a fabrication of the mind to begin with. When that is cut off by attention to just the relative, everything becomes one. The relative/absolute dichotomy disappears. Then, the absolute becomes the moon, the stars, the ocean, the birds singing, dogs barking, two people screaming at each other, gunshots heard in the bad part of town, etc, etc. Which is why Zen Masters say things like "When hungry, eat your rice; when tired, close your eyes. Fools may laugh at me, but wise men will know what I mean." ~Chan Master Linji Yixuan
I would say that is true to a certain extent but not about ANYTHING. There is wholesome concentration and unwholesome concentration. Attending to the desire to slap someone in the face if they did something bad to you would be an example of unwholesome concentration.
There is no "absolute" in the sense of a unchanging, eternal, "real", essence. There is only absolute/relative or emptiness/form. Another practical way of looking at it is absolute = the subjective pole of awareness, and relative = the objective pole of awareness. Note that these are two sides of one coin.
Clarifying the absolute/relative in practice.
The subjective pole is clarified in practice by the process of "not I , not I". This is the process of looking inwardly and clearly establishing that what was previously assumed as the subject of awareness (thoughts, feeling, volitional impulses i.e. "I" and "me") is in fact an object of awareness, or having the nature of object of awareness. This inner seeing shifts progressively more subtle aspects of bodymind, internal, external, subtle and gross, from "I" to "Not I", as we progressively clarify "true I". In other words the clarification of the true object clarifies the true subject. Finally we come to realize "true I' when the totality of bodymind and world, the totality of our experience, is an object of awareness at once.
However, this realization of "true mind" is only a waypoint in practice, "True I" must be dropped, because it is still a subtle projection, a hidden object, at the subjective pole of awareness. There is still a duality as long as there is an assumed witness, no matter how subtle.
This gives way when we go the last step and a make the final clarication (dissolving) of the subject through the experiential realization of object alone. In this final step the absolute unconditioned is realized as the perfect fullness and original freedom of all conditions. Bodymind and World are a single, self-luminous, ownerless unfolding. It has no knower, no witness. It is alone as such. This aloneness is the 'sudden awakening" to Form/Emptiness, the first genuine taste of cessation of dukkha, and the beginning of ongoing practice in Zen.
Coffee is simple part of an interconnected whole, which is far too large for the mind to understand.
Well maybe not really large, but an an in-conceptual Isness.
All of our separate names and forms, or the tiny little pieces of the puzzle, are what is empty of substantial meaning. Coffee is just one of the colors in a rainbow, or a tiny fragmentation created by the human mind.
Peace and love,
S9
Sabbe sankhara anicca/dukkha.
"All conditioned things are impermanent/unsatisfactory"
All contioned things are unsatisfactory as they are all subject to constant change. They are not fit to be considered ours. They come to be by causes and conditions and cease when the conditions are not there anymore. Body, emotions, ideas and thoughts are not self but arise from causes & conditions.
Sabbe dhamma anatta.
"All things including the unconditioned nibbana are not-self"
Nibbana is not characterized by annica & dukkha but it is also anatta. This is more subtle in that the ego then becomes identified with the this state of emptiness. All forms of selfhood is rejected. Any possible conceiving oneself as anything at all is an obstacle to enlightenment, because you attach to an idea again, to a concept of self as being part of something.
from the Theravadin perspective
Dependently arisen.
Yes coffee can only take place, or be understood, over against the concept of not-coffee. This creation of the separate or individual entities is the very mother of the dualistic mind, or like you say are co-dependent.
In being dependent it is circumstantial or temporary, coming and going like a dream.
Peace and love,
S9