Very good articles on mental activities
-
These are very good articles on types of mental activities and meditation from Dzogchen perspective.
1. Recognizing Different Levels of Mental Activity and Appearance-Making
2. The Steps of Dzogchen Meditation
Please don't be too quick to dismiss the articles. They are really exceptually well-written.
regards
-
Thanks for the sharing...
-
The conceptual categories that conceptual cognition fabricates are cognitive representations snang-ba, mental appearances) not only of what things are (words, meanings, wholes, continuums, objects, kinds of things, and so on), but also of things truly existing in that way. Truly existing (bden-par grub-pa), here, means really existing in that way, independently of imputation.
I guess this is why concepts have a spell-like effect on most of us...
-
I think the two articles are truly good.
I'm still halfway through the first article.
-
Welcome...
Just a sharing.
I am beginning to move more into 'non-conceptuality'..
My experience is that the more concepts and beliefs that we have accumulated the more confusing this stage is.
Those of us who like to 'collect' all kinds of spiritual informations will have a very hard time here. The arising of the memories of these informations will cause the mind to grasp onto them for verification and validation. In the process, one will discover that all these informations are just mental words or imageries ... with no reality at all. But nevertheless, the clinging bond (of semantics and meaning) to these spiritual informations will make 'letting go' of the desire hard and fearful.
Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts. At this stage, the mental narrative of these insights will have to be 'recognised' as mental concepts also and be allowed to 'liberate'. In another word, the insights themselves were accompanied by 'conceptual wordings'. These conceptual wordings must also be recognised and released.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The conceptual categories that conceptual cognition fabricates are cognitive representations snang-ba, mental appearances) not only of what things are (words, meanings, wholes, continuums, objects, kinds of things, and so on), but also of things truly existing in that way. Truly existing (bden-par grub-pa), here, means really existing in that way, independently of imputation.
I guess this is why concepts have a spell-like effect on most of us...
IMO,
The way that the articles are being written is very precise and systematic.
Certainly the works of accomplished teachers.
-
Originally posted by longchen:
Welcome...
Just a sharing.
I am beginning to move more into 'non-conceptuality'..
My experience is that the more concepts and beliefs that we have accumulated the more confusing this stage is.
Those of us who like to 'collect' all kinds of spiritual informations will have a very hard time here. The arising of the memories of these informations will cause the mind to grasp onto them for verification and validation. In the process, one will discover that all these informations are just mental words or imageries ... with no reality at all. But nevertheless, the clinging bond (of semantics and meaning) to these spiritual informations will make 'letting go' of the desire hard and fearful.
Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts. At this stage, the mental narrative of these insights will have to be 'recognised' as mental concepts also and be allowed to 'liberate'. In another word, the insights themselves were accompanied by 'conceptual wordings'. These conceptual wordings must also be recognised and released.
Hi, does this part from the first article describe what you're going through?
How Voidness Is Known
There are two levels of voidness (stong-pa-nyid, Skt. shunyata, emptiness):
- voidness that is a conceptual construct,
- voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs.
Voidness, as an absolute absence (med-dgag, nonimplicative negation) of true existence as “this” or “that,” is the conceptual construct or abstraction “there is no such thing as truly existent ‘this’s and ‘that’s.” It can only be known conceptually and is that to which the word or concept “voidness” refers.
Cognizing this level of voidness is a necessary stepping-stone to cognizing definitive voidness, which is beyond all conceptual categories and beyond all words. Although voidness can be referred to by a conceptual construct or word, voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs (definitive voidness) does not correspond to anything a word or concept would correspond to, namely something existing in the fixed box or category of “voidness.”
Thus, the two levels of voidness are not contradictory. It is not that voidness “beyond” is a transcendental level in the sense of being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge, and only accessed through a mystical experience, perhaps gained by the grace of God. It merely means that it is beyond the limits of what conceptual cognition and nonconceptual sensory and mental cognition can cognize.
Voidness as a conceptual construct can only be cognized conceptually. We cognize it conceptually by our mental consciousness giving rise to a mental aspect resembling an empty or blank space, and superimposing or projecting onto it the audio and meaning categories “voidness.” This does not mean, however, that when conceptually focusing on voidness, we necessarily also must have a mental aspect resembling the sound of the vowels and consonants of the word “voidness.” The conceptual cognition of voidness may be nonverbal. Nevertheless, since the mental representations (the conceptual categories) that appear in conceptual cognition are necessarily appearances of true existence, the empty or blank space appears to be a voidness that truly exists in the concrete category “voidness.” The meaning category associated with it, however, is the correct meaning of voidness – namely, the absolute absence of true existence.
Voidness that is beyond concepts can only be cognized nonconceptually, but it cannot be cognized by nonconceptual mental cognition. Nonconceptual mental cognition produces a mental aspect of something not truly existing as a “this” or a “that.” However, voidness that is beyond concepts is beyond all four extremes:- truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- both truly and not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- neither truly nor non-truly existing as a “this” or a “that.”
Therefore, voidness that is beyond concepts does not cognitively appear as a mental aspect of an empty or blank space that appears to be a voidness in the category of a non-truly existent “ voidness.”
[See: Affirmations, Negations, and Denumerable and Nondenumerable Ultimate Phenomena.]
Only Clear Light Mental Activity Can Cognize Voidness beyond Concepts
Only clear light mental activity can have nonconceptual cognition of voidness beyond concepts, and when it does, it has nonconceptual cognition of the two truths (bden-gnyis) simultaneously.
In this context, the two truths are:- voidness beyond concepts,
- pure appearances (dag-pa’i snang-ba) – appearances that are beyond impure appearances (ma-dag-pa’i snang-ba).
Impure appearances include:
- appearances of truly existent “this”s and “that”s,
- appearances of sensibilia, such as momentary collections of patchs of colored shapes, that are not truly existent as “this”s and “that”s.
[See: Divisions, Causes, and Elimination of Unpurified Appearance-Making According to Non-Gelug.]
Cognition of impure appearances resembles “periscope vision,” with which we view reality through a limited perspective, as if through a periscope. We see only what is in front of our noses, seemingly separated and isolated from the state beyond the seemingly solid categories of words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, on the other hand, produces and cognizes appearances of what are beyond truly and non-truly existent “this”s and “that”s. That does not mean, however, that with clear light cognition, everything becomes an undifferentiated oneness. Objects retain their conventional identities. Moreover, clear light mental activity produces and cognizes appearances both of all phenomena and of itself, for instance as a Buddha-figure. Simultaneously, it also cognizes the voidness of them that is beyond words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, however, may be divided into two:- clear light that does not know that the two truths it cognizes are true,
- clear light that knows that they are true.
-
Something by Thusness in the past: ... Sensation and impression are labels defined by a dualistic mind. When we name and label them as such, it will have subtle power over us so subtle that it may go undetected. Our mind will be confused by these definitions until we are able to go beyond the effect of these subtle imprints and stabilize our intuitive experience, further understanding of the source will be limited because in Buddhism it is this intuitive mind (not the conceptual mind) that can understand the source.
-
Originally posted by longchen:
Welcome...
Just a sharing.
I am beginning to move more into 'non-conceptuality'..
My experience is that the more concepts and beliefs that we have accumulated the more confusing this stage is.
Those of us who like to 'collect' all kinds of spiritual informations will have a very hard time here. The arising of the memories of these informations will cause the mind to grasp onto them for verification and validation. In the process, one will discover that all these informations are just mental words or imageries ... with no reality at all. But nevertheless, the clinging bond (of semantics and meaning) to these spiritual informations will make 'letting go' of the desire hard and fearful.
Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts. At this stage, the mental narrative of these insights will have to be 'recognised' as mental concepts also and be allowed to 'liberate'. In another word, the insights themselves were accompanied by 'conceptual wordings'. These conceptual wordings must also be recognised and released.
Regarding "Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts."
Thusness told me my (initial) non-dual experiences (though different from realising the nature of reality as non-dual) were the result of summarising what I have learnt... and that when the mind is searching for an answer it stumbles onto the non-dual experience, if I get what he is saying. It's like the mind has the answer subconsciously (through learning of dharma knowledge) even though it is not known in conscious awareness. That is why he told me to continue summarising, and of cos to continue practicing hard so that we can go beyond the conceptual understanding into direct experience.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Hi, does this part from the first article describe what you're going through?
How Voidness Is Known
There are two levels of voidness (stong-pa-nyid, Skt. shunyata, emptiness):
- voidness that is a conceptual construct,
- voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs.
Voidness, as an absolute absence (med-dgag, nonimplicative negation) of true existence as “this” or “that,” is the conceptual construct or abstraction “there is no such thing as truly existent ‘this’s and ‘that’s.” It can only be known conceptually and is that to which the word or concept “voidness” refers.
Cognizing this level of voidness is a necessary stepping-stone to cognizing definitive voidness, which is beyond all conceptual categories and beyond all words. Although voidness can be referred to by a conceptual construct or word, voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs (definitive voidness) does not correspond to anything a word or concept would correspond to, namely something existing in the fixed box or category of “voidness.”
Thus, the two levels of voidness are not contradictory. It is not that voidness “beyond” is a transcendental level in the sense of being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge, and only accessed through a mystical experience, perhaps gained by the grace of God. It merely means that it is beyond the limits of what conceptual cognition and nonconceptual sensory and mental cognition can cognize.
Voidness as a conceptual construct can only be cognized conceptually. We cognize it conceptually by our mental consciousness giving rise to a mental aspect resembling an empty or blank space, and superimposing or projecting onto it the audio and meaning categories “voidness.” This does not mean, however, that when conceptually focusing on voidness, we necessarily also must have a mental aspect resembling the sound of the vowels and consonants of the word “voidness.” The conceptual cognition of voidness may be nonverbal. Nevertheless, since the mental representations (the conceptual categories) that appear in conceptual cognition are necessarily appearances of true existence, the empty or blank space appears to be a voidness that truly exists in the concrete category “voidness.” The meaning category associated with it, however, is the correct meaning of voidness – namely, the absolute absence of true existence.
Voidness that is beyond concepts can only be cognized nonconceptually, but it cannot be cognized by nonconceptual mental cognition. Nonconceptual mental cognition produces a mental aspect of something not truly existing as a “this” or a “that.” However, voidness that is beyond concepts is beyond all four extremes:- truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- both truly and not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- neither truly nor non-truly existing as a “this” or a
“that.”
Therefore, voidness that is beyond concepts does not cognitively appear as a mental aspect of an empty or blank space that appears to be a voidness in the category of a non-truly existent “ voidness.”
[See: Affirmations, Negations, and Denumerable and Nondenumerable Ultimate Phenomena.]
Only Clear Light Mental Activity Can Cognize Voidness beyond Concepts
Only clear light mental activity can have nonconceptual cognition of voidness beyond concepts, and when it does, it has nonconceptual cognition of the two truths (bden-gnyis) simultaneously.
In this context, the two truths are:- voidness beyond concepts,
- pure appearances (dag-pa’i snang-ba) – appearances
that are beyond impure appearances (ma-dag-pa’i
snang-ba).
Impure appearances include:
- appearances of truly existent “this”s and “that”s,
- appearances of sensibilia, such as momentary collections of patchs of colored shapes, that are not truly existent as “this”s and “that”s.
[See: Divisions, Causes, and Elimination of Unpurified Appearance-Making According to Non-Gelug.]
Cognition of impure appearances resembles “periscope vision,” with which we view reality through a limited perspective, as if through a periscope. We see only what is in front of our noses, seemingly separated and isolated from the state beyond the seemingly solid categories of words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, on the other hand, produces and cognizes appearances of what are beyond truly and non-truly existent “this”s and “that”s. That does not mean, however, that with clear light cognition, everything becomes an undifferentiated oneness. Objects retain their conventional identities. Moreover, clear light mental activity produces and cognizes appearances both of all phenomena and of itself, for instance as a Buddha-figure. Simultaneously, it also cognizes the voidness of them that is beyond words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, however, may be divided into two:- clear light that does not know that the two truths it cognizes are true,
- clear light that knows that they are true.
The first part, yes.
However, i don't think i am at full clear light cognition yet.
Basically, at this stage, more of the mental conceptualization can be 'clearly seen'. This allows the movement beyond the “periscope vision,” which is how things are seem when in dualistic mode.
Here, one can see how 'recognizing' mental concepts and releasing them creates a sense of freedom and liberation.
-
I see...
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Regarding "Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts."
Thusness told me my (initial) non-dual experiences (though different from realising the nature of reality as non-dual) were the result of summarising what I have learnt... and that when the mind is searching for an answer it subconsciously stumbles onto the non-dual experience, if I get what he is saying. It's like the mind has the answer subconsciously (through learning of dharma knowledge) even though it is not known in conscious awareness. That is why he told me to continue summarising, and of cos to continue practicing hard so that we can go beyond the conceptual understanding into direct experience.
mmm.... may not be the same.
IMO,
The way our mind work is that when even in non-dual.. there will be a mental narrative that accompany that experience, that will say ' this is non-dual... blah..blah'. These accompanying mental narrative is conceptualization and thus has no connection to reality.
The same goes for all our experiences... the mental conceptualization accompanies sensory perception and start to do story-telling. This story-telling is devoid of reality and is addictive. Once the story-telling is recognised 'intuitively', they can lose their conditioning power....
-
Originally posted by longchen:
mmm.... may not be the same.
IMO,
The way our mind work is that when even in non-dual.. there will be a mental narrative that accompany that experience, that will say ' this is non-dual... blah..blah'. These accompanying mental narrative is conceptualization and thus has no connection to reality.
The same goes for all our experiences... the mental conceptualization accompanies sensory perception and start to do story-telling. This story-telling is devoid of reality and is addictive. Once the story-telling is recognised 'intuitively', they can lose their conditioning power....
Ah yes, I notice my mind is still very active if some sort of experience comes, it gets excited and wants to label it... or if it encounters an experience never experienced before, it too wants to search for an answer though it is beyond the mind's grasp. The mind is fearful of the unknown, the illusion just doesn't want to die.. LOL. Everything has to be explained, from trees to sky to non-duality. Quite silly but it's like some sort of karmic propensity.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Ah yes, I notice my mind is still very active if some sort of experience comes, it gets excited and wants to label it... or if it encounters an experience never experienced before, it too wants to search for an answer though it is beyond the mind's grasp. The mind is fearful of the unknown, the illusion just doesn't want to die.. LOL. Everything has to be explained, from trees to sky to non-duality. Quite silly but it's like some sort of karmic propensity.
'Fearful of the unknown' is a deep karmic propensity that all of us have. Lots of courage is required to just 'don't know'.
Conceptualization is just the 'first half' of understanding... it never really touch reality directly.... because they are 'personal' mental impressions.
-
Yes very true...
Thusness (old posts):
Be the big question mark and ride on the cloud of unknowing, without arbitary thought, experience the immediate! At that moment whatever it is, it is entire.
....
(unrelated notes on 'spiritual inquiry', just for sharing:)
A mind full of schemes is not lack of answers so questions are asked but no answers expected. The purpose is to lead us to the unfathomably deep and rest in the place empty of known. To be alive, we need to experience the wonder that arises out of silence. This is the path of the traceless.
....
A.H.Almaas: "Well the first thing about inquiry, is to recognise that we don't know basic things about ourselves and reality. To have the humility to NOT KNOW. And also to have the courage. It's very scary to say 'I don't know who I am; what I am', or to know what is going on now. First that's the opening is the humility to acknowledge we don't know. In science they call it doubt or scepticism. But here it is not really doubt or scepticism. The doubt and scepticism turns into an emotional thing. What here is just an openness. 'I don't really know'. After that, is the love to find out. The heart-felt appreciation of 'What is the truth of us? What I am? What am I? What is humanity? What is reality? What is God?', from a loving and also curious place. So that's the general inquiry about knowing about spiritual nature. There are many things that will help us - steadfastness; courageous; an openness and curiosity that brings in questions."
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes very true...
Thusness (old posts):
Be the big question mark and ride on the cloud of unknowing, without arbitary thought, experience the immediate! At that moment whatever it is, it is entire.
....
(unrelated notes on 'spiritual inquiry', just for sharing:)
A mind full of schemes is not lack of answers so questions are asked but no answers expected. The purpose is to lead us to the unfathomably deep and rest in the place empty of known. To be alive, we need to experience the wonder that arises out of silence. This is the path of the traceless.
....
A.H.Almaas: "Well the first thing about inquiry, is to recognise that we don't know basic things about ourselves and reality. To have the humility to NOT KNOW. And also to have the courage. It's very scary to say 'I don't know who I am; what I am', or to know what is going on now. First that's the opening is the humility to acknowledge we don't know. In science they call it doubt or scepticism. But here it is not really doubt or scepticism. The doubt and scepticism turns into an emotional thing. What here is just an openness. 'I don't really know'. After that, is the love to find out. The heart-felt appreciation of 'What is the truth of us? What I am? What am I? What is humanity? What is reality? What is God?', from a loving and also curious place. So that's the general inquiry about knowing about spiritual nature. There are many things that will help us - steadfastness; courageous; an openness and curiosity that brings in questions."
More on Koans, by Zen Teacher Steve Hagen:
INTRODUCTION TO THE IRON FLUTE
Not What You Think
by Steve Hagen
The Iron Flute
by Nyogen Senzaki
Charles E. Tuttle Publishing Co.Click here to download PDF version
When I first began practicing Zen under Dainin Katagiri Roshi, he asked me to comment on a Zen koan. I told him, in all honesty, that I found the koan puzzling. Immediately his face wrinkled up as if he had bitten into a lemon. “Not puzzle!” he shouted. He quickly made it clear to me that Zen teachings are not puzzles to which we students are expected to come up with clever answers.People often think of koans as riddles or problems that need to be solved. But this is not the case at all. With every koan, the point is not to arrive at an answer through our ordinary, conceptualizing minds. Rather, the point is to see for ourselves that our concepts can never provide us with a satisfying answer. (This is not that satisfaction cannot be found. It can—but not through any concept or explanation.)
Unlike school exams, koans are not a matter of coming up with the right answer and thereby winning an endorsement or gaining the teacher’s approval. There is a great deal more at play in these exchanges between Zen teachers and their students. Indeed, if it were merely a matter of coming up with the right answer, you could simply look it up in one of several volumes that claim to provide answers to koans. But in an exchange with a true teacher, this isn’t going to do you much good. If you don’t understand the heart of a koan, it will be quite obvious the moment you’re asked a follow-up question—one that’s not in one of the books.
No concept, no idea, no piece of intellection will ever give you “the answer.” Whether we’re talking about life or koans (the same thing, really), there are no pat answers or solutions.
For this reason, koans have often been labeled anti-intellectual, or irrational, or as invitations for us to abandon ourselves to our impulses or our irrational minds. Indeed, some people unfamiliar with Zen think that Zen practice is about acting strange and silly, or making outlandish statements, or forgetting everything and just letting the flowers bloom. Some scholars and writers have even claimed that the purpose of koans is to break down and destroy the intellect. None of this, however, is true.
Though koans do reach beyond reason, they’re not a call to destroy or deny the intellect. They simply point out that Reality is not to be captured in a thought, or a phrase, or an explanation. Reality is the direct seeing of the world as it is, not as our intellects map it, describe it, or conceive it.
It’s not that human intellect is bad or that we must get rid of it; but we must bring ourselves back to the fact that the intellect can only construct models of Reality, never Reality itself. Our problem, however, is that we get taken in by our mental constructions, mistaking them for Reality. The fact is that Reality cannot be constructed, nor does it need to be. It’s already here—and we’re all inseparable from it. If we could only see this, we’d be freed from a great and painful burden. We’d no longer be confused or cowed by human life.
Another common misunderstanding of koans is that they are exercises of wit in which the teacher asks the question, and the student must immediately come back with an adroit response. In this erroneous view, koans are a jousting game in which teacher and student strike and counter-strike, each trying to best the other. Though some teacher/student exchanges may give this appearance, to use the model of a debate or contest is to miss the point entirely.
Koans also have a reputation for being paradoxical, enigmatic, and inscrutable—and, thus, Zen itself has gotten a reputation for being the same. But koans themselves are not paradoxes at all. Rather, they direct our attention to the sense of contradiction or paradox that naturally arises in any conception of the world. Koans help us to see that these apparent contradictions in fact occur only within our minds, not within the world itself.
Rather than serving up an idea or conceptual framework that will supposedly save us, koans help us to recognize how we constantly do indeed reach for prefabricated explanations and answers. They also help us to see that this never gets us anywhere. Indeed, it is this very grasping for conceptual solutions and explanations that causes us so many problems. Yet even as we grasp at concepts, we overlook the supreme treasure that is right at hand—Reality itself.
The term koan is generally translated as “public case.” But what, exactly, makes a koan public? Simply this: every koan is a finger pointing to Reality, to what is right now, right here. Reality is totally and immediately available to everyone all the time. It doesn’t have to be transmitted to you by a teacher. In fact, it can’t be. You can’t get it from a book, either. Nobody can hand it to you. It’s already right here. We’re inseparable from it. There’s nothing in our experience more public that Truth or Reality itself.
The koans presented in this volume were collected in the eighteenth century C.E by Genro, a Soto Zen master. This may seem somewhat unusual, since koans are thought to be more widely used by Rinzai Zen teachers. The Soto school generally does not use koans in one-to-one teacher/student interactions. This is probably due to Dogen Zenji, who transmitted Soto Zen from China to Japan in the thirteenth century C.E. Though he used koans as teaching stories, he frowned on their regular use as hoops for students to jump through. He found such graduated training to be wide of the mark and short on delivery.
Dogen defined the term ko as “sameness” or “ultimate equality.” According to Dogen, every thing, thought, or emotion we encounter or experience is an equal and necessary component of Reality. Nothing is superfluous. Nothing is left out. In fact, nothing can be left out. Whether we recognize it or not, we’re always dealing with Totality, which is utterly beyond our concepts of part or whole, equal or unequal.
The term an, according to Dogen, means that everything within Totality has its own natural territory or sphere. For Dogen, then, a true koan is an authentic expression of the merging of difference and unity, the thoroughgoing interpenetration of the Whole and its “parts.”
Related to the matter of Totality is non-duality. Our conceptualizing minds are highly dualistic. They keep themselves busy thinking, analyzing, controlling, and scheming. To such a mind, everything is either good or bad, right or wrong, friend or foe, this or that—or else off our personal radar altogether. But koans point beyond all this, to the immediate and first-hand non-duality of Reality. Koans are expressions of immediate awareness—before we categorize, label, arrange, or evaluate everything.
Koans also point to the freedom of non-attachment—a major theme in Zen. Non-attachment is the recognition that thoughts of “this is right and that is wrong,” “this we should do and that we shouldn’t do,” “it ought to be like this,” or “this is what I want, and that is what I don’t want,” only serve to make our lives complicated, contradictory, confusing, and ultimately unbearable. Such thinking fills our hearts and minds with longing and loathing—all of which drives us to anger, frustration, and despair. Koans cut through such confusion and draw our attention to things as they are, before we make judgments about them and create contradictions for ourselves.
Non-attachment is not the same as detachment. Detachment presumes the realness of the objects of our longing and loathing, then counsels us to turn away from them. It’s an attempt to escape from Reality. But there is no escape from Reality. Non-attachment, on the other hand, is to see the emptiness, the non-particularity, of every thing or thought we encounter.
Koans speak of genuineness and ordinariness—actual, True, Reality—without any need for explanation, embellishment, or improvement. They remind us that we don’t need to push the river, or add legs to the snake.
Reality is always right there, out in the open—a public case. Dealing with it is forever a matter of calming down, focussing, and noticing how we spend the greater portion of our time explaining everything to ourselves. Koans—like meditation—are a practical way of watching our own minds, paying careful attention to what is really going on, and perceiving Reality directly, free of our ideas about it, explanations for it, and habitual responses to it.
In short, koans are serious business. They’re about life and death, about all our deepest questions and concerns—the ones that are most immediate, urgent, and unavoidable. Life isn’t a matter of pleasing the teacher or getting the right answer or passing a test. Koans direct us to be present with what is going on now, and to notice how our minds respond to this.
Once this is seen, there’s no wasting of the day, or yourself, or the world. What binds you drops away, and you will let it go.
STEVE HAGEN
©2000 -
Originally posted by longchen:
mmm.... may not be the same.
IMO,
The way our mind work is that when even in non-dual.. there will be a mental narrative that accompany that experience, that will say ' this is non-dual... blah..blah'. These accompanying mental narrative is conceptualization and thus has no connection to reality.
The same goes for all our experiences... the mental conceptualization accompanies sensory perception and start to do story-telling. This story-telling is devoid of reality and is addictive. Once the story-telling is recognised 'intuitively', they can lose their conditioning power....
The Main Case
Venerable Bodhidharma was about to go back to India. He said to his students, "The time has come. Can you express your understanding?" 1
[View Footnotes]
One of the students, Daofu said, "My present view is that we should neither be attached to letters, nor be apart from letters, and to allow the Way to function freely." 2
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my skin." 3
Nun Zongchi said, "My view is that it is like the joy of seeing Akshobhya Buddha’s land just once and not again." 4
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my flesh." 5
Daoyu said, "The four great elements are originally empty and the five skandhas do not exist. Therefore, I see nothing to be attained." 6
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my bones." 7
Finally Huike came forward, made a full bow, stood up, and returned to where he was. 8
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my marrow." 9
Thus he transmitted the Dharma and robe to Huike. 10The Commentary
If you take these different responses as being superior or inferior to each other, you have missed the intent of the Ancestor. We should realize that although each disciple’s expression of the Dharma was different than the others, nonetheless, each in his or her own way contained the teacher’s whole being. Given that Bodhidharma was not approving the depth of understanding by the use of the terms "skin, flesh, bones and marrow," who did he transmit the Dharma to? If you say all four received the Dharma, why then is it said that "thus he transmitted the Dharma and robe to Huike" alone? If you are able to see into it here, you will understand the heart of the Ancestor.
The Capping Verse
Before a step is taken,
You have already arrived.
Before a word is spoken,
The truth has been expressed.The Footnotes
1. Finding one general among the four will be a very difficult task indeed.
[Return to Main Case]
2. Avoiding the curbsides, he navigates right down the middle of the road.
3. He doesn’t avoid grandmotherly kindness.
4. Only an adept can speak like this. After
all, she is a lion’s cub.
5. Although there are many who travel the Way, those that know the tune are rare.
6. Deaf, dumb, and blind, he stumbles along.
7. A spirit recognizes a spirit, a thief recognizes a thief.
8. Proceeding by Bodhidharma’s own road, he walks right into the old man’s belly.
9. Clearly the case of an overindulgent parent.
10. One blind man leading a crowd of blind people. Where will this all come down to?Footnote: *300 Koan Shobogenzo is a collection of koans gathered by Master Dogen during his study in China. The koans from this collection, often called the Chinese Shobogenzo, appear extensively in the essays of Dogen’s Japanese Shobogenzo. These koans have not been available in English translation but are currently being translated and prepared for publication by Kazuaki Tanahashi and Abbot John Daido Loori. Abbot Loori has added a commentary, capping verse, and footnotes to each koan.
-
Found an old post by Thusness in August 2006:
Ai yoo...why sink back to "Apparent in Real"....but anyway time to take a break…. You may want to take leisure read on the 5 degree of Tozan. http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=198803
The doctrine of no-self cuts through everything and bring us face to face with emotion, impression, sensation, thoughts…and all mental states, directly ‘seeing’ no one there, just it!
Next one must go beyond the subtle imprints of words and labels and sees the essence of these sensations, impressions and all mental states. Just like laying a book on a patch of grass leaving a temporary imprint, words and labels create these subtle imprints that confuse the mind. It will take 2-3 years before the experience of “Real in the Apparent’ is stabilized. Dissolve completely (self and all views including your scientific views) into the incredible realness and vividness of the Apparent.
If we spend even a thought moment sinking back to the source, we immediately fall prey to the habitual energy and descend back to the “Apparent in the Real”. This makes no-self a dead “AMness”.
From the experience of the “Real in Apparent”, everything is the One Mind; there is nothing else. The non-inherent nature creates all manifestations in lightning flash moments and the Apparent becomes the ‘otherness’. Great mystics though experienced the ‘Apparent in the Real’ knows not the emptiness nature seek the invisible from the visible, hold tightly to the formless. Not knowing that neither the form nor formless are both notions of the marvelous activities of emptiness nature. Get used to this experience and don’t waste your experience.....but it will take some years...happy journey... -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The 'clear light' is the 'luminosity'. In actuality there is no 'Emptiness' to be cognized beyond concepts for 'Emptiness' is just a 'raft' that exist only in conceptuality. The purpose is to negate the dualistic and inherent views so that the true nature that is beyond the four extremes can be correctly intuit. When the mind is still deeply rooted in seeing things dualitically and inherently, it cannot know what is the true meaning of 'non-conceptuality', 'non-abiding''no-self' and so on. Therefore 'Emptiness nature' is taught but in essence it is pathless.
In actual practice there is no 'the pathless path' but when seen by a dualistic mind, there appears to be a 'truly existing pathless path' to be followed. This is similar to the senario when someone remark that 'everything changes' and we asked 'what about change?'. The dualistic and inherent mind is quick to objectify and is unable to 'understand' beyond its own dualistic/inherent framework. When a mind is deeply rooted in seeing things dualistically/inherently, whatever experiences is distorted due to story telling.
Whatever mental activity that is 'this' or 'that' is within the dualistic/inherent framework. Whatever arising phenomena be it thought, emotion, forms and so on are already the Luminosity itself when without the story telling. Everything 'already is' and is the One Reality but because of story there appears to be a 'separation' and when 'Emptiness' becomes a story, it fails to serve as the antedote for our dualistic/inherent views.
Thus only for the purpose of communication the above quote is written that way; there is only 'Emptiness' to be cognized by a dualistic/inherent mind, no 'Emptiness' to be cognized in true luminosity.
Just a sharing. :)
-
Originally posted by longchen:
mmm.... may not be the same.
IMO,
The way our mind work is that when even in non-dual.. there will be a mental narrative that accompany that experience, that will say ' this is non-dual... blah..blah'. These accompanying mental narrative is conceptualization and thus has no connection to reality.
The same goes for all our experiences... the mental conceptualization accompanies sensory perception and start to do story-telling. This story-telling is devoid of reality and is addictive. Once the story-telling is recognised 'intuitively', they can lose their conditioning power....
Well said.
The phenomena is distorted by the story. Even a simply labelling and naming has subtle impact to consciousness. Thus recognizing the strength of the 'spell' is equally important. :)
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Regarding "Even the initial insights that we have about non-duality and other stuffs, are also presented as mental concepts."
Thusness told me my (initial) non-dual experiences (though different from realising the nature of reality as non-dual) were the result of summarising what I have learnt... and that when the mind is searching for an answer it stumbles onto the non-dual experience, if I get what he is saying. It's like the mind has the answer subconsciously (through learning of dharma knowledge) even though it is not known in conscious awareness. That is why he told me to continue summarising, and of cos to continue practicing hard so that we can go beyond the conceptual understanding into direct experience.
For non-dual insight to arise, certain conditions have to arise. Without these conditions, whatever experience will be distorted. When the conditions aren't there and someone taught u to go beyond symbols and labels, either u will be confused or whatever way or attempt to become non-conceptual/bare/naked awareness will prove futile.
As a lay, when you try to un-name/unlabel while your tendency to divide is still strong, u will only attempt to 'will' it off. That is not the way.
Conceptually can also lead to non-conceptuality. That is the whole purpose of 'Emptiness' as a 'Raft'. :)
-
I see.. thanks, Thusness :)
-
I think the article is very well written. Just a sharing of my opinion:
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
How Voidness Is Known
This is more like creating the necessary condition for knowing ‘voidness’ by first knowing ‘voidness’ conceptually. Perhaps ‘Why’ this is possible is a more important question from a practical standpoint. It relates directly to how consciousness works.There are two levels of voidness (stong-pa-nyid, Skt. shunyata, emptiness):
- voidness that is a conceptual construct,
- voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs.
In my opinion, there is no ‘voidness’ that is beyond conceptual constructs. “Voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs” is the direct experience of the Luminosity as the One Reality. Bonded within a dualistic and inherent framework of seeing things, we fail to correctly understand the Emptiness Nature of Luminosity.
Voidness, as an absolute absence (med-dgag, nonimplicative negation) of true existence as “this” or “that,” is the conceptual construct or abstraction “there is no such thing as truly existent ‘this’s and ‘that’s.” It can only be known conceptually and is that to which the word or concept “voidness” refers.
Cognizing this level of voidness is a necessary stepping-stone to cognizing definitive voidness, which is beyond all conceptual categories and beyond all words. Although voidness can be referred to by a conceptual construct or word, voidness that is beyond conceptual constructs (definitive voidness) does not correspond to anything a word or concept would correspond to, namely something existing in the fixed box or category of “voidness.”
Thus, the two levels of voidness are not contradictory. It is not that voidness “beyond” is a transcendental level in the sense of being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge, and only accessed through a mystical experience, perhaps gained by the grace of God. It merely means that it is beyond the limits of what conceptual cognition and nonconceptual sensory and mental cognition can cognize.
Voidness as a conceptual construct can only be cognized conceptually. We cognize it conceptually by our mental consciousness giving rise to a mental aspect resembling an empty or blank space, and superimposing or projecting onto it the audio and meaning categories “voidness.” This does not mean, however, that when conceptually focusing on voidness, we necessarily also must have a mental aspect resembling the sound of the vowels and consonants of the word “voidness.” The conceptual cognition of voidness may be nonverbal. Nevertheless, since the mental representations (the conceptual categories) that appear in conceptual cognition are necessarily appearances of true existence, the empty or blank space appears to be a voidness that truly exists in the concrete category “voidness.” The meaning category associated with it, however, is the correct meaning of voidness – namely, the absolute absence of true existence.
Voidness that is beyond concepts can only be cognized nonconceptually, but it cannot be cognized by nonconceptual mental cognition. Nonconceptual mental cognition produces a mental aspect of something not truly existing as a “this” or a “that.” However, voidness that is beyond concepts is beyond all four extremes:- truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- both truly and not truly existing as a “this” or a “that,”
- neither truly nor non-truly existing as a “this” or a “that.”
Therefore, voidness that is beyond concepts does not cognitively appear as a mental aspect of an empty or blank space that appears to be a voidness in the category of a non-truly existent “ voidness.”
[See: Affirmations, Negations, and Denumerable and Nondenumerable Ultimate Phenomena.]
There are few important points that the above para is trying to convey. First 'non-conceptuality' lies in understanding ‘voidness’ conceptually first. That is, having clarity of the ‘concept of voidness’ is an important condition for the arising of non-conceptuality. This is not separating 'conditions' from the arising of a phenomenon. That is when the propensity to divide is there, understanding conceptually is necessary -- conceptuality leading to non-conceptuality. There are other conditions for prajna wisdom it arise like practicing ‘bare attention’. Second is the emphasis of a 'void background' is an illusion of the mind rather than a direct experience of 'voidness'.
I think there is a missing link here. In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies. That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'. 'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.
Only Clear Light Mental Activity Can Cognize Voidness beyond Concepts
Only clear light mental activity can have nonconceptual cognition of voidness beyond concepts, and when it does, it has nonconceptual cognition of the two truths (bden-gnyis) simultaneously.
In this context, the two truths are:- voidness beyond concepts,
- pure appearances (dag-pa’i snang-ba) – appearances that are beyond impure appearances (ma-dag-pa’i snang-ba).
Impure appearances include:
- appearances of truly existent “this”s and “that”s,
- appearances of sensibilia, such as momentary collections of patchs of colored shapes, that are not truly existent as “this”s and “that”s.
[See: Divisions, Causes, and Elimination of Unpurified Appearance-Making According to Non-Gelug.]
Cognition of impure appearances resembles “periscope vision,” with which we view reality through a limited perspective, as if through a periscope. We see only what is in front of our noses, seemingly separated and isolated from the state beyond the seemingly solid categories of words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, on the other hand, produces and cognizes appearances of what are beyond truly and non-truly existent “this”s and “that”s. That does not mean, however, that with clear light cognition, everything becomes an undifferentiated oneness. Objects retain their conventional identities. Moreover, clear light mental activity produces and cognizes appearances both of all phenomena and of itself, for instance as a Buddha-figure. Simultaneously, it also cognizes the voidness of them that is beyond words and concepts.This is emphasized because the dualistic mind will fabricate an 'undifferentiated oneness' when the para is phrased that way. That is why the clarification is necessary. However the actual experience is beyond speech.
-
I see.. yes, I think Buddha formulated the 8 Fold Path in an ingenius way to describe the path towards to Enlightenment, and the 1st Fold Path is 'Right View' -- thats how important it is, but of course there are many other important aspects:
-
Originally posted by Thusness:
I think the article is very well written. Just a sharing of my opinion:
Hi Thusness,
Thanks for the sharing :)