This Very Mind This Very Buddha
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лют 2023
- Donate by PayPal - hardcorezen.info/donate
My Patreon page - www.patreon.com/user?u=4874189
LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN audiobook - www.audible.com/pd/Letters-to...
My other audiobooks - www.audible.com/search?keywor...
My blog - hardcorezen.info
Write me at bw@hardcorezen.info
The Huang Po quote reminds me of Tao Te Ching verse 12:
The five colors make our eyes blind
the five tones make our ears deaf
the five flavors make our mouths numb
riding and hunting make our minds wild
hard-to-get goods make us break laws
thus the rule of the sage
puts the stomach ahead of the eyes
thus he picks this over that
(Red Pine, trans)
Brad, excellent video, profoundly insightful as usual!!! You’ve been killing it for so long on your channel, I’m just amazed your videos don’t have more views, there’s so many people who could benefit from your straightforward no bs style of teaching! I’m not sure if you’re aware of the band Tool or have ever tried any of their bass riffs, but I would love to hear you play one (maybe schism or 46&2 bass riffs.) I think it could be a nice complementary piece to pare with a video addressing the differences / distinction between the small self (ego?) and the big Self (universal?) how they function in our lives, I realize you’ve done a video on this topic before but it could be worthwhile to hear what this Brad at this time and place now has to say about it. I’m sure you have a thousand requests in your inbox, so I won’t get my hopes to high! Take care Brad and please keep up the good work you’re doing, for the sake of all bipeds everywhere 😂 ganbatte!
Haha, never caught myself singing along with you before, but that time I did. :)
The Silent Illumination of Zen Master Hongzhi
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is this Very Mind! 😄
Great content and enjoyed the music! Viva Ziggy!
In Lutheran theology, Luther himself refers to talking about god/Truth as trying to shape a wax nose. No matter what we say or write about that stuff it’s still a wax nose and that never really draw closer to it - words fail like you said. Good luck!
Excellent video thank you Brad! p.s. Is that an an ultra/spectra man buddha statue at begging of video?? If it is, I NEED one lol…
"It" might best be put into words of instruction on how to make oneself available to perceive the ongoing convergence of the possible and the actual in their mind, i.e. in experience. Conveyed in this way the 'mind only' approach, rather than being a form of idealism can be understood as pragmatic and precise, e.g. "each instant simply watches over the next one, while the confidence of the preceding one is just strong enough to not disappear." This is difficult to grasp without persistent practice and there are many who would argue that it amounts to nothing anyway. To them one might reply, yes, but this nothing in process can be experienced as completely meaningful, (even and especially when one can't say exactly what 'it' might mean).
Edmund Husserl spoke of the "Abschattungen" (shading-off).
It's just the thing without putting words on it. Someone hits you with a stick - it's not the thought "someone hits you with a stick" it's the thoughtless empty flow of experience in which it happens. This is the finger pointing. The moon is the moon. If you stop and think "there's the moon" you've failed. When the stick hits you, you are you, the stick, the hitter, the pain. You are you being hits, the resulting feelings, and the settling and disappearing of the feelings, with nothing to hold onto. Stay with each moment in its state of decay and dont resist or conceptualize the rebirth in each moment. Devoid of rebirth, nothing moves and nothing changes. Tathagata. I could be way off so just forget everything i said.
It’s you two - ob la di, ob la da ❤
I am a bit confused.. when they say Buddha is the Universe, is that another word for the Absolute? Isn't that the same as Brahman? Thank you.
Remember that Brahman is an expression of Atman, or a Universal Self, where the Absolute Buddha is Anatman, or Emptiness. There is no inherently existing universe, but we are not separate from the universe which offers us seemingly solid existence. This is diametrically opposed to the Brahmanic reification of substance in the universe, where everything exists only in the context of the “Big Self”. Hope this helps ✌🏽
According to phenomenological "descriptive psychology", one may also call "it" ´Dao´, ´Godhead´, ´Worldspirit´, and so forth - all seem to asymptotically approach the (Lat.) "limes" (as formalised in the infinitesimal calculus), "glowing" at the fringes of wake-consciousness.
@@nulltranq yes it does thank you 🙂 I remember a Hindu monk saying that we shouldn't see Brahman as something solid or a 'thing', perhaps these 2 opposite concepts of the Absolute can be reconciled somehow? Thanks again for your help 🙏
It's similar to what you are in a dream. A presence, the sense of 'am here', no mind or body, just awareness (in the case of a dream, awareness of dream consciousness), conscience, and a power of intent. Mind is a very poor translation or word usage. I think the ancients were deficient in terminology. For example, I think kamma may actually be conscience. They had no concept of zero dimensional. No concept of spacetime. No understandings of fields. They had difficulty expressing things that we can easily express today.
It is awareness before conceptualisation? It is consciousness not filled with words?
Maybe, more exactly, it is awareness before conceptualisation, conceptualized as "awareness before conceptualisation", as part of the turtles-all-the-way-down effect.
Might it be closer to "dynamic" rather than "this mind"? That the Buddha is more akin to an understanding of the universe that the self is an arbitrary distinction? Even words are somewhat arbitrary.
I am reminded of a physics class where we were taught about thermodynamics and how the universe tends toward disorder, but that local space can see increases in order, depending on where you draw the lines of the system of interest - but that the drawing of the lines of interest are arbitrary: "a system" can be any system. The brain is a system, and the self is a system, and we can put them into imaginary boxes with "I am" or "that is", but, in truth "I" and "that" have some continuity. In truth there is no imaginary line, and therefore nothing separating the phenomenon designated "you" from the phenomenon designated as "the universe". Perhaps the Buddha mind is just part of the universe looking at the universe, for lack of a better word.
ok you guys are way too cute
After all this time I’ve never heard someone actually spell out what’s meant by Buddha. It’s a general barrier I think. Too many cultural allusions to track down. I just want the dirt
First?!