tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post1526185761087458068..comments2021-11-20T20:15:23.814-06:00Comments on To Hold Nothing: Mindfulness and MuHolding Nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-80841479472813485112011-10-18T15:28:19.149-05:002011-10-18T15:28:19.149-05:00I don't think Buddhism implies denying either ...I don't think Buddhism implies denying either the personal in the sense of the universe as a product of our perception in part or the personal in the sense of interactions with other humans. Monastics are not by nature hermits separate from human society, but would tend to engage them in some sense, even if it might only be through begging, which as a practice varies by country and denomination.<br /><br />Enlightenment could be spontaneous, but as a byproduct it might create some tension except in cases which are prominent where even if one achieves enlightenment, the technical goal overall is to help others achieve enlightenment as well. Personal enlightenment could be one goal, but overall enlightenment of the world might be the higher goal to strive for. I don't see what other goal could seemingly exist in Buddhism except to aid oneself and others in achieving enlightenment, if you claim that enlightenment would primarily be a byproduct and something of a means instead of the end itself.<br /><br />If your goal is not enlightenment, but communion with the divine, the argument is that you're missing the forest for the trees. The experience with the divine may feel good for a significant amount of time, but the ultimate truth would be in Buddhism that you're missing the point and clinging to something outside yourself as the source of ultimacy and truth instead of seeking it within yourself. Clinging to the Goddess or God or pantheon of gods and goddesses all reach the same conclusion to me, attachment to the divine as the source of your meaning and value. Intensity of union seems to me to be focusing on your personal experience of unity with something outside yourself as the source of truth, which seems to miss the point for satisfying your own craving for personal interaction on a permanent or infinite scale, which is unrealistic from a Buddhist perspective.<br /><br />As a humanist of the secular variety, I don't think I'm in contradiction with Buddhist values to say that humanity is the source of value, more particularly the individual, since meaning of life is not the same as meaning in life, which I'll talk about this weekend in another WDAD installment.<br /><br />I wouldn't call the thing I seek out in enlightenment as the infinite, but ultimacy and significance. And it isn't purely impersonal, but it isn't so personal as to become excessive either. It isn't a matter of an either/or dichotomy of phrasing the ultimate as impersonal/personal without any nuance between them, since I wouldn't deny that there is a personal aspect to our search for truth, but I wouldn't focus entirely on that either. <br /><br />There's more I can say, but this probably answers a great deal of your questions.Holding Nothinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8709333750421171813.post-87070985998741371272011-10-18T14:06:42.816-05:002011-10-18T14:06:42.816-05:00I stumbled into your blog this morning and have a ...I stumbled into your blog this morning and have a few thoughts on your post, above.<br /><br />What do you think of enlightenment as a byproduct rather than the goal? The tension between monasticism and charity toward others seems irreconcilable so long as transcendence is understood as impersonal.<br /><br />One of the problems I have long has with Eastern thought is the postulation of the infinite as impersonal; and I wonder if framing the infinite this way is the result of mistaking a semantic limitation for an actual limitation. To put it another way, have you ever considered the possibility that the infinite is *meta*personal? In other words, more personal than personal, or personal in a way that transcends personhood as we conceive of it rationally? The concept is suggestive of transcendence of the subject-object dichotomy in a way that encompasses both identity and difference--a rational paradox, but then that should not trouble a Buddhist. :)<br /><br />If the infinite is conceived of as personal, then embracing the infinite becomes a matter of, not denying the personal universe, but instead communing with it to the point that some intensity of union is experienced.<br /><br />This view works for me, and avoids the tension described above between the impulse to withdraw and the impulse to embrace.<br /><br />In my own spiritual life, I worship a Goddess; and by worship I mean "seen communion with," not "kowtow to." I have found that, as time has gone by, by coming into Her presence and experiencing Her fellowship, She has changed me, raising my consciousness, transforming me. I did not seek enlightenment; I sought Her, and enlightenment--bit by bit--is coming as a by-product. Not that I care all that much, because "enlightenment" describes a personal attribute or possession, and in my spiritual walk this is the opposite of the way things are best perceived. For me, it's not about being enlightened, but about being with Her. But simply be being with Her, I am transformed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com