KKT/painting a message on the mirror

[Guest guest]

Dear KKT,

Thank you for your wonderful

post in response to Larry.

Very informative about

Hui-Neng and Dzogchen.

I didn't know Hui-Neng's

sutra was burned. That is

important information in consideration

of this: there is a lot of energy

put into deciding the "right" way

to say things. Preserving the "right"

doctrine about the transitoriness

of phenomena becomes very important! :-)

 

Is it just me, or is there a very

important contradiction exposed here?

 

You mentioned "enlightenment".

What is the concern with how person X

described his or her enlightenment

and how this contrasts with person Y?

What is the value of the debate

over which is the correct

description and which is the authentic

enlightenment?

 

I ask these questions for this reason:

It seems to me that the only enlightenment

that matters is my own awareness.

How does comparing my awareness with

person X's description help me in any way?

All it can do is construct an impression

of enlightenment as a state at which

I may arrive. Dzogchen teachings are

helpful in pointing to my own awareness

as it is as "sufficient," as the original

"empty-fullness" itself. Nothing needs to

be done, added, or realized. That is realization.

However, Dzogchen teachings themselves then

can be dropped, because my own "mind" being

"universal reality", what need have I for a

teaching that affirms what is already the

case, what is self-evident? Such an affirmation

enshrined is like painting on a mirror "this

mirror reflects reality." Painting the message

doesn't add to what the mirror does. This statement

concerns all schools that enshrine teachings

and provide descriptions of teacher's experiences

as models for students. I realize that there may

be no way around this, and it may simply

be a human tendency. I'm not claiming to be

"above it," and in fact have learned from

many of these various teachings. However,

I'm raising the question of a limitation

involved in the whole process.

 

The question I raise here is whether doctrine

itself has a tendency toward self-perpetuation

and self-preservation? Honoring certain

persons' views and enshrining these views --

does this really help us to recognize who we

are? Or does this enshrining become, itself,

an obstacle to realizing that all is transitory,

nothing needs to be continued or destroyed,

and who I am is not lacking or insufficient?

Perhaps this is a question that can't have

an easy answer. I realize that much has

been added to human culture and society

by various wisdom teachings and preserved

scriptures.

 

Appreciating your views and your

scholarly contributions here --

 

-- Love -- Dan