My understanding of bodhi is that it is Buddhist born (or dharma derived) enlightenment, my own paraphrasing of course.muni wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:32 amHello ,tkp67 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:02 am Even if everything outside of the state of the teachings that lead to bodhi are simply understood to clinging what is it they are clinging to? As I understand it their mind is clinging on to existence because the ego like us fears death and when someone with that mental framework tends to cling harder in light of that fear.
How one untangles those minds seems to require (this might be me clinging to intellectualizing) dialog about what is in them and I am trying hard to avoid that trespass but I think I made the point whilst avoiding any offence.
Hopefully, at least.
I will say what attracted me was the minds behind the people who practiced before me, they seemed to carry themselves in a way that I desired to conform do once I had the chance to observe it.
You say: "Even if everything outside of the state of the teachings that lead to bodhi are simply understood to clinging what is it they are clinging to?"
Please, what is out of the state of Bodhi?
How can there be clinging, other than by idea of being there phenomena-appearances which need to be avoided or hold on, phenomena which are wrong and other right?
When there is anything perceived out of the teaching of the Buddha, can it be the teaching of the Buddha? Since appearances-emptiness are inseparable, what 'we can see in meditation', it is completely impossible there is some thing or some phenomena out.
But possible, there can be a fear that the conventional dharma would be spoiled by other, by believes. Faith in the Buddha's teachings and very much Practice, can take this fear away. May all be blessed.
When I say teachings outside of the state of teachings that lead to bodhi I am saying any thing the mind holds that is not dharma, as I understand it has no discussion value here in context to Buddhism.
In my mind working and in that framework it simplifies everything as either being applicable to dharma or not. This seems to be reasonable for sake of trying to develop a sound understanding without offence (discussing anything specific regarding teachings outside of Buddhism)
Now, through observation, it very much appears to me that the same buddhist truths as divined through enlightenment still remain even under deep and shallow examination of other teachings. This is not meant to abandon personal meaning of my own path or that of others but rather to treat it outside the context of buddhism and to leave that at the door in these discussions. I do lack much of the vernacular to discuss things in gracious terms that everyone is familiar with as traditional but that doesn't mean I haven't considered it both outside any path and how those paths reconcile to Buddhism. Discussing particulars causes problems here and out of respect for this dynamic I conform to it.
It is under this premise that I am simply saying that even if we don't understand other teachings and due to whatever circumstance even if these teachings are considered nothing more than clinging to formations of the mind is there still cause for compassion regardless of the state of one's practice or enlightenment.
See from the premise of simple clinging we have to ask why does the mind do this? of course we can be very particular to cause and effect but that requires detailed examination of foreign teachings and belief and that gives rise to a new set of problems that vary according to practitioner.
That does not mean there isn't a common theme that is underlying for all people that practice anything other then buddhism as far as belief.
Even the most rudimentary and delusional belief is perceived by the holder of that belief to have a benefit. In this light and under the assumption that all belief from other teachings are various and erroneous does that mean the human condition that requires them various or erroneous?
If we regard them at face value as defined here, diverse, erroneous and without benefit does that mean they are not self deluded means to end suffering? and if they are that at absolute face value then isn't it like a person hoping to use concrete as a life preserver?
See as my mind rationalizes it there is no excuse for a lack of compassion except unless we don't posses that compassion for our own like causes and karma which is why I use words like reconciliation.
Personally If I wasn't able to be compassionate to the erroneous and diverse beliefs of man as a cause I don't understand how can I say I understand the purity of mind that is described as bodhi. I would say apparently in this notion I am a minority. I'm ok with that, for me, since the same understanding seems to hold up in both simplistic examination and under verbose and fully manifest understandings of all teachings. This does not imply I am right but I can't find any dialog that says I am wrong.
I personally find amazing value in all the humanities and feel personally anything of real worth to be distilled from them is universally accessible through Buddhist practice but to the same end I don't feel that they have 0 value or can only be seen as pure delusion but if we work in that framework it suits this conversation all the same.