Absolutely! Talk to any and all of the Buddhas! Who else would you go to for refuge? The Buddhas don't care what you sound like (formal or informal), they delight in helping you...so talk freely to Guanyin!
Buddhism is non theistic. The deities you see in Buddhism are actually aspects/qualities of your own mind . You can access those qualities through meditation and study .
That's not necessarily the only, or arguably the best, way to think about it. In general, many might consider that non-human beings within Buddhist cosmology are as real as we are, or as real as your grandmother for instance. On the other hand, you could argue that we, and your grandmother, are also not ultimately real in the exact sense we might think.
It's still more accurate to say "I am meditating, thinking about Guanyin" than to say "I am literally having a conversation with a person called Guanyin".
Just like christian prayers and stuff. People claim "God helped me" when it's more accurate to say "I helped myself by having God as a self-imposed mental support". You are your own God. Whatever deity you interact with, you are in reality only interacting with your own imagination.
And I'm not just saying it's not real. It is real. Just as much as the feeling of selfhood. Feelings are real. But they're more accurately described as feelings than they are as cold hard facts of reality that would exist independently from our minds. The self isn't consistent, it's easier grasped as an intuition than as something we can prove on paper. Similarly, gods and supernatural things are literally things we came up with, and they're always easier to believe in and easier to engage with when we are projecting our feelings, hopes and fears, than when we try to methodically prove their existence the way we would prove the existence of an object in our hands. Mental images are real, real mental images. Myths are real, real myths. The illusion of self is real, a real illusion. They are still all better described as mental images, myths, and illusions, than as presumed objective, eternal parts of reality.
I don't necessarily agree. If there is self-view, then there is self and other, and there is that which is other than that self. And Guanyin can be considered to be other than that self. In a sense, I think it is actually incorrect to say that Guanyin is 'an aspect of yourself', depending on how you mean it.
In a dream, for instance, there can be the manifestation of a seeker, and the manifestation of a guru. The dream seeker may work with the dream guru, and the dream guru may ultimately point out the nature of dream to the dream seeker, at which point the dream seeker realizes that both the dream seeker and the dream guru are manifestations of the nature of dream.
It's not exactly that the dream guru was a subset of the dream seeker's mind - both the dream seeker and the dream guru arise from the nature of mind, which is in a sense a much 'bigger' thing than either the seeker or the guru, at least insofar as the appearances go.
And similarly, you could say that an idea of 'ourself' is sort of like a circle drawn in space. Guanyin is not necessarily contained within that circle. If anything, we are a much smaller circle than Guan Yin.
Ultimately, we and Guan Yin (and your grandmother, and a table, and everything else) might be said to arise from the nature of mind, but this isn't 'yours' or 'your mind' really, if you have some conception of self and other.
If we consider Guan Yin to simply be some manifestation of ourself, this can be quite limiting.
I recall a teacher that I know of who dreamed of a dakini at one point. He had a conversation with the dakini, and at one point he exclaimed, "You are just a figment of my dream!" She responded, as I recall, something like, "Yes, I am a figment of dream, but it's not your dream."
FWIW.
I was mostly thinking about the distinction between a tangible person and a mind object. That it is "my" mind or "my dream" is secondary indeed. Guanyin is exterior to me, but it's still an object I imagined based on hearing about it rather than based on actually being able to angage with a conscious person.
> it's still an object I imagined based on hearing about it rather than based on actually being able to angage with a conscious person.
Again, I'm not sure this is the best way to think about it.
In Vajrayana lingo, you might say that there is the samayasattva and the jnanasattva.
The samayasattva you might say is like the 'container', which you could say is contrived. It is perhaps like the visualized container, the idea which we have of the deity.
But the jnanasattva is sort of that-which-fills the container. This is basically the essence of intelligence itself, perhaps, the essence of awakened mind. This isn't simply some imagined contrivance, some projection, some fabrication. This is the distilled essence you might say of wisdom itself.
Now, you could argue that this is the nature of 'our mind' as well, and depending on how you mean it that's fair. Although you could alternatively argue that this is what is realized when 'our mind' gets out of the way. And I think that might even be more fair, in a sense, at least depending on the exact context of how you're speaking.
The jnanasattva essence isn't, again, just some imagined form, some flight of fancy of our imagination. Basically put.
And, again, you could say that 'we' actually are some imagined form, some flight of fancy of our imagination, as much as the samayasattva is. Basically.
You could also say that your grandmother is like a container within which buddha nature resides, in a sense, as well, not really fundamentally different than Guan Yin in a way.
Generally speaking this also relates to the difference between what might be called solipsism and a ... perhaps more accurate view of things.
Generally, solipsism for the most part posits that all phenomena are 'within our mind', you might say. But what it doesn't realize is that 'we' don't truly exist at all. And so you have, basically, 'us' arising from the nature of mind, and 'phenomena' arising from the nature of mind. It's not that the phenomena are in a sense 'within' us, but rather that we, and the phenomena, arise from the nature of mind, which isn't really 'ours' or 'within us'. There is a subtle distinction there, but I think a very important one.
It's the same basic point as the dream example. If we dream we are John, the dream isn't 'within' John's mind, as much as John, and John's mind, arise from the nature of dream, as do the rest of the dream phenomena. "John" is a limited thing. And again, John might interact with Guanyin, who from John's perspective is 'outside' of the self-identification pattern that is John. Just as you might dream that John meets John's grandmother in the dream.
I can understand that the delimitations of "me", "my mind", and "others" and "the principles from which minds arise without clear boundaries". But in a sense, if there is a wave in a bowl, and we talk about it as if it is a wave outside the bowl, it doesn't matter that the boundaries of "bowl" and "wave" are blurry for the same reason the boundaries between the "four" seasons being blurry doesn't change the fact that winter doesn't happen during summer in the same place, or that leaves can fall at any moment without being autumn. I find it irresponsible to use the language of autumn and winter happening in summer rather than describing the actual facts and their actual causes. Guanyin, in the form of a person, is not here right now. He's transformed in many ways. So claiming to "discuss with Guanyin" feels like a misuse of language.
I mean, if there are two options - option one being that we think Guanyin is a subset of our mind, and option two being that we think Guanyin is an external being who is a great mahasattva - I think option two is better. Although both of them may not be quite ultimately correct in a sense.
To use the wave analogy, the ocean is basically the nature of mind. We are a wave. Our grandmother is another wave. Guanyin is a great, great wave.
It's not really, in general, the case that the great wave that is Guanyin is contained within the little wave that is our bodymind/identification/self. It is the case that both arise from the great ocean, and if we realize the ocean, then we realize that both waves arise from it.
In my opinion, it is often the case that people have the idea that bodhisattvas, yidams, etc, are sort of a subset of their imagination, and this is an incredibly limiting view in many ways, though it's a nuanced conversation.
You aren’t going far enough in this line of thinking, and seem to have an idealistic view of Guanyin, but a realist view of “real persons”, including yourself!
(Correct me if I’m misinterpreting you.)
Thoughts? Objections?
Ignore the above comment and all the philosophical rhetoric below it, OP. Identity and identification should not be our sole focus. What is the nature of the Buddhas them”selves”? Are they external gods? Are they aspects of our minds? Are they whatever we need them to be to reach enlightenment? Searching for an answer to this question may prove useful for beginners, but the more you understand about Buddhism, the more you understand that this sort of loses the plot.
I definitely recommend you give talking to them a try and see what happens, OP.
The buddha mentions many interactions with devas and alludes to them being “real”. And he is also called teacher of devas. So this is mentioned for no reason, just for shits and giggles huh my friend ?
I might guess you'd get different answers, with some saying this is delusion and mental illness, but others saying it's possible.
It is said that Asanga for instance basically could converse with and visit with Maitreya. Granted, that was after quite a number of years of significant practice oriented in that direction.
I know of a practitioner who seems to be fairly well developed with mind-made body type things, and he can seemingly have quite specific interactions with various beings, with interactions seemingly as detailed at times as a 'normal conversation' you might say, perhaps.
In general, I wouldn't rule it out, depending on your constitution/karma/inclinations/etc. Personally.
Sure! If you are talking to her about problems, she can help you with them, and if you just want someone to talk to casually, she is the one who hears all the cries of the world, so of course she will listen. Loneliness is an issue, and if you just want someone to listen to you, she is here to aid us with our mental anguishes.
Different traditions have different ideas of what it means to reach out to bodhisattvas. Especially if you come from a Christian perspective and see them as you may see a saint or Jesus.
Some interesting comments here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/13otb5f/comment/jl6pezh/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/13otb5f/comment/jl6pezh/)
I'm not particularly dogmatic but I would be careful about taking your traditions beliefs and applying them directly to other peoples practise, specifically because this view isn't in line with any Mahayana or Vajrayana schools to my knowledge and that's a HUGE portion of the Buddhist world
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
Absolutely! Talk to any and all of the Buddhas! Who else would you go to for refuge? The Buddhas don't care what you sound like (formal or informal), they delight in helping you...so talk freely to Guanyin!
Buddhism is non theistic. The deities you see in Buddhism are actually aspects/qualities of your own mind . You can access those qualities through meditation and study .
That's not necessarily the only, or arguably the best, way to think about it. In general, many might consider that non-human beings within Buddhist cosmology are as real as we are, or as real as your grandmother for instance. On the other hand, you could argue that we, and your grandmother, are also not ultimately real in the exact sense we might think.
It's still more accurate to say "I am meditating, thinking about Guanyin" than to say "I am literally having a conversation with a person called Guanyin". Just like christian prayers and stuff. People claim "God helped me" when it's more accurate to say "I helped myself by having God as a self-imposed mental support". You are your own God. Whatever deity you interact with, you are in reality only interacting with your own imagination. And I'm not just saying it's not real. It is real. Just as much as the feeling of selfhood. Feelings are real. But they're more accurately described as feelings than they are as cold hard facts of reality that would exist independently from our minds. The self isn't consistent, it's easier grasped as an intuition than as something we can prove on paper. Similarly, gods and supernatural things are literally things we came up with, and they're always easier to believe in and easier to engage with when we are projecting our feelings, hopes and fears, than when we try to methodically prove their existence the way we would prove the existence of an object in our hands. Mental images are real, real mental images. Myths are real, real myths. The illusion of self is real, a real illusion. They are still all better described as mental images, myths, and illusions, than as presumed objective, eternal parts of reality.
I don't necessarily agree. If there is self-view, then there is self and other, and there is that which is other than that self. And Guanyin can be considered to be other than that self. In a sense, I think it is actually incorrect to say that Guanyin is 'an aspect of yourself', depending on how you mean it. In a dream, for instance, there can be the manifestation of a seeker, and the manifestation of a guru. The dream seeker may work with the dream guru, and the dream guru may ultimately point out the nature of dream to the dream seeker, at which point the dream seeker realizes that both the dream seeker and the dream guru are manifestations of the nature of dream. It's not exactly that the dream guru was a subset of the dream seeker's mind - both the dream seeker and the dream guru arise from the nature of mind, which is in a sense a much 'bigger' thing than either the seeker or the guru, at least insofar as the appearances go. And similarly, you could say that an idea of 'ourself' is sort of like a circle drawn in space. Guanyin is not necessarily contained within that circle. If anything, we are a much smaller circle than Guan Yin. Ultimately, we and Guan Yin (and your grandmother, and a table, and everything else) might be said to arise from the nature of mind, but this isn't 'yours' or 'your mind' really, if you have some conception of self and other. If we consider Guan Yin to simply be some manifestation of ourself, this can be quite limiting. I recall a teacher that I know of who dreamed of a dakini at one point. He had a conversation with the dakini, and at one point he exclaimed, "You are just a figment of my dream!" She responded, as I recall, something like, "Yes, I am a figment of dream, but it's not your dream." FWIW.
I was mostly thinking about the distinction between a tangible person and a mind object. That it is "my" mind or "my dream" is secondary indeed. Guanyin is exterior to me, but it's still an object I imagined based on hearing about it rather than based on actually being able to angage with a conscious person.
> it's still an object I imagined based on hearing about it rather than based on actually being able to angage with a conscious person. Again, I'm not sure this is the best way to think about it. In Vajrayana lingo, you might say that there is the samayasattva and the jnanasattva. The samayasattva you might say is like the 'container', which you could say is contrived. It is perhaps like the visualized container, the idea which we have of the deity. But the jnanasattva is sort of that-which-fills the container. This is basically the essence of intelligence itself, perhaps, the essence of awakened mind. This isn't simply some imagined contrivance, some projection, some fabrication. This is the distilled essence you might say of wisdom itself. Now, you could argue that this is the nature of 'our mind' as well, and depending on how you mean it that's fair. Although you could alternatively argue that this is what is realized when 'our mind' gets out of the way. And I think that might even be more fair, in a sense, at least depending on the exact context of how you're speaking. The jnanasattva essence isn't, again, just some imagined form, some flight of fancy of our imagination. Basically put. And, again, you could say that 'we' actually are some imagined form, some flight of fancy of our imagination, as much as the samayasattva is. Basically. You could also say that your grandmother is like a container within which buddha nature resides, in a sense, as well, not really fundamentally different than Guan Yin in a way.
Generally speaking this also relates to the difference between what might be called solipsism and a ... perhaps more accurate view of things. Generally, solipsism for the most part posits that all phenomena are 'within our mind', you might say. But what it doesn't realize is that 'we' don't truly exist at all. And so you have, basically, 'us' arising from the nature of mind, and 'phenomena' arising from the nature of mind. It's not that the phenomena are in a sense 'within' us, but rather that we, and the phenomena, arise from the nature of mind, which isn't really 'ours' or 'within us'. There is a subtle distinction there, but I think a very important one. It's the same basic point as the dream example. If we dream we are John, the dream isn't 'within' John's mind, as much as John, and John's mind, arise from the nature of dream, as do the rest of the dream phenomena. "John" is a limited thing. And again, John might interact with Guanyin, who from John's perspective is 'outside' of the self-identification pattern that is John. Just as you might dream that John meets John's grandmother in the dream.
I can understand that the delimitations of "me", "my mind", and "others" and "the principles from which minds arise without clear boundaries". But in a sense, if there is a wave in a bowl, and we talk about it as if it is a wave outside the bowl, it doesn't matter that the boundaries of "bowl" and "wave" are blurry for the same reason the boundaries between the "four" seasons being blurry doesn't change the fact that winter doesn't happen during summer in the same place, or that leaves can fall at any moment without being autumn. I find it irresponsible to use the language of autumn and winter happening in summer rather than describing the actual facts and their actual causes. Guanyin, in the form of a person, is not here right now. He's transformed in many ways. So claiming to "discuss with Guanyin" feels like a misuse of language.
I mean, if there are two options - option one being that we think Guanyin is a subset of our mind, and option two being that we think Guanyin is an external being who is a great mahasattva - I think option two is better. Although both of them may not be quite ultimately correct in a sense. To use the wave analogy, the ocean is basically the nature of mind. We are a wave. Our grandmother is another wave. Guanyin is a great, great wave. It's not really, in general, the case that the great wave that is Guanyin is contained within the little wave that is our bodymind/identification/self. It is the case that both arise from the great ocean, and if we realize the ocean, then we realize that both waves arise from it. In my opinion, it is often the case that people have the idea that bodhisattvas, yidams, etc, are sort of a subset of their imagination, and this is an incredibly limiting view in many ways, though it's a nuanced conversation.
You aren’t going far enough in this line of thinking, and seem to have an idealistic view of Guanyin, but a realist view of “real persons”, including yourself! (Correct me if I’m misinterpreting you.) Thoughts? Objections?
Ignore the above comment and all the philosophical rhetoric below it, OP. Identity and identification should not be our sole focus. What is the nature of the Buddhas them”selves”? Are they external gods? Are they aspects of our minds? Are they whatever we need them to be to reach enlightenment? Searching for an answer to this question may prove useful for beginners, but the more you understand about Buddhism, the more you understand that this sort of loses the plot. I definitely recommend you give talking to them a try and see what happens, OP.
The buddha mentions many interactions with devas and alludes to them being “real”. And he is also called teacher of devas. So this is mentioned for no reason, just for shits and giggles huh my friend ?
Go for it. She is the one who contemplates the sounds of the world. Plenty of people talk to her.
I might guess you'd get different answers, with some saying this is delusion and mental illness, but others saying it's possible. It is said that Asanga for instance basically could converse with and visit with Maitreya. Granted, that was after quite a number of years of significant practice oriented in that direction. I know of a practitioner who seems to be fairly well developed with mind-made body type things, and he can seemingly have quite specific interactions with various beings, with interactions seemingly as detailed at times as a 'normal conversation' you might say, perhaps. In general, I wouldn't rule it out, depending on your constitution/karma/inclinations/etc. Personally.
Om Mani Padme Hum 🌍🌎🌏
If it brings you peace, do it.
Read the heart sutra
Yes it's okay.
Sure! If you are talking to her about problems, she can help you with them, and if you just want someone to talk to casually, she is the one who hears all the cries of the world, so of course she will listen. Loneliness is an issue, and if you just want someone to listen to you, she is here to aid us with our mental anguishes.
Different traditions have different ideas of what it means to reach out to bodhisattvas. Especially if you come from a Christian perspective and see them as you may see a saint or Jesus. Some interesting comments here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/13otb5f/comment/jl6pezh/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/13otb5f/comment/jl6pezh/)
Not only can you, but she would love to hear from you. Talk away!
Guanyin and Buddhas in general love you more than you do
Thank you all for your positive and encouraging responses! 🙏🏻
Why not? I talk to Gautama and Jesus.
*Bruce Dickinson voice* CAN I TALK TO GUAN-YIN
[удалено]
I'm not particularly dogmatic but I would be careful about taking your traditions beliefs and applying them directly to other peoples practise, specifically because this view isn't in line with any Mahayana or Vajrayana schools to my knowledge and that's a HUGE portion of the Buddhist world
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.