Defence

[kjones]

If you want to know your attachments, just see what you're compelled to defend.

Children say "That's not fair!" because they are unconscious egotists.

If you want to succeed in enlightenment, don't be attached to appearances.


-

[kjones]

Manjusri said, "I have never preached in the sea's midst anything but the Scripture of the Blossom of the Fine Dharma." The bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulation questioned Manjusri, saying, "That scripture is very profound and subtle, a gem among the scriptures, a thing rarely to be found in the world. Are there any beings who, putting this scripture into practice by the strenuous application of vigor, speedily gain Buddhahood, or are there not?"

Manjusri said, "There is the daughter of the dragon king Sagara, whose years are barely eight. Her wisdom is sharp-rooted, and well she knows the faculties and deeds of the beings. She has gained dharani. The profound treasure house of secrets preached by the Buddhas she is able to accept and to keep in its entirety. She has profoundly entered into dhyana-concentration, and has arrived at an understanding of the dharmas. In the space of a moment she produced bodhi-thought, and has attained the point of nonbacksliding. Her eloquence has no obstructions, and she is compassionately mindful of the beings as if they were her babies. Her merits are perfect. What she recollects in her mind and recites with her mouth is subtle and broad. She is of good will and ocmpassionate, humane and yielding. Her will and thought are harmonious and refined, and she is able to attain to bodhi."

The bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulation said, "I have seen the Thus Come One of the Sakyas throughout incalculable kalpas tormenting himself by doing what is hard to do, piling up merit and heaping up excellence, seeking the Path of the bodhisattva and never resting. When I look at the thousand-millionfold world, there is no place, not even the size of a mustardseed, where the bodhisattva did not cast away body and life for the beings' sakes, and only then did he achieve the Way of bodhi. I do not believe that this girl in the space of a moment directly and immediately achieved right, enlightened intuition."

Before he had finished speaking, at that very time the daughter of the dragon king suddenly appeared in front of them, and, doing obeisance with head bowed, stodd off to one side and spoke praise with gathas, saying:

'Having profoundly mastered the marks of sin and merit,
Universally illuminating all ten directions,
The subtle and pure Dharma-body
Has perfected the marks thirty-two,
Using the eighty beautiful features
As a means of adorning the Dharma-body.
The object of respectful obeisance for gods and men,
It is reverently honored by all dragons and spirits.
Of all varieties of living beings,
None fails to bow to it as an object of worship.
I have also heard that, as for the achievement of bodhi,
Only the Buddha can know it by direct witness.
I, laying open the teachings of the Great Vehicle,
Convey to release the suffering beings.'

At that time, Sariputra spoke to the dragon girl, saying, "You say that in no long time you shall attain the unexcelled Way. This is hard to believe. What is the reason? A woman's body is filthy, it is not a Dharma-receptacle. How can you attain unexcelled bodhi? The Path of the Buddha is remote and cavernous. Throughout incalculable kalpas, by tormenting oneself and accumulating good conduct, also by thoroughly cultivating the perfections, only by these means can one then be successful. Also, a woman's body even then has five obstacles. It cannot become first a Brahma god king, second the god Sakra, third King Mara, fourth a sage-king turning the Wheel, fifth a Buddha-body. How can the body of a woman speedily achieve Buddhahood?"

At that time, the dragon girl had a precious gem, whose value was the whole thousand-millionfold world, which she held up and gave to the Buddha. The Buddha straightway accepted it. The dragon girl said to the bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulation and to the venerable Sariputra, "I offered a precious gem, and the World-Honored One accepted it. Was this quick or not?"

He answered, saying, "Very quick!"

The girl said, "With your supernatural power you shall see me achieve Buddhahood even more quickly than that!"

At that time, the assembled multitude all saw the dragon girl in the space of an instant turn into a man, perfect bodhisattva-conduct, straightway go southward to the world-sphere Spotless, sit on a jewelled lotus blossom, and achieve undifferentiating, right, enlightened intuition, with thirty-two marks and eight beautiful features setting forth the Fine Dharma for all living beings in all ten directions. At that time, in the Saha world-sphere bodhisattvas, voice-hearers, gods, dragons, the eightfold assembly, humans and nonhumans, all from a distance seeing that dragon girl achieve Buddhahood and universally preach Dharma to the men and gods of the assembly of that time, were overjoyed at heart and all did obeisance from afar. Incalculable living beings, hearing the Dharma and understanding it, attained to nonbacksliding. Incalculable living beings were enabled to receive a prophecy of the Path. The Spotless world-sphere trembled in six different ways, and in the Saha world-sphere three thousand living beings dwelt on the ground from which there is no backsliding. Three thousand living beings opened up the thought of bodhi and were enabled to receive prophecies. The bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulation, as well as Sariputra and all the assembled multitude, silently believed and accepted.


--

Just having potential for Truthfulness isn't enough.

-

[Jamesh]

I think anyone who has a love of allegories is delusional.

[sue hindmarsh]

Sometimes an allegory can be very useful in making a point. Kelly's enthusiastic use of them above does not necessarily mean that she is delusional, just enthusiastic.

When confronted by a long story such as Kelly has posted above, I’m immediately turned off from reading it. I’ll never know if those stories are useful or not, as I’m not going to waste my time exploring them if all Kelly is going to give me at the end of it is –

Just having potential for Truthfulness isn't enough.

This is an interesting thought; perhaps Kelly could write more on it and refer to the story to help make her point. I think that would be more interesting.

Sue

[kjones]

Sometimes an allegory can be very useful in making a point. Kelly's enthusiastic use of them above does not necessarily mean that she is delusional, just enthusiastic.

When confronted by a long story such as Kelly has posted above, I'm immediately turned off from reading it.

Sometimes it's worth having something more drawn-out and complicated, to test one's enlightenment.

I usually avoid the wads of flowery superlatives in traditional Buddhist scripture. But the above extract expresses a deep truth about enlightenment: that logically it is immediate, since there can be no progression in the absolute.

I'll never know if those stories are useful or not, as I'm not going to waste my time exploring them if all Kelly is going to give me at the end of it is:

Just having potential for Truthfulness isn't enough.

This is an interesting thought; perhaps Kelly could write more on it and refer to the story to help make her point. I think that would be more interesting.

I wasn't going to write anything at all.

However, since you want an explanation, here's some more words:

I was skeptical, like the bodhisattva Accumulation of Wisdom, that this little upstart could be faster than the Buddha. So much care is needed to handle the subtlest of subtle delusions.

Nevertheless, I gave the wild asiatic imagination some leeway, and realised that in fact, the leap from delusion is that quick.

Having potential for Truthfulness is really not enough.

That bodhisattva is so concerned with getting to the other shore, that he has chained himself to the trawler.

He denounced the Buddha, saying, "I cannot do this!" But because he directed his abuse at the Buddha (the idea of it), the solution was revealed quite simply, in the form of an innocent child who has nothing to lose.

He attacks the child (his own potential): "You're a filthy irreversibly-deluded egotist!" But again, there was no guilt in doing this, as the little girl is the abstraction of the formlessness apparent in everything. He could accuse anything, and it be free of shame.

But he is cautious, he knows he is confused. So, that filthiness logically presents its true, simple, childlike nature to him, saying, "I hold onto nothing, no jewel or filth has any delight for me".

He can then zoom through the "stages", as he sees nothing can be accumulated.



-


Lately, my thoughts have been roaming around the idea of transcending movement and stillness. Getting to know emptiness itself. David wrote that love violently opens a yawning chasm in Reality. When there is Truth-consciousness, and no holding onto anything, that means there cannot even be the Infinite. The meditation that expresses this paradox cannot be no movement at all, as if frozen to nothingness. It cannot be expressed as finitude, as this is love also. It cannot even be expressed as movement or stillness. If it is just itself, and has no form, then it can do, and does do, anything.

This is why emptiness transcends the human mind, because it has no master. Its logical thought processes are the human's boat towards emptiness.

The point is what Rhett was talking about, "Broadening Wisdom". Whatever the human has constructed as wisdom, is just a stepping stone, into acting correctly. In a sense, he is not free at all: he is original, he is down-to-earth.

This is why it is called Truth-consciousness.


-

[Jason]

Reality is infinite, but enlightenment is finite. Do you agree with that Kelly?

[kjones]

Reality is infinite, but enlightenment is finite. Do you agree with that Kelly?

Ahhhhh, this is a good one.

I'll define enlightenment as understanding Reality. That means, really truly understanding Reality. Reality isn't a thing that can be grasped, and understanding this fully doesn't attempt to grasp at Reality in any way. Thus, enlightenment is not a thing that can be grasped.

"Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there. No concepts ever refer to anything in existence, they're abstractions. We attribute meaning to appearances. Being free of the belief that these attributes really apply to anything reveals the original purity.

-

[Jason]

Reality is infinite, but enlightenment is finite. Do you agree with that Kelly?

Ahhhhh, this is a good one.

Are you being sarcastic?

I'll define enlightenment as understanding Reality.

You didn't define it that way before? How did you define it then?

That means, really truly understanding Reality. Reality isn't a thing that can be grasped, and understanding this fully doesn't attempt to grasp at Reality in any way. Thus, enlightenment is not a thing that can be grasped.

Enlightenment can be grasped because it is finite. The only way you could lack it is if it is finite.

"Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there.

"Real" and "there" are categories for finite things.

No concepts ever refer to anything in existence, they're abstractions.

Sure concepts and abstractions can refer to things, they just aren't the same as the Infinite.

[kjones]

No, no sarcasm.

K: I'll define enlightenment as understanding Reality.

J: You didn't define it that way before? How did you define it then?

Same words, more accurate meaning.

Enlightenment can be grasped because it is finite. The only way you could lack it is if it is finite.

If you believe you've really got something, it's not enlightenment.

K: "Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there.

J: "Real" and "there" are categories for finite things.

What category can you come up with that does justice?

All things are finite. All categories are things. There's nothing ultimately here.

K: No concepts ever refer to anything in existence, they're abstractions.

J: Sure concepts and abstractions can refer to things, they just aren't the same as the Infinite.

Infinite is a concept that refers to a "thing" equivalent to everything. So, it is no different. "Everything" also doesn't have any real existence.

"oooooooooo"

Does that mean anything to you?


--

[Jason]

K:That means, really truly understanding Reality. Reality isn't a thing that can be grasped, and understanding this fully doesn't attempt to grasp at Reality in any way. Thus, enlightenment is not a thing that can be grasped.

J: Enlightenment can be grasped because it is finite. The only way you could lack it is if it is finite.

K: If you believe you've really got something, it's not enlightenment.

I still don't know if you agree that enlightenment is finite. I think this might be a key misunderstanding you have.

If enlightenment is not finite, how could you say I might not have it?

K: "Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there.

J: "Real" and "there" are categories for finite things.

K: What category can you come up with that does justice?

None. Just keeping you in check.

K: Infinite is a concept that refers to a "thing" equivalent to everything. So, it is no different. "Everything" also doesn't have any real existence.

"oooooooooo"

Does that mean anything to you?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I suppose it means the sound of "oooooooooo" to me, amongst other things.

[kjones]

K:That means, really truly understanding Reality. Reality isn't a thing that can be grasped, and understanding this fully doesn't attempt to grasp at Reality in any way. Thus, enlightenment is not a thing that can be grasped.

J: Enlightenment can be grasped because it is finite. The only way you could lack it is if it is finite.

K: If you believe you've really got something, it's not enlightenment.

J: I still don't know if you agree that enlightenment is finite. I think this might be a key misunderstanding you have. If enlightenment is not finite, how could you say I might not have it?

I'd only know if you spoke the truth. The wise can use words to speak Truth. These words are in themselves not really words, nor is the truth contained in them really anything at all.


We can say that truthful words aren't false words, and in that way we can finitise them. Also, we can say consciousness is something, such as "appearances", and thus finitise it. But ultimately, what we are talking and thinking of, doesn't really have these boundaries. In fact, it doesn't actually exist.


We can speak of enlightenment to contrast it with delusion, but ultimately it really cannot be separated from delusion, since only delusion holds that separability is possible.


From Bodhidharma:

"Someone who seeks the Way doesn't look beyond himself. He knows that the mind is the Way. But when he finds the mind, he finds nothing. And when he finds the Way, he finds nothing. If you think you can use the mind to find the Way, you're deluded. When you're deluded, buddhahood exists. When you're aware, it doesn't exist. This is because awareness is buddhahood."


(the Wake Up Sermon)

K: "Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there.

J: "Real" and "there" are categories for finite things.

K: What category can you come up with that does justice?

J: None. Just keeping you in check.

K: Infinite is a concept that refers to a "thing" equivalent to everything. So, it is no different. "Everything" also doesn't have any real existence.

"oooooooooo"

Does that mean anything to you?

J: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I suppose it means the sound of "oooooooooo" to me, amongst other things.

It can have any meaning, because it doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. That meaninglessness is the situation for all things is a step towards enlightenment.

-

[Jason]

J: I still don't know if you agree that enlightenment is finite. I think this might be a key misunderstanding you have. If enlightenment is not finite, how could you say I might not have it?

K: I'd only know if you spoke the truth. The wise can use words to speak Truth. These words are in themselves not really words, nor is the truth contained in them really anything at all.

We can say that truthful words aren't false words, and in that way we can finitise them. Also, we can say consciousness is something, such as "appearances", and thus finitise it. But ultimately, what we are talking and thinking of, doesn't really have these boundaries. In fact, it doesn't actually exist.

We can speak of enlightenment to contrast it with delusion, but ultimately it really cannot be separated from delusion, since only delusion holds that separability is possible.


From Bodhidharma:

"Someone who seeks the Way doesn't look beyond himself. He knows that the mind is the Way. But when he finds the mind, he finds nothing. And when he finds the Way, he finds nothing. If you think you can use the mind to find the Way, you're deluded. When you're deluded, buddhahood exists. When you're aware, it doesn't exist. This is because awareness is buddhahood."

(the Wake Up Sermon)

I could respond in more depth to the various points you raise, but I think I see a key misunderstanding in your ideas, so I'm just going to try to get to the heart of that. Getting too involved with the other points would probably just lead to a protracted attempt to understand each others particular use of terms, to see if we actually know what the other is really trying to say.

So I'm going to focus on that one misunderstanding. My question is:

Is enlightenment finite?

I would really like it if you could answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no"(I don't mind if you add further comment after the yes or no if you like.) I sense a sort of confusion that is not allowing you to answer this with a bluntly straightforward answer of "yes" or "no". But I do think the answer is a very straightforward yes or no.

As far as I'm concerned, enlightenment involves having a certain understanding. That understanding is composed of thoughts, and with prolonged understanding, it can also make its way into more intuitive and instinctual parts of a person, such as the subconscious. As with any other understanding, you can either have it or not have it. It's finite. You seem to think that the understanding known as enlightenment, is not finite, is not something that can be gained or lost. But it is finite, and it can be gained or lost.

K: "Infinite" is a tool to break down the habit of mentally grasping at things. It's not real. The Infinite isn't really there.

J: "Real" and "there" are categories for finite things.

K: What category can you come up with that does justice?

J: None. Just keeping you in check.

K: Infinite is a concept that refers to a "thing" equivalent to everything. So, it is no different. "Everything" also doesn't have any real existence.

"oooooooooo"

Does that mean anything to you?

J: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I suppose it means the sound of "oooooooooo" to me, amongst other things.

K: It can have any meaning, because it doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. That meaninglessness is the situation for all things is a step towards enlightenment.

-

I would say simply that the meaning it has, is the meaning it has. To me, what you seem to be saying is something akin to the Zen "mountains are no longer mountains". The next step being "mountains are mountains once again."

[Kevin Solway]

Is enlightenment finite?

Enlightenment is a state of mind. So when that state of mind comes to an end, for example, at death, then enlightenment comes to an end. In this sense enlightenment is finite.

However, enlightenment involves a consciousness of the Infinite. So the object of enlightenment is not finite.

[Jason]

Is enlightenment finite?

Enlightenment is a state of mind. So when that state of mind comes to an end, for example, at death, then enlightenment comes to an end. In this sense enlightenment is finite.

Agreed. Not only can it come to an end, but it can also have a beginning. A person may not have this state of mind initially, but may at a later time attain it.

However, enlightenment involves a consciousness of the Infinite.

Enlightenment involves a consciousness of a certain understanding. This understanding is finite.

Reality is Infinite, but enlightenment is not the same thing as Reality. Enlightenment is an understanding of the nature of Reality. Enlightenment is not Reality itself.

[kjones]

My question is:

Is enlightenment finite?

I would really like it if you could answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no"(I don't mind if you add further comment after the yes or no if you like.) I sense a sort of confusion that is not allowing you to answer this with a bluntly straightforward answer of "yes" or "no". But I do think the answer is a very straightforward yes or no.

As far as I'm concerned, enlightenment involves having a certain understanding. That understanding is composed of thoughts, and with prolonged understanding, it can also make its way into more intuitive and instinctual parts of a person, such as the subconscious. As with any other understanding, you can either have it or not have it. It's finite. You seem to think that the understanding known as enlightenment, is not finite, is not something that can be gained or lost. But it is finite, and it can be gained or lost.

Alright, for convenience I'll concede there are two different parts here: understanding, which is clearly not-understanding; and ramifications of that understanding, which has left off believing in the reality of any conception, e.g. "everything is one seamless and inseparable Infinitude".

In the first part, one believes that understanding is definitely finite. In the second part, one is propelled effortlessly.

If this realisation is like a plug that, on fitting all sockets, shows all the sockets are the plug, then can the plug really be finite - or infinite, for that matter ?

I would say simply that the meaning it has, is the meaning it has. To me, what you seem to be saying is something akin to the Zen "mountains are no longer mountains". The next step being "mountains are mountains once again."

Yes, but one doesn't go back to the first interpretation, of thinking things really are finite (ie "finite, not-finite, infinite, not-infinite").


-

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly,

Sue:When confronted by a long story such as Kelly has posted above, I’m immediately turned off from reading it. I’ll never know if those stories are useful or not, as I’m not going to waste my time exploring them.

Kelly:Sometimes it's worth having something more drawn-out and complicated, to test one's enlightenment.

Being able to read isn’t a prerequisite for enlightenment. It can be a useful, and sometimes even a helpful skill, but not a necessary one.

Kelly:I usually avoid the wads of flowery superlatives in traditional Buddhist scripture. But the above extract expresses a deep truth about enlightenment: that logically it is immediate, since there can be no progression in the absolute.

I wrote this back in January on the Brad and Elizabeth thread. It relates to your thought about "progression".

Understanding Truth is a big ‘first step’, but there are more steps to take – steps that deepen that understanding. Your life becomes an outward example of that deepening, as your attachments become weakened and your inner life strengthened. But because you are still developing, you may still fall under the sway of illusion, but only for a moment or two. You are not lost in the feminine, like ignorant people are – you can pass through it, with very little consequence. You are aware of your feminine qualities, but are able to amend them.

It’s like a tradesman who, though he learnt his trade well during his apprenticeship years, still has to ‘find his feet’ once he begins his working life. As each year passes he gains more confidence as his understanding and abilities grow. So, from his very first day as an apprentice, to a career spanning forty years, he has been a ‘tradesman’ possessing varying degrees of skill.

The same with understanding Truth – there are the early years, when your understanding grows and matures, and then the later years, when you are able to rest more in your deeper understanding. All that time, you understand Truth, and during that time, you are continually making slight corrections to your behaviour, based on the dept of your understanding.

Diogenes may be able to shed more light on the subject:

Whenever people complimented Diogenes, he would slap himself hard across the face and in self-reproach would cry, "Shame! I must have done something terribly wicked!"

Passing a stream, Diogenes saw a boy drinking out of his hands. "A child has beaten me in simplicity," he said, throwing away his cup.

Sue

[Jason]

My question is:

Is enlightenment finite?

I would really like it if you could answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no"(I don't mind if you add further comment after the yes or no if you like.) I sense a sort of confusion that is not allowing you to answer this with a bluntly straightforward answer of "yes" or "no". But I do think the answer is a very straightforward yes or no.

As far as I'm concerned, enlightenment involves having a certain understanding. That understanding is composed of thoughts, and with prolonged understanding, it can also make its way into more intuitive and instinctual parts of a person, such as the subconscious. As with any other understanding, you can either have it or not have it. It's finite. You seem to think that the understanding known as enlightenment, is not finite, is not something that can be gained or lost. But it is finite, and it can be gained or lost.

What happened to answering my question with a "yes" or "no"?

Alright, for convenience I'll concede there are two different parts here: understanding, which is clearly not-understanding; and ramifications of that understanding, which has left off believing in the reality of any conception, e.g. "everything is one seamless and inseparable Infinitude". In the first part, one believes that understanding is definitely finite. In the second part, one is propelled effortlessly.

Understanding is always definitely finite. If at any time you don't fully agree with that, you are are in error.

If this realisation is like a plug that, on fitting all sockets, shows all the sockets are the plug, then can the plug really be finite - or infinite, for that matter ?

I think the question is wrongly put, because when seen correctly there is never any doubt about what is finite and what is Infinite. There is a clear and definite distinction between what is finite and what is Infinite.

I would say simply that the meaning it has, is the meaning it has. To me, what you seem to be saying is something akin to the Zen "mountains are no longer mountains". The next step being "mountains are mountains once again."

Yes, but one doesn't go back to the first interpretation, of thinking things really are finite (ie "finite, not-finite, infinite, not-infinite").

-

But things really are finite: by default, by definition.

Human existence is forever stuck in finiteness. That's a done deal. All you can do is use finite means to remove finite errors in your finite mind. Essentially it is using finite means to understand the limitations of finiteness. Here is the core of this issue, and something I really think you need to understand: enlightenment is not the same thing as Reality. Rather, enlightenment is an understanding of the nature of Reality.

Reality is infinite, everywhere, everything, unlimited. You can lever lose or gain Reality. On the other hand, enlighenment is finite, limited, not everything, and can be lost or gained. The way you have been talking about enlightenment along the lines of it being sort of ineffable, nebulous, transcendent, effortless, neither existent nor non-existent or whatever, this seems to me like you ar getting mixed up with thinking enlightenment is the same thing as Reality. It seems to me that at least part of the reason you are wrestling with enlightenment and having difficulty with it, is because you wrongly think that enlightenment itself is Infinite.

[kjones]

Sue: Being able to read isn't a prerequisite for enlightenment. It can be a useful, and sometimes even a helpful skill, but not a necessary one.

It wasn't just for reading practice. The idea could be expressed more briefly. If I had thought a bit more about it, perhaps I wouldn't have posted the excerpt at all.

I've noticed your posts have boxes instead of single apostrophes ('). This might be my browser, as I've noticed it does some wierd stuff with the (') in David's Bodhidharma.html page, but not on many of his other pages. I'll see what happens if I don't edit them.

Kelly:I usually avoid the wads of flowery superlatives in traditional Buddhist scripture. But the above extract expresses a deep truth about enlightenment: that logically it is immediate, since there can be no progression in the absolute.

Sue:I wrote this back in January on the Brad and Elizabeth thread. It relates to your thought about "progression".

Understanding Truth is a big 'first step’, but there are more steps to take – steps that deepen that understanding. Your life becomes an outward example of that deepening, as your attachments become weakened and your inner life strengthened. But because you are still developing, you may still fall under the sway of illusion, but only for a moment or two. You are not lost in the feminine, like ignorant people are – you can pass through it, with very little consequence. You are aware of your feminine qualities, but are able to amend them.

It’s like a tradesman who, though he learnt his trade well during his apprenticeship years, still has to ‘find his feet’ once he begins his working life. As each year passes he gains more confidence as his understanding and abilities grow. So, from his very first day as an apprentice, to a career spanning forty years, he has been a ‘tradesman’ possessing varying degrees of skill.

The same with understanding Truth – there are the early years, when your understanding grows and matures, and then the later years, when you are able to rest more in your deeper understanding. All that time, you understand Truth, and during that time, you are continually making slight corrections to your behaviour, based on the depth of your understanding.

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning somewhat, but am thankful for your correction.

The Absolute isn't a thing, it doesn't change as a conceptual guide. Progression is the mind learning to orient conceptually to it, correcting its errors as it goes along.

The Absolute never really appears as such, what does appear is the progression of increasing flawlessness. Nevertheless, this happens because it is orienting to what doesn't change. It looks like a progression, but it is a progression based on the unmoving.

Ultimately, one's not moving, as there's nothing to move.


-
[Edited for ']

[kjones]

J: Is enlightenment finite?

Understanding is always definitely finite. If at any time you don't fully agree with that, you are are in error.

Yes, understanding is finite. Defining it as not not-understanding, means it isn't everything. Also, enlightenment is finite, because it appears, and it disappears, so it isn't all appearances (everything).

I've been cautious answering the question because we typically think of finite things as embodied, with parts. Enlightenment is specifically about seeing that things are falsely bodified.

Can you accept that?

If this realisation is like a plug that, on fitting all sockets, shows all the sockets are the plug, then can the plug really be finite - or infinite, for that matter ?

J: I think the question is wrongly put, because when seen correctly there is never any doubt about what is finite and what is Infinite. There is a clear and definite distinction between what is finite and what is Infinite.

Conceptually, we can clearly define these things. We're really distinguishing finite (not-finite) from finite (finite).

I would say simply that the meaning it has, is the meaning it has. To me, what you seem to be saying is something akin to the Zen "mountains are no longer mountains". The next step being "mountains are mountains once again."

KJ: Yes, but one doesn't go back to the first interpretation, of thinking things really are finite (ie "finite, not-finite, infinite, not-infinite").

J: But things really are finite: by default, by definition.

Good to see you're needling into the problem. I'll see whether I can explain clearly, or whether I end up confusing both of us.

Concepts present things to us, as finite identities. Certainly this is true. These finite identities then, are all concepts. When we merge all things into the abstraction "concept", then we see that no concept is ultimately finite.

Human existence is forever stuck in finiteness. That's a done deal. All you can do is use finite means to remove finite errors in your finite mind. Essentially it is using finite means to understand the limitations of finiteness. Here is the core of this issue, and something I really think you need to understand: enlightenment is not the same thing as Reality. Rather, enlightenment is an understanding of the nature of Reality.

I'll get straight to the point, as you like directness. Enlightenment is a concept for having conceptualised all conceptualising. So it naturally includes itself in the absolute concept, "concept". Having realised that "concept" is not ultimately finite, and also, that "thing" is true necessarily, it cannot help but realise all things as one and lacking in intrinsically distinct conceptuality. Thus, enlightenment cannot help but conceive of itself as lacking in intrinsic finiteness.

That paragraph is a bit dense, but, again, I'm being cautious so as to make sure I don't butcher it.

Reality is infinite, everywhere, everything, unlimited. You can never lose or gain Reality. On the other hand, enlightenment is finite, limited, not everything, and can be lost or gained. The way you have been talking about enlightenment along the lines of it being sort of ineffable, nebulous, transcendent, effortless, neither existent nor non-existent or whatever, this seems to me like you are getting mixed up with thinking enlightenment is the same thing as Reality. It seems to me that at least part of the reason you are wrestling with enlightenment and having difficulty with it, is because you wrongly think that enlightenment itself is Infinite.

Well, ultimately, the nature of enlightenment, which really is what it is, is the Infinite. It may look like I'm contradicting my initial statement, but this is only a superficial contradiction.

If I did convey an overall impression that daisy-mindedness was enlightenment, then accept my apology. That was certainly not my intention, and I too am uninterested in it. Also, in regards the wrestling you've noticed: I'd put most of that down to conceiving of enlightenment as finite, owing to a history of being goal-minded. It is difficult to alter this success-oriented mentality.



--