[Buddha-l] bodhi

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Dan,


> To bring your attention back to the passage you quoted. What was radiant, 
> illuminating, was citta, i.e., one's own mind. Not coming from outside. It 
> is that radiance that shines out through the eyes.
>
>   
Yes I am aware of the theories of radiance shining out through once's 
eyes.  But as impressed I can be by the creativity of those cognitive 
process constructions based on light, I can't imagine that without the 
light shining in on us from the universe in the first place, we would be 
capable of emitting the slightest glow. Those theories, and as you 
present them, seem to suggest that regardless of there being any light 
in the universe or not, a consciousness has the inherent faculty to 
produce its own light. It would in that case have to be a bodyless 
consciousness, because I can't see any body survviving without external 
light. Any "body" is made of stuff picked up in the universe. Even those 
devas would somehow gather the light (photons or whatever) that is 
present in the univers as a support. I don't know the details of those 
radiant beings, but I expect them to live not too far away from the sun. 
Isn't that the general idea in Indian cosmology? The higher we go, the 
lighter (in both meanings of the word), the deeper, the darker and 
heavier.    

Any other theory would go against the idea of interdependentness. A 
autonomous conscious unity with its own light production plant, would be 
totally isolated from the rest of Reality. There would be Reality with 
its light plus all those autonomous light producing unities, that are no 
part of it. If you don't share light with something, whatever is it that 
one could share at all? So for me, there is a superstructure with light, 
shared by everything that is part of it and then the received and 
subsequently indivualised light can be reflected back to "know" Reality 
according to one of the light radiance theories.

The exemples you give of the devas show indeed that meditating on light 
and light circles, at least uses a recollection and representation to 
mindfullness of the "light" as one has known and experienced it. In 
other words one reuses the light and the representation of that light as 
building materials for one's future light body. For me there is only 
"other power" (which I don't use in the Pure land sense). Any "self 
power" I have comes from "other power". That some people need to 
personnifie and deify other power is another issue as I see it. So 
"grace", yes as long as there is no intention projected onto the "other 
power". You may call that "other power" Nature, dependent origination, 
dharmadhaatu etc. if you like. With the idea of grace it just shows how 
pathetic any pretentions I may have are. 

> "The Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta.m of the Majjhima Nikaya narrates how the 
> Bodhisattva [i.e., Sakyamuni Buddha before becoming a Buddha] came down from 
> the Tusita Heaven to be born here upon the earth. When the Bodhisattva 
> entered the womb of Queen Maayaa leaving the Tusita heaven, a very bright 
> light appeared illuminating the deva, Brahmaa and human worlds, etc. It was 
> more brilliant than the heavenly light. By the help of the light the beings 
> of one world could see the being of another world."
>
>   
So even in this exemple the ordinarily self luminous devas were 
illuminated by the heavenly light?

> So there is inner and outer light. And external light that can be 
> internalized, and become constitutively corporeal. Take light as your 
> meditation object (kasina) and you may be reborn as a halogen lamp or movie 
> projector.
>   

Yes, this is more how I see it. But even the "internal" light is 
reprocessed "external "light. But then as Curt would say what is the 
difference between external and internal anyway?

Joy