What impressed me the most in last weeks reading was found on TSK page 5
“More over, this understanding which is also “space” , explains, expresses and is everything…..an understanding-or vision-can itself be the revealing basis of all reality”
Reading this certainly thrills and activates me to continue the TSK study as I imagine a knowledge that reveals the basis of all reality. However, on second thought I questioned if this is not the nature of all understandings. Does not every understanding reveal its own reality? For example, the materialistic understanding of everything reveals its own reality.
Is Rinposhe saying something special of the TSK vision, or is this a comment about the consequences of every understanding?
I would appreciate your reflections.
Hayward
Hello Hayward
I appreciate your impressions about the reading material we are offered and the revealing and the inspirations that the readings and reflections on them are invoking …
Here is a take and understanding from reading your inquiry and reflecting on it …
Your inquiry seems to have two interwoolven levels to it …
One is regarding a ‘truth’ and its applicability (operation) in TSK vision or other views….ie Materialism.
The ‘truth’ that every understanding has its own space… which in turn (that space) reveals all the apparent realities that show up in that space. And this includes every understanding/space … including the Materialism understanding of everything (Materialism space). This truth is emphasized in our readings by Jack’s mention of three important and difficult sentences in the chapter. And it is the first sentence that he expands on it (WIR, p34).
It seems clear that the truth mentioned above can operate on any view or vision and is true …
The second level issue is: Then now that this ‘truth’ can operate on all views (it is true), then are all views true (TSK as well as Materialism or any other view)? What can be helpful at this junction seems to remember the difference between TSK vision and any other view:
SDTS (p xxxi):
“…This way of seeing (TSK vision) offers something new, not because it is superior to prevailing systems of knowledge (Materialism, or others …) or belief, but because it steps outside the framework within which such systems arise and develop their perspectives. That is why TSK is not concerned with praise and blame, hope and fear, or right and wrong. It can be naturally accommodating of every alternative, because it has no position to defend or point to make. In fact, a second-level TSK perspective makes it easy to transform or transcend such dichotomies, for it reveals the mechanisms of their arising.â€
Soudi
What about the process of revealing? Isn`t the focus on it something special of the TSK vision – opening space? Karin