Bodhimind?
Yes, it's bodhimind. The reality of bodhicitta keeps coming up. It's the mind/heart or the embodied wakefullness, it's the awakened awareness in it's own nature (normally refered to as ultimate bodhicitta) and the same awareness at work (relative bodhicitta) with situations and relationships. The duality of these two being paradoxical and instrumental, at best. However, it's always useful to distinguish whether we approach the absolute nature or the relative nature of something. Once we distinguish, the level of realisation and the level of language changes considerably.
Apart from the usual ultimate/relative, there is another important distinction. Great master Asanga, the famous spokesman for Bodhisattva Maitreya, distinguished between agama (received teachings) and adhigama (direct realisation). Now, realisation may confirm what's been received and transmitted, but realisation will also supplement the received teaching in some important aspects. In traditional societies, the most powerful innovations were recognized as revelations. In this space between tradition and realisation there's plenty room for evolution of the teachings themselves. The text of the sutra as written in Sanskrit or Pali may or may not change its transmitted form, but our understanding of its un/intended meanings is unavoidably evolving.
We contextualize our realizations, we interpret the words and utterances, we recognize historical, cultural and societal dimensions of speakers and purposes, messages and audiences, and in such manner we also liberate various strands or depths inherent in the text itself. There's the accommodating capacity of the speaker to meet his audience at a certain level of experience and aspiration. And there's hopefully also the unfathomable capacity of the speaker to point - and introduce directly, perhaps - beyond the conventional, beyond the obvious in the audience.
But further even, the text without boundaries - that is, the expanse of reality - is what we find ourselves immersed into as we proceed with our explorations. This body with its environment, even as we speak, indeed every object of awareness is itself a letter, every form and sound and smell and taste and touch, every thought and feeling, every yearning and meaning, is itself a limpid symbol of that which is made obvious in the very act of concealment - look! Henceforth we no longer search for other-signs of illusion and/or reality. Instead, we establish self-referents of wakefullness in this and that realm of the vast expanse. That vastness is incessantly always reinventing itself through our very act of un/limited mindedness and utterance and enactment. We are always represencing what then - as it were - becomes our reality. What we attend to and what we intend, becomes a new expression of inexhaustible potential. Does that make sense?
Apart from the usual ultimate/relative, there is another important distinction. Great master Asanga, the famous spokesman for Bodhisattva Maitreya, distinguished between agama (received teachings) and adhigama (direct realisation). Now, realisation may confirm what's been received and transmitted, but realisation will also supplement the received teaching in some important aspects. In traditional societies, the most powerful innovations were recognized as revelations. In this space between tradition and realisation there's plenty room for evolution of the teachings themselves. The text of the sutra as written in Sanskrit or Pali may or may not change its transmitted form, but our understanding of its un/intended meanings is unavoidably evolving.
We contextualize our realizations, we interpret the words and utterances, we recognize historical, cultural and societal dimensions of speakers and purposes, messages and audiences, and in such manner we also liberate various strands or depths inherent in the text itself. There's the accommodating capacity of the speaker to meet his audience at a certain level of experience and aspiration. And there's hopefully also the unfathomable capacity of the speaker to point - and introduce directly, perhaps - beyond the conventional, beyond the obvious in the audience.
But further even, the text without boundaries - that is, the expanse of reality - is what we find ourselves immersed into as we proceed with our explorations. This body with its environment, even as we speak, indeed every object of awareness is itself a letter, every form and sound and smell and taste and touch, every thought and feeling, every yearning and meaning, is itself a limpid symbol of that which is made obvious in the very act of concealment - look! Henceforth we no longer search for other-signs of illusion and/or reality. Instead, we establish self-referents of wakefullness in this and that realm of the vast expanse. That vastness is incessantly always reinventing itself through our very act of un/limited mindedness and utterance and enactment. We are always represencing what then - as it were - becomes our reality. What we attend to and what we intend, becomes a new expression of inexhaustible potential. Does that make sense?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home