Что касается непробужденного сознания, то оно появляется по причине отсутствия должного и сущностного знания единства всех дхарм и истинной реальности как она есть. По этой причине непробужденное сознание возникает и имеет в себе различающую мысль.
Различающая мысль лишена собственных свойств и неотделима от изначальной пробужденности, подобно заблудившемуся человеку, потерявшему правильное направление. Если бы он освободился от направления, то нельзя было бы и заблудиться.
Таковы и все живые существа: опираясь на пробуждение, они оказываются во власти заблуждения. Но если они освободятся от привязанности к пробужденной природе, то не будет и никакой непробужденности. Но поскольку их сознание непробуждено и охвачено ложными мыслительными актами, и говорится об истинном пробуждении с учетом того, что отчетливо понимается смысл этого понятия.
Поэтому можно сказать, что, если освободиться от непробужденного сознания, то не будет и никакого самостоятельного, наделенного собственным свойством истинного пробуждения.
(IIb). Finite Enlightenment or Acquired Knowledge.
This is not like the knowledge of the Eternal that there is only one way: hence finite enlightenment shows itself in many forms of existence. These forms have no independent existence separated from the original enlightenment. Just as with a man who has lost his way, his losing of the way depends on his. original knowledge of his course (for if he had no idea of the way at first, he could not be said to have lost it), so with men, it is because they have the idea of enlightenment that they know they are unenlightened. If they had no idea of enlightenment in the abstract, they could not be said to be altogether unenlightened. From imperfect ideas of unenlightenment men are able to understand the meaning of words and true enlightenment. If we dispense with finite enlightenment, we cannot conceive of true enlightenment.
By the so-called non-enlightenment, we mean that as the true Dharma [i.e., suchness] is from all eternity not truthfully recognised in its oneness, there issues forth an unenlightened mind and then subjectivity (smrti). But this subjectivity has no self-existence independent of enlightenment a priori.
To illustrate: a man who is lost goes astray because he is bent on pursuing a certain direction; and his confusion has no valid foundation other than that he is bent on a certain direction.
It is even the same with all beings. They become unenlightened, foster their subjectivity and go astray, because they are bent on enlightenment. But non-enlightenment has no existence of its own, aside from its relation with enlightenment a priori. And as enlightenment a priori is spoken of only in contrast to non-enlightenment, and as non-enlightenment is a non-entity, true enlightenment in turn loses its significance too. [That is to say, they are simply relative.]
The Aspect of Non-enlightenment
Because of not truly realizing oneness with Suchness, there emerges an unenlightened mind and consequently, its thoughts. These thoughts do not have any validity to be substantiated; therefore, they are not independent of the original enlightenment. It is like the case of a man who has lost his way: he is confused because of his wrong sense of direction. If he is freed from the notion of direction altogether, then there will be no such thing as going astray. It is the same with men: because of the notion of enlightenment, they are confused. But if they are freed from the fixed notion of enlightenment, then there will be no such thing as non-enlightenment. Because there are men of unenlightened, deluded mind, for them we speak of true enlightenment, knowing well what this relative term stands for. Independent of the unenlightened mind, there are no independent marks of true enlightenment itself that can be discussed.
Вам нельзя начинать темы Вам нельзя отвечать на сообщения Вам нельзя редактировать свои сообщения Вам нельзя удалять свои сообщения Вам нельзя голосовать в опросах Вы не можете вкладывать файлы Вы можете скачивать файлы