« The Zen moment with Grace Jones & Lady Gaga | Main | Is Secular Buddhism an oxymoron? »

May 31, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My Master told me;

"To him whom walks in ignorance through Minds true nature, percieving heaven and earth, experiencing birth and death, phenomena is everything. The latter is a difficult sickness. As such very hard to recover from."

What you experienced dude, was kensho. Jap for "right view" of true nature/One Mind etc. A sort of tiny tiny enlightenment. I know...overhelming at first but trust me it goes away fast so you better cool it and focus. You dont need to go off like that blathering on like a drunk parrot. What will happen when satori hits you? They will probably lock you up in the luny bin. LOL. Just take it easy, remind yourself of the myriad klesas you have to overcome in order to see more of this pure mind, and keep if possible a low profile.

It is true that many philosophers have developed similar notions, I would however mention different ones than Matt: Hegel especially. Since Kant still philosophizes about "our mind" as opposed to the One Mind. In Hegel, though, everything that exists is produced through the self-movement of Mind.

Or the old greek Anaximander, who said explicitly that Mind (nous) is the source of everything, while being itself separated from that "everything" (sum total of phenomena).

When I read about "Mind" the first time in Zen literature, I began talking about Mind, too. And I spoke about Mind a lot. But I was like a parrot. I was just voicing a word. For me, "Mind" was just a word, a fascinating philosophical concept I could theorize about.

It wasn't until a small glimpse of that absolutely real Mind had been shown to me that everything changed. Not until someone experiences that the Mind is more real than the pain inflicted by the worst injury, that it has really appeared to you. If you think "pain feels more real than some abstract Mind", then you still don't know it.

If someone can eloquently speak about "the Mind" it doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Fancy words prove nothing: if someone can speak about love beautifully, it doesn't mean he can truly love. Would we say someone who doesn't know how to write beautiful love poems, doesn't know how to love? It's usually even the opposite: it's the romantic poets who don't know how to love.

So it's true what you wrote, I see it now: a Buddhist has no time to debate philosophers. Let philosophers philosophize, it's their job. The job of a Buddhist is to be an apostle of the Mind, a messenger of the Mind, showing sentient beings paths to it, even if there are none, strictly speaking.

Great post. It should be noted, however, that a handful of philosophers went out of there way to describe mind as the substance of which every "thing" is comprised (i.e. Kant, Shopenhauer, Henri Bergson). The totality of their philosophies may stray from the complete Buddhist picture, but their main thesis' are strikingly similar.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo