Hey there,
I've been amazed by this for over a year now and was wondering how you people see this type of stuff. Now i know it's Buddhism and that it this would usually be suited to the Temple forum but Buddhism isn't classed a religion and is often spoken of as more of a philosophy, (which in essence could be, but this is speaking against philosophy) and besides i'm mainly interested in how you poeple who post here view this as opposed to bringing it up in the Temple because this is dealing specifically with philosophy.
This, i'm sure, will seem stupid to some of you but all i can ask is that you not get wound up or anything and tell me what you think of it, as i know some of you are into philosophy, and that some of you study it, but i'm geniunely interested in what your thoughts are on this.
Here's a few of the parts dealing with what the Buddha is quoted as saying :
It is like the city of the Gandharvas which the unwitting take to be a real city when in fact it is not so. The city appears as in a vision owing to their attachment to the memory of a city preserved in the mind as a seed; the city can thus be said to be both existent and non-existent. In the same way, clinging to the memory of erroneous speculations and doctrines accumulated since beginning-less time, they hold fast to such ideas as oneness and otherness, being and non-being, and their thoughts are not at all clear as to what after all is only seen of the mind. It is like a man dreaming in his sleep of a country that seems to be filled with various men, women, elephants, horses, cars, pedestrians, villages, towns, hamlets, cows, buffalos, mansions, woods, mountains, rivers and lakes, and who moves about in that city until he is awakened. As he lies half awake, he recalls the city of his dreams and reviews his experiences there; what do you think, Mahamati, is this dreamer who is letting his mind dwell upon the various unrealities he has seen in his dream, is he to be considered wise or foolish? In the same way, the ignorant and simple-minded who are favorably influenced by the erroneous views of the philosophers do not recognize that the views that are influencing them are only dream-like ideas originating in the mind itself, and consequently they are held fast by their notions of oneness and otherness, of being and non-being. It is like a painter’s canvas on which the ignorant imagine they see the elevations and depressions of mountains and valleys.
- - - - -
The Blessed One replied, saying: Mahamati, the error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also arises from the mind itself; but depending upon these manifestations of the mind as being real they go on discriminating them, like the simple-minded ones that they are, cherishing the dualism of this and that, of being and non-being, ignorant to the fact that there is but one common Essence.
The assertion of a cause that is non-existent assumes the causeless birth of the first element of the mind-system, which later on comes to have only a Maya-like non-existence. That is to say, there are philosophers who assert that an originally unborn mind-system begins to function under the conditions of eye, form, light and memory, which functioning goes on for a time and then ceases. This is an example of a cause that is non-existent.
- - - - -
The assertion of philosophical views concerning the elements that make up personality and its environing world that are non-existent, assume the existence of an ego, a being, a soul, a living being, a "nourisher", or a spirit. This is an example of philosophical views that are not true. It is this combination of discrimination of imaginary marks of individuality, grouping them and giving them a name and becoming attached to them as objects, by reason of habit-energy that has been accumulated since beginning-less time, that one builds up erroneous views whose only basis is false-imaginations. For this reason Bodhisattvas should avoid all discussions relating to assertions and negations whose only basis is words and logic.
- - - - -
The various features of false imagination can be distinguished as follows: as regards words, meaning, individual marks, property, self-nature, cause, philosophical views, reasoning, birth, no-birth, dependence, bondage and emancipation. Discrimination of words is the becoming attached to various sounds carrying familiar meanings. Discrimination of meaning comes when one imagines that words rise depending upon whatever subjects they express, and which subjects are regarded as self-existent. Discrimination of individual marks is to imagine that whatever is denoted in words concerning the multiplicities of individual marks (which in themselves are like a mirage) is true, and clinging tenaciously to them, to discriminate all things according to such categories as warmth, fluidity, motility, and solidity. Discrimination of property is to desire a state of wealth, such as gold, silver, and various precious stones.
Discrimination of self-nature is to make discriminations according to the views of the philosophers in reference to the self-nature of all things which they imagine and stoutly maintain to be true, saying: "This is just what it is and it cannot be otherwise." Discrimination of cause is to distinguish the notion of causation in reference to being and non-being and to imagine that there are such things as "cause-signs." Discrimination of philosophical views means considering different views relating to the notions of being and non-being, oneness and otherness, both-ness and not-both ness, existence and non-existence, all of which are erroneous, and becoming attached to particular views. Discrimination of reasoning means the teaching whose reasoning is based on the grasping of the notion and ego-substance and what belongs to it. Discrimination of birth means getting attached to the notion that things come into existence and pass out of existence according to causation. Discrimination of no-birth is to see that causeless substances which were not, come into existence by reason of causation. Discrimination of dependence means the mutual dependence of gold and the filaments made of it. Discriminations of bondage and imagination is like imagining that there is something bound because of something binding, as in the case of a man who ties a knot and loosens one. These are the various features of false-imagination to which all the ignorant and simple-minded cling. Those attached to the notion of relativity are attached to the notion of the multitudinous-ness of things, which arises from false-imagination. It is like seeing varieties of objects depending upon Maya, but these varieties thus revealing themselves are discriminated by the ignorant as something other than Maya itself, according to their way of thinking. Now the truth is, Maya and varieties of objects are neither different nor not different; if they were different, varieties of objects would not have Maya for their characteristic; if they were not different there would be no distinction between them. But as there is a distinction these two--Maya and variety of objects--are neither different nor not different, for the very good reason: they are one thing.
Lankavatara Sutra
So, i know this is opposed to how some or maybe a lot of you see things, but if you think this is wrong, could you tell me how and in what ways you think it is please, i'm really interested in reading some of your views on this, and would it would be cool if some of you read the sutra in the link, but i can understand if you don't because it's a pretty long sutra and if your not agreeing with the extracts i doubt you'll want to.
Anyway, what do you think/how do you feel about these views? |
