Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

questions regarding mind

misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a HinduIndia Veteran
edited May 2013 in Philosophy
hi all,

while browsing through internet, came across this web-page : http://buddha-inside.blogspot.in/2009/05/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

on reading it, i saw the lines:
Everything that appears is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the entire external inanimate universe appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though all of the sentient beings of the six realms appear to you they are but a manifestation of mind.


it seems to me that everything is manifestation of mind because it is the mind which experiences everything. but then the question arises - what is mind? does mind exist or does not exist? my thinking says: if mind did not exist, then thoughts could not arise, but since thoughts arise in mind, so mind exist. but mind also cannot exist independently. so mind neither exists, nor does not exist. :eek2:

Is mind empty?
my understanding: Emptiness as i understand is empty of inherent existence, that is empty of essence. So if mind was having essence, then it can exist independently - but mind depends on body - so mind is empty of inherent existence.

please share your thoughts about above questions about mind. is my above thinking and above understanding correct? if not correct, then please correct it.

on reading the above link, it seemed to me that it is same as zen method of meditation of just sitting. So does the above link has same or different method of meditation from zen? please suggest. thanks in advance.
«1

Comments

  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited May 2013
    "Mind" is a label to collect a bunch of experiences together. It is useful to gather all non-bodily experiences under the label of mind, but it is not a thing really. It is a sense. Like 'smell' or 'touch' are not things, so is 'mind' not a thing. Smell is a word to describe that we can have experiences of odours. Mind is a word to describe we can have experiences of mental impressions. One of them is thought, but there can be others. Just like we can smell roses or cut grass, or turds.

    But if we don't smell anything, which often is the case when we are not paying attention to it, it's incorrect to say there is such a thing as "smell". Because no experience of smell is there at the moment. If mental impressions go, it's also inaccurate to speak of a mind. So mind is a conceptualization of what's really going on, which are all processes without a core.
    riverflowChrysalid
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    This seems a statement that accords with the "mind only" philosophy of Zen. I can't find any fault in your understanding so far. You're chewing on the central paradox that can become the key to comprehending your Buddha-Nature. You say the mind is empty of inherent existence or essence. Great! Now that you know what the mind is not, in Zen you'd have to answer, then what IS it?
  • hi all,

    while browsing through internet, came across this web-page : http://buddha-inside.blogspot.in/2009/05/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

    Everything that appears is but a manifestation of mind.

    That is the point. Things can only 'appear' to a mind. (Literally. 'to come into sight').

    Is mind empty?
    ..... but mind depends on body - so mind is empty of inherent existence.

    Consciousness does not depend on body. Vice-versa.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013

    Is mind empty?
    ..... but mind depends on body - so mind is empty of inherent existence.

    Consciousness does not depend on body. Vice-versa.
    @John_Spencer: but my understanding of Buddha's teachings says: consciousness depends on body, as it is of six types based on six sense organs. and consciousness arises when there is a contact of sense-organ with its sense-object.

    seems like there is difference in consciousness to which we are relating to - are you talking about Consciousness or Atman or Soul or Buddha-Nature or some similar word. so can you please explain your statement - Consciousness does not depend on body. thanks in advance.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013
    Cinorjer said:

    You say the mind is empty of inherent existence or essence. Great! Now that you know what the mind is not, in Zen you'd have to answer, then what IS it?

    @Cinorjer: Damn, i am a complete idiot. i again screwed myself up. like last time if you remember in my other thread, if you see this time also, the question which you asked in the end, is the same question which i asked at start. :banghead: it seems to me that i am too stupid to ask only questions and not get any answer.

    By the way, one question regarding meditation - is the meditation described in the above link same as Zen meditation of just sitting, in which we do not try to do anything, rather just try to be aware of whatever is arising in the present moment? or is the meditation described above something different than Zen meditation of just sitting? please suggest. thanks in advance.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran

    Cinorjer said:

    You say the mind is empty of inherent existence or essence. Great! Now that you know what the mind is not, in Zen you'd have to answer, then what IS it?

    @Cinorjer: Damn, i am a complete idiot. i again screwed myself up. like last time if you remember in my other thread, if you see this time also, the question which you asked in the end, is the same question which i asked at start. :banghead: it seems to me that i am too stupid to ask only questions and not get any answer.

    By the way, one question regarding meditation - is the meditation described in the above link same as Zen meditation of just sitting, in which we do not try to do anything, rather just try to be aware of whatever is arising in the present moment? or is the meditation described above something different than Zen meditation of just sitting? please suggest. thanks in advance.
    Well, the teaching is from Padmasambhava and the entire sutra is pure Tibet Buddhism, but not modern Tantric practice and neither is it Zen. Chinese Chan Buddhism had a lot of early influence on Tibet Buddhism but ultimately got sort of overlaid by the esoteric and mystical elements brought in from India monks. Zen went in the other direction with the "mind only" teaching and stressed the inherent emptiness of the mind.
  • Is mind empty?
    ..... but mind depends on body - so mind is empty of inherent existence.

    Consciousness does not depend on body. Vice-versa.
    @John_Spencer: but my understanding of Buddha's teachings says: consciousness depends on body, as it is of six types based on six sense organs. and consciousness arises when there is a contact of sense-organ with its sense-object.

    seems like there is difference in consciousness to which we are relating to - are you talking about Consciousness or Atman or Soul or Buddha-Nature or some similar word. so can you please explain your statement - Consciousness does not depend on body. thanks in advance.
    I am talking about the consciousness that Sariputta references in the Sampasadaniya Sutta:

    "... [U]nsurpassed is the Blessed Lord's way of teaching Dhamma in regard to the attainment of vision.... Here, some ascetic or Brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, vigilence and due attention, reaches such a level of concentration that he ... comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next...." (Sampasadaniya Sutta, DN 28), Ven.[32]

    ie not a singular conscious entity but a stream of consciousness that spans multiple lives.


    OR: Ananda, describes "consciousness" in a way that shows it to be a condition for body and not vice-versa

    "'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
    "No, lord."
    "If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
    "No, lord."
    "If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
    "No, lord."
    "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

    Discourses such as this appear to describe a consciousness that is an animating phenomenon capable of spanning lives thus giving rise to rebirth.
    person
  • it seems to me that everything is manifestation of mind because it is the mind which experiences everything. but then the question arises - what is mind? does mind exist or does not exist? my thinking says: if mind did not exist, then thoughts could not arise, but since thoughts arise in mind, so mind exist. but mind also cannot exist independently. so mind neither exists, nor does not exist. :eek2:
    The mind and its objects are dependently coarisen.Can awareness be known if there is nothing to be aware of. Can there be an experiencer without the experience?
    Can there be a thinker without thoughts?

    In other words the mind does not stand alone.

    What if there is only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking but the seer, hearer, thinker is only a mistaken belief?

    "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form."
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html
    Is mind empty?
    my understanding: Emptiness as i understand is empty of inherent existence, that is empty of essence. So if mind was having essence, then it can exist independently - but mind depends on body - so mind is empty of inherent existence.
    See above.

    Jeffreykarmablues
  • 'Your' mind is empty of inherent existence. Yes.

    'The unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next' that Sariputta describes cannot depend on body. It transcends them.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2013
    We say "what's on your mind", as well as "he was not acting himself".. Clearly with these two views we are somewhat confused.
    "A consciousness in Buddhism refers to a moment of awareness. As we think about the four skandhas that have already been listed we might feel that behind all of them there is a general sense of awareness or knowing. We might even call it the mind itself as opposed to mental events that occur within it. We might feel that this is really what we mean by the 'I' or the 'self'. It seems to be an unchanging, separate, independent awareness that is just going on as the basis of all our experience and it is awareness that is 'I, the doer'. Let's examine this idea carefully.

    Generally speaking we think our life and experience going along as a sort of stream in time and space. There is a sense of beginning and end and one event following on from another. Even though one does not think exactly in terms of a moment of experience having edges round it, nevertheless there is a sense of its ending somewhere, otherwise it would just merge into everything else. So our experience and our sense of self is definitely bound by time and space. Therefore, it must be possible to divide it up into the smallest conceivable parts and the smallest conceivable moments of experience in order to be sure that one has missed nothing in one's search for a lasting, separate, permanent self.
    From Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    From Progressive Stages of Meditaiton on emptiness.
    What one finds is that every moment of experience has two aspects. If it did not have these two aspects it could hardly be counted as being a moment of experience at all. What are these two aspects? There has to be something to experience and something to experience it. In other words there is always something knowing something or being aware of something. If either of these elements were missing there would no experience. Tehse smallest conceivable moments of consciousness arising dependent on their corresponging momentary object of consciousness are what in Buddhims are known as consciousnesses. There is a term vijnana. The vi part of the word can mean partial or divided. Thus a consciousness is a partial or divided knowing. This contrasts with jnana which means simply knowing or wisdom. Teh difference between jnana and vijnana becomes very important in the later stages of the progression of meditaiton on emptiness.

    The upshot of this rather long discussion on what is meant by consciousness in Buddhism is thatt when, in the hope of resolving one's difficulties, one suggests that the self is that continuing awareness that is behind all one's experience, one must in fact be referring to the stream of vijnanas. One may not have analyzed it as deeply as that, but if one still accepts common-sense notions of time and space, then the nature. then the nature of consciousness of form, sound, smell, taste, touch or mental image, but whichever it is, it is quite distinct from any other moment that has arisen before or is about to arise after it. The moment before has gone and the moment to come does not exist yet. So consciousness can only ever be momentary and such a momentary phenomenon would never qualify for the title of 'self'. Thus, the mind or awareness that seems to be behind all of our experiences cannot be the self either.
    Florianperson
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    The quote is from Padmasambhava and he speaking about the state of Dzogchen, state of self-liberation.

    Here are my thoughts about this:

    You are not going to find adequate knowledge on this that will help you other than a whole load of varying views on what mind is.

    Since this is talking about Dzogchen then one has to find a teacher and receive direct introduction of Dzogchen. Then what Padmasambhava is pointing to will be clear in a direct, non-conceptual expression.

    Then all doubts will be dispelled. Trying to understand this in any other lens will only breed confusion, imho.

    Good luck.
    person
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    The mind only concept breaks the human mind into 3 different consciousness;
    The sub-conscious (1), the perception/imagination consciousness (2) and the store (memory ) consciousness (3)

    That is why people in different circumstances can experience a loss of one or the other and still survive albeit in a limited capacity. Lost your memory but all other functions are OK.


    it seems to me that everything is manifestation of mind because it is the mind which experiences everything. but then the question arises - what is mind? does mind exist or does not exist? my thinking says: if mind did not exist, then thoughts could not arise, but since thoughts arise in mind, so mind exist. but mind also cannot exist independently. so mind neither exists, nor does not exist.


    Correct, thats why we need three distinct subconsciousness (minds) to come together for us humans, just as we need fuel, a spark and oxygen for fire. The fire is dependently originated from the three coming together.
    Jeffreylobsterpegembaraperson
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    @taiyaki: thanks for your reply. but since there is no Buddhist monastry near my home, nor i am aware of any Buddhist monk near-by who is a teacher, neither i have time to search for a Buddhist monastry or a Buddhist monk teacher, so unfortunately going to a Buddhist monk teacher is not feasible for me :( .
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    hi all,

    currently i am trying the zen meditation method, but i am not sure if i am doing it correctly because i do not know if there is anything to do in zen meditation except to not do anything. but still just to clarify, i am doing these steps (please correct if anything is wrong below, or add if anything else is needed) :
    - sitting in a comfortable position, with back slightly straight (though keeping back straight with its natural curve is difficult for me, so i try to sit in whichever manner either normal cross-legged, burmese position, half-lotus etc, whichever is comfortable to me, even changing postures during sitting when the pain increases in my legs)
    - just being aware of whatever is arising in present moment, not analyzing, not figuring it out etc, whatever arises either hearing external/internal sounds, thoughts coming, sensations of air touching body etc.
    - except the above two things, nothing else needs to be done
    please confirm if above are ok, or please correct them if they are wrong, or please add anything if missing above.

    now coming to what i have observed during my meditation, regarding above step 2 , i have a confusion - the confusion is this - (a) do i need to try to be aware of whatever is arising, or (b) i just sit in a relaxed way and note whatever is arising - the difference between these two which i find is that in approach (a) if i try to be aware, then i am more observant, but it seems to me like i am doing something like doing of trying to be aware - but if if go with second approach (b), i am less observant and there are small periods, which just pass by and i do not know if i was fully aware in it or not. i know i am not sleeping in both these two approaches - so which approach is better?

    moreover, i have observed during sitting that there is something in me, which is always trying to feel something - it is difficult to explain, but still trying to explain - for example, in the room if fan is on, then the air touches my body, so something inside me tries to figure out exactly where is the air getting felt in the body - i think this is what is said to try to hold onto things - but i know there is no need to figure out, because by the time i will figure out, something else will be gone - moreover, i have read it is not possible to hold onto the present moment and theoretically i understand that this is ok - but when i sit, something inside is always trying to figure out the things like in this case where exactly the air is getting felt on my body, now if i say to myself it is not necessary to know exactly where the air is felt, then something inside me starts to question - so am i aware properly? i felt air but i do not know which body part exactly felt that air. as another example, something inside me is always saying - how am i feeling right now? - as if there is something to feel in now - but if i try to feel, will that show i am not aware of whatever is going in present moment. may be these questions seem silly to you all, but you can consider me to be stupid enough to not know these things, so please suggest regarding these queries. thanks in advance.
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran

    @taiyaki: thanks for your reply. but since there is no Buddhist monastry near my home, nor i am aware of any Buddhist monk near-by who is a teacher, neither i have time to search for a Buddhist monastry or a Buddhist monk teacher, so unfortunately going to a Buddhist monk teacher is not feasible for me :( .

    That is a shame. I too don't have any dzogchen teachers near me, nevertheless a lot of dzogchen teachers are teaching via webcast and giving transmissions for practice.

    As your link affirms one needs a root guru to point out the natural state. That is the definite cause to recognize and live in such realization.

    Hopefully your karma will carry you to a teacher or at least a webcast.

    I regards to zen. Its probably not a good idea to try to understand Dzogchen from the lens of Zen. Zen is a sutryana teaching and Dzoghen isn't even really part of the three yanas.

    I would read pretty much anythjng by Steve Hagen to clarify you Zen inquiries.

    Zen points to this moment over and over and over again. But its not like there is a moment that holds the ground. Practice is seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, and hearing.

    Everything is right there in your human life. This centerless unfolding is it. That is the jewel of zen, wordless transmission.

    I strongly, strongly advise you to seek a sangha or teacher. Even to work with one via phone or even online. You always have good questions and seek to clarify details. This is great but its misguided because none of us are teachers on here. You need someone who you can trust to help you actualize your life.

    Circumstances are a bitch though. But sometimes you just gotta rearrange things in life. Practice, practicr, practice, practice. None of these words or really anything you read will solve that hungry mind. You need to experience everything and live it.

    Wish you well.
    misecmisc1
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    It sounds like a) makes you have a sharper awareness.
  • lobsterlobster Veteran

    @taiyaki: thanks for your reply. but since there is no Buddhist monastry near my home, nor i am aware of any Buddhist monk near-by who is a teacher, neither i have time to search for a Buddhist monastry or a Buddhist monk teacher, so unfortunately going to a Buddhist monk teacher is not feasible for me :( .

    Oh the humanity :bawl:

    I just joined treeleaf as they have virtual sits and online connected Zen teachers.
    http://www.treeleaf.org/
    Yesterday I printed out the chanting manual, bit of metta in there. Then connected with google+ to sit with them. I was able to follow the practice but did not connect yet. Ten people sit in real time.
    Also was not sure of the Kesa methodology, so ended up with a folded red blanket balanced on my head . . . Last time I used a Kesa, they were provided.
    So far I have found the teachers very insightful and kind. Go Zen Sangha.

    The technique they use is meditation and walking and a daily sit. I could be enlightened by the end of the month if not sooner . . . or if lucky not at all . . . :wave:
    misecmisc1riverflow
  • currently i am trying the zen meditation method, but i am not sure if i am doing it correctly because i do not know if there is anything to do in zen meditation except to not do anything.

    Your current practice is achieving excellent results. (Not a Zen perspective.) Keep us posted.

    the confusion is this - (a) do i need to try to be aware of whatever is arising, or (b) i just sit in a relaxed way and note whatever is arising

    Depends on what you are trying to achieve at the time. (a) is a concentration practice. (b) is an insight practice, quite an advanced one, but Zen does like to throw you in the deep end. If these are the practices you want to do, I would start a session with (a), then move to (b) when attention is stable, then when a gap happened, I would try to remember what preceded and occurred in the gap, looking for the gap's causes and conditions, then repeat, going back to (a) to restabilize. Again, not very Zen.

    am i aware properly? i felt air but i do not know which body part exactly felt that air.

    Yes, you are aware properly. The practice is to attend to experience, not to nut it out.

    as another example, something inside me is always saying - how am i feeling right now? - as if there is something to feel in now - but if i try to feel, will that show i am not aware of whatever is going in present moment.

    No, that will show that you are voluntarily participating in the fabrication of your experience, which may or may not be an appropriate thing to do, depending on what you're trying to achieve in your practice at that point, but is very, very not Zen. If you want to do it the Zen way, don't try to feel. But it might be useful at times to fabricate a feeling to gladden or stabilize the mind or to turn it away from something it finds alluring.
    misecmisc1
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    If you're going it alone, I always suggest combining a moderate amount of Zen quiet mind meditation with Metta Practice.
    misecmisc1riverflow
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    @fivebells: Thanks for your reply.

    @Cinorjer: Thanks for your reply too.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    lobster said:

    I just joined treeleaf as they have virtual sits and online connected Zen teachers.
    http://www.treeleaf.org/

    @lobster: Thanks for sharing the above link - i went to this website and it had some good instructions on 'just sitting' zen meditation.
    riverflow
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013


    I am talking about the consciousness that Sariputta references in the Sampasadaniya Sutta:

    "... [U]nsurpassed is the Blessed Lord's way of teaching Dhamma in regard to the attainment of vision.... Here, some ascetic or Brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, vigilence and due attention, reaches such a level of concentration that he ... comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next...." (Sampasadaniya Sutta, DN 28), Ven.[32]

    ie not a singular conscious entity but a stream of consciousness that spans multiple lives.
    Discourses such as this appear to describe a consciousness that is an animating phenomenon capable of spanning lives thus giving rise to rebirth.

    @John_Spencer: well, i did not understand it completely. so please explain in some more detail. if we are saying there is a consciousness which is spanning multiple lives, then if this consciousness does not depend on body, then on which thing this consciousness depends on? DO says consciousness depends on fabrications of body and mind - so in a way, this consciousness depends on body.

    what is this stream of consciousness that spans multiple lives? can you please explain this sutta in more detail as to what is exactly meant by - comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next ? does it mean that our consciousness in this life is different from the consciousness of past life? thanks for explaining.

    on reading the above sutta again, a thought came to me - is the unbroken stream of human consciousness referring to awareness inside us - means the awareness in our current life is the same as the awareness in our past life? but if this is the case, then this awareness depends on body because if there is no sense-organ including mind in body, then where will awareness arise? please suggest.

    hi all,
    please suggest. thanks in advance.

    Or a question just came to my mind - in above statements, i am assuming that mind stays in body but how do i know it - when i cannot see mind, how do i know mind is inside or outside body - so a question arises - can mind stay without body? if this can be the case, then how different shall this mind be from Soul or Atman or Consciousness or Buddha-nature or any other similar word?
  • Hi @misecmisc1

    Mind but does rely on body but body arises dependent on the ignorance and craving in mind (consciousness). Consciousness continues after physical death so is not reliant on the body.

    This 'stream of human consciousness' is what the Buddha can see when he looks back into his past lives, it is the factor that 'animates' a human body.

    Buddha's denying of atman insists that we cannot look on this conscious stream as a fixed thing 'belonging' to one person but is a 'stream' that leads from one life to the next.

    Does that make sense?
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran

    Hi @misecmisc1

    Mind but does rely on body but body arises dependent on the ignorance and craving in mind (consciousness). Consciousness continues after physical death so is not reliant on the body.

    This 'stream of human consciousness' is what the Buddha can see when he looks back into his past lives, it is the factor that 'animates' a human body.

    Buddha's denying of atman insists that we cannot look on this conscious stream as a fixed thing 'belonging' to one person but is a 'stream' that leads from one life to the next.

    Does that make sense?

    hmm. good post @John_Spencer. made me think something in this direction. so now the question which arose in my mind is - how did Buddha knew that he was viewing his past lifes and not other person's past lifes? sounds like a stupid question, i agree, but if there is nothing in that stream of consciousness which relates to a person, then how did the Buddha knew that the stream of consciousness, which he was viewing was the stream of consciousness of his past lifes and not other person's past lifes? please suggest. thanks in advance.
  • As I understand it @misecmisc1 -

    Lives lead from one to the next taking 'habits' with them - the actions and tendencies of earlier lives will produce 'fruits' in this life.

    Similarly, actions in this life will produce 'fruits' in the next.

    So you could think of being able to look back through all the lives that led to this one.

    A single stream of consciousness, but a stream, not fixed, constantly changing.

    The Buddha developed the ability to look back at the stream of many lives that had led to his own - there are stories of his previous lives called the Jataka Tales.

    So when you say "there is nothing in that stream of consciousness which relates to a person" I think that is your misunderstanding.

    The truth of rebirth is subtle and more difficult for those of us from a culture that are unfamiliar with the idea of rebirth.

    Hope that helps?
    Patr
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Although there are past and future lives eventually there is realization that 'lifespan', 'life', and 'being' are all based on ignorance through craving, becoming, birth, and death.
    riverflow
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    hi all,

    in zen method of just sitting, it is said to let thoughts be as such, without grasping and without rejecting - just be in here and now. a question came to my mind - what is this method leading to - means ok after some time, this can happen that we would not be too much concerned with our thoughts as they come and go, but later on also thoughts will arise and cease - we will try to be in present moment, but this way the whole life will pass, so where is that awakening? now someone will say that - in this moment, samsara and nirvana both exist - so does in Zen, being in present moment referred to as awakening? but then this can be a temporary awakening, which we might experience in sitting meditation - but when we are off the cushion dealing with worldly situations, how can we be in present moment and still handle the worldly situations - for example, if we just be in present moment, then we shall not plan anything for future - then we would not even set our alarm clock to get up after sitting duration, because to even set an alarm clock, we will have to think at what time we will get up from our sitting, so that will be thinking and not being in present moment - this is just a small example. then when we go to work-place and someone says to do something, then without thinking and planning how can we execute our work.

    so how does it proceed in Zen or Dzogchen meditation, where they say to just be in present moment, with whatever experience is occurring, without changing it in anyway - means, how that unconditioned is experienced or how ignorance gets removed? like in anapanasati, we have the complete path from breath to nimitta to form-level jhanas to formless-level jhanas to unconditioned, so similarly what is the path in Zen meditation to awakening? does the Zen awakening and awakening through anapanasati are different?

    i read an analogy somewhere written, where it said that mind is like mirror which reflects its objects - but we try to grasp the objects' reflection - the mirrorness of the mirror is like our True Nature. so these days, when sitting in just sitting method of Zen meditation, i am trying to develop the perception to be aware of this knowingness - i am not able to develop it, but still trying. in detail, what i am doing is, sitting with eyes closed, then whatever is happening in present moment, just try to be aware of it, then thinking in mind to focus on the common thing which is knowing these things, then for few minutes trying to sit still with whatever comes in my mind - whether external sounds, internal ear ringing, air touching body parts etc. So is developing this kind of perception going to help - or will it just add another layer of conditioning on the already existing ignorance? any suggestions please.

    one more question - does being in the moment completely - as i read somewhere, when we are truely in the moment, it is like eternity - is it really true or just an exaggerated statement? means, see what i have noticed is - taking an example here - suppose when i sit in a room and i switch off the fans and if the climate is slightly warm, then i start to sweat - then i turn on the fans and when the air of the fans touch the body, the cool sensation which generates is really nice or even the natural air of trees if it touches a sweated part of body, a cool sensation generates which feels nice - this is ok - But what about when i was sitting in the room and i was sweating, i was not very comfortable then, so if someone is truely in the present moment, does in that sweating period also, that person will feel nice? means how does it feel to be truely in the present moment - does it feels nice or neutral or since we will be in present moment, we will not feel anything?

    hope the above questions are not completely junk questions. so any suggestions please. thanks in advance.

  • so if somebody has read till now, i am sorry for boring you with my weird, directionless, useless, boring life story.

    Actually I thought it was really interesting and I'm glad that you shared your story.

  • @misecmisc1 - just a book recommendation which I found especially helpful and relevant to your concern here, from the point of view of Chan (Zen) practice:

    Sheng-Yen's Song of Mind: Wisdom from the Zen Classic Xin Ming
  • lobsterlobster Veteran

    what is this method leading to

    It is not leading anywhere.
    Paradoxically it will have an effect.
    so where is that awakening?
    It is not leading to awakening.

    [questions deleted]

    [more questions deleted]
    So is developing this kind of perception going to help - or will it just add another layer of conditioning on the already existing ignorance? any suggestions please.
    Stop trying to develop. Just Sit.
    does it feels nice or neutral or since we will be in present moment, we will not feel anything?
    How does it feel at the moment?

    :wave:
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013
    rivercane said:


    so if somebody has read till now, i am sorry for boring you with my weird, directionless, useless, boring life story.

    Actually I thought it was really interesting and I'm glad that you shared your story.

    @rivercane: Thanks, that you found it interesting.

    but honestly speaking, i found it very weird - the wierd part is after 2 months of my daughter being born, that incident happened of that article reading which i said above, so i struck spirituality nearly 2 years ago - the weirdness is if i had to struck spirituality, then why i did not struck spirituality till 2008 (since in 2009, my arranged marriage process got started and in end of 2009, i got married) and if i had not to struck spirituality, then why i struck it nearly 2 years ago after i was having a wife and a daughter - don't know what type of karma i had, which lead to such weirdness in my life.

    till now, i have not found balance between my worldly life and my spiritual life. and i don't know what my life wants me to do.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    edited May 2013

    hi all,

    ...one more question - does being in the moment completely - as i read somewhere, when we are truely in the moment, it is like eternity - is it really true or just an exaggerated statement? means, see what i have noticed is - taking an example here - suppose when i sit in a room and i switch off the fans and if the climate is slightly warm, then i start to sweat - then i turn on the fans and when the air of the fans touch the body, the cool sensation which generates is really nice or even the natural air of trees if it touches a sweated part of body, a cool sensation generates which feels nice - this is ok - But what about when i was sitting in the room and i was sweating, i was not very comfortable then, so if someone is truely in the present moment, does in that sweating period also, that person will feel nice? means how does it feel to be truely in the present moment - does it feels nice or neutral or since we will be in present moment, we will not feel anything?

    This brings up the issue of time. How long is a moment? A little thought shows that it cannot have a duration. So being completely in the moment would mean being out of time. It would also seem to mean being beyond experience.

    There is no such thing as a moment, and this is the great conundrum of mathematics and physics, how to reconcile the legato of the continuum with the staccatto of a series of points. (The favourite problem of Einstein's favourite mathematician). The answer would be to say that time and space are not really extended, not really real, nor any consciousness that is dependent on them.

    I think this connection between consciousness and time means that they must be understood together for a proper understanding of either.

    This seems to be what Zeno was getting at with his paradoxes. His master Parmenides argued that for time and change there must be a prior phenomenon out of time that does not change, and Zeno tried to show this by making us see the absurdity of our usual notions of spacetime, change, moments and points.

    Or so it all seems to me. I'm sure none of this can be understood by simply thinking about it.

  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013
    This brings up the issue of time. How long is a moment? A little thought shows that it cannot have a duration. So being completely in the moment would mean being out of time. It would also seem to mean being beyond experience.
    @Florian: Thanks for bringing this up. this is also a thing which i am not understanding.

    my thinking says : a moment can be so short that it can pass without us noticing anything - something like a second if divided into 1000 milliseconds and we would be asked to observe it on a digital clock, then i think we will not be able to see even all the milliseconds getting displayed on the digital clock - so when i cannot even see what is going on in a 1/1000 part of a second, then what does it mean that i can truely be in that moment - or - since we cannot perceive it even completely, how can we distort it into something else, so does that mean we are in present moment but we do not realize it (seems like this can be the case) - then does this Zen practice makes our mind so slow that that moment expands somehow and we can realize that moment to be truely in it, sounds weird though. may be these are all just prapancha in my mind currently.

    but what i am finding hard to understand is - what it means to be truely in the present moment? seems like i am stupid to not understand these basic things.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    edited May 2013
    Ha. No, you are not stupid for not understanding these things. Few do, and I am not amongst them. Of course, nevertheless, you may still be stupid. :)

    Somewhere a buddha is said to have a sense of time that allows him to distinguish much briefer intervals of time than the rest of us. This seems relevant.

    The point really is just that the idea of a 'moment' is logically absurd. This means being present in the moment is a logically absurd idea. But it is a means of expression that conveys an idea. In the last resort, however, to be truly present in the moment would be to transcend moments entirely and to be (or not to be, that is the question) in the eternal and timeless NOW. Which is where we have have always been and always will be. Or something like that. I don't believe that anyone could understand our true situation without direct realisation, but it's fun to ponder these things.

    If you are into mathematics then this is one of the best short essays on the (spacetime) continuum I've come across, a review of the ideas of the mathematician Hermann Weyl. Doesn't mention Buddhism, but it is all directly relevant. Note that he makes a firm distinction between the 'intuitive' continuum, the continuum of direct experience, which has no parts and therefore cannot be truly extended, and the 'faux' continuum of mathematics, physics and everyday thinking.

    http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Hermann Weyl.pdf

    One physicist speaks of our sense of an extended spacetime as a 'mystical illusion'. Actually it's a scientific illusion, as the mystics have been trying to say for millenia.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited May 2013
    The past is conditional on the existence of future and present. They are part and parcel dependently originated. Thus there is no time. We never can experience a moment of the past because it is gone and we never experience a moment of the future because it is not here yet. You can set an alarm clock because the mechanism of the clock relates something to the regular hour. The clock is built that way just like it takes 1 day for the sun to revolve and one year for the seasons to pass. But our sense of past present and future is based on faulty assumptions. When we greet our friend obviously there is something like past because we have a heartfelt connection to that friend. But the past is a memory in the present and again there is not ultimate existence of time; it is all just the relative turnings of planet and orbit and so forth.

    Best I can do :o:o:o Hope it's not too boring ;)
  • @misecmisc1, you raise a lot of valid questions. Which of them is most related to doubt/disruption in your meditation practice at this stage?
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    fivebells said:

    Which of them is most related to doubt/disruption in your meditation practice at this stage?

    @fivebells: Below are some questions:

    - in zen method of just sitting, it is said to let thoughts be as such, without grasping and without rejecting - just be in here and now. a question came to my mind - what is this method leading to - means ok after some time, this can happen that we would not be too much concerned with our thoughts as they come and go, but later on also thoughts will arise and cease - we will try to be in present moment, but this way the whole life will pass, so where is that awakening?

    - how can we be in present moment and still handle the worldly situations?

    - i read an analogy somewhere written, where it said that mind is like mirror which reflects its objects - but we try to grasp the objects' reflection - the mirrorness of the mirror is like our True Nature. so these days, when sitting in just sitting method of Zen meditation, i am trying to develop the perception to be aware of this knowingness - i am not able to develop it, but still trying. in detail, what i am doing is, sitting with eyes closed, then whatever is happening in present moment, just try to be aware of it, then thinking in mind to focus on the common thing which is knowing these things, then for few minutes trying to sit still with whatever comes in my mind - whether external sounds, internal ear ringing, air touching body parts etc. So is developing this kind of perception going to help - or will it just add another layer of conditioning on the already existing ignorance?

    the first question is to understand what Zen meditation is leading to - the second question is how is Zen going to help in changing the way we handle things out of our conditioning, or in a way how Zen is going to remove ignorance from our mind - the last question is related to my meditation. please suggest. thanks in advance.
  • lobsterlobster Veteran
    but what i am finding hard to understand is - what it means to be truely in the present moment?
    Part of the reason for constriction/focus type meditation is to bring the mind back to a particular happening, such as the breath, the sensations of sitting, a mantra etc.

    The tendency of the mind is to be fluttering like a flying monkey. When doing Zen type meditation, accompanying the present moment is the 'mind charnel channel'. Dead, useless, extraneous burnt corpses of former beings, ghosts of things that never happened, demons and all angles of angel wandering in and out of imaginary being . . . all us.

    What do we do? We just sit. The moment is always present.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited May 2013

    in zen method of just sitting, it is said to let thoughts be as such, without grasping and without rejecting - just be in here and now. a question came to my mind - what is this method leading to - means ok after some time, this can happen that we would not be too much concerned with our thoughts as they come and go, but later on also thoughts will arise and cease - we will try to be in present moment, but this way the whole life will pass, so where is that awakening?

    I regard this as an advanced practice. I would not recommend it to a beginner. Once the mind is really settled down, this practice leads to the cessation of refined forms dukkha. In my experience, it is quite ineffective for coarser forms of dukkha.

    how can we be in present moment and still handle the worldly situations?

    How can you not be in the present moment? How can you be in the present moment in a way which prevents you from handling worldly situations? Not trying to be cute, here, just trying to nail down the question.

    ...these days, when sitting in just sitting method of Zen meditation, i am trying to develop the perception to be aware of this knowingness - i am not able to develop it, but still trying. in detail, what i am doing is, sitting with eyes closed, then whatever is happening in present moment, just try to be aware of it, then thinking in mind to focus on the common thing which is knowing these things, then for few minutes trying to sit still with whatever comes in my mind - whether external sounds, internal ear ringing, air touching body parts etc. So is developing this kind of perception going to help - or will it just add another layer of conditioning on the already existing ignorance?

    First of all, I think that this is again a very advanced practice. In early Buddhist terms, this is attempting to jump straight into 6th jhana without going through the other five. You can do that, but if there is a lot of coarse disturbance in the mind, it requires very strong concentration.

    Secondly, yes it is another layer of conditioning, but a skillful one in certain circumstances. It will be much easier to do the meditation in your first question if you can get the mind to settle down with this 6th jhana meditation.

    How are you going with basic breath meditation? Just resting attention on the breath, and bringing it back when you notice it's somewhere else? That is the path to the concentration you need for these practices to be effective. The first meditation you asked about is an insight practice, and the second is a concentration practice which takes consciousness as the object of concentration, a very fine point to rest attention on. Just as a gymnast is better off initially learning to balance in more stable configurations, it is better to develop concentration using coarser objects first. There is a lot which can be learned from resting attention on coarser objects which also applies to finer objects, and the lessons from the coarser objects tend to be clearer. I generally start with breath and then move to successively finer objects in my own meditation, because it's good to progressively refine the mind even within the one meditation session.
    Jeffreymisecmisc1
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    How are you going with basic breath meditation? Just resting attention on the breath, and bringing it back when you notice it's somewhere else?
    @fivebells: thanks for your reply. actually, i am quite bad at basic breath meditation. i have tried doing it many times, but somehow i am too bad at it. my natural breathing pattern seems to me like in-breath with immediate out-breath, then long gap, then again in-breath with immediate out-breath, then long gap and so on. the gap seems to be pretty long between out-breath and next in-breath, and the gap between in-breath and out-breath is almost immediate without even noticeable.

    now it can happen that may be i am not able to know if my breathing is going on between out-breath and next in-breath in that long period, but i think there is no breathing happening in there - so the question came what to observe in that long period, so i started trying to be aware of whatever is arising in present moment. then thoughts were coming in that long period and i was getting entangled in those thoughts - so i started to search some other meditation method - then i came to know about this Zen method of meditation of 'just sitting' - so i gave up anapanasati method and started this Zen 'just sitting' method.

    so should i start with anapanasati and then proceed to 'just sitting' - or go directly with 'just sitting' method.

    any suggestions, please. thanks in advance.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran



    the first question is to understand what Zen meditation is leading to - the second question is how is Zen going to help in changing the way we handle things out of our conditioning, or in a way how Zen is going to remove ignorance from our mind - the last question is related to my meditation. please suggest. thanks in advance.

    I find this impossible to answer, even though I like to think I know the answer. The practice uncovers what lies underneath/behind/within our thought processes, and this cannot be seen while those processes are operating. Something like that. It is about making contact with reality. But I'm not a reliable source for practice advice, worse luck.

  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited May 2013
    @Florian: Thanks for your reply.

    on browsing internet, i found Dogen's Uji (the time-being) and its commentary - Dogen said in it - time is self and self is time. the moment is having everything in it and is complete by itself. it is time-being : time is being and being is time. the moment cannot be hold onto. this moment is having everything sentient or insentient in it. we are this time-being. i think Dogen has said it brilliantly about moment of time.

    as i understand it, time is nothing but just a concept, which is conventional. everything is occurring in space and time, the space differs, but time is flowing continuously - flowing not in the normal conventional sense of time just passing - but since it cannot be static (as we are always in a moment), so it flows, moment after moment, with no moment disturbing any other moment, rather every moment being complete in itself.

    so this lead me to think that time is nothing other than our own awareness or our own knowingness of our surroundings - without our awareness, time does not exist for us. so time is empty of inherent existence as time depends on our awareness.

    hi all,
    any thoughts on above, please. also please correct me if my understanding of Dogen's Uji is going in the wrong direction. thanks in advance.
    Jeffrey
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    About Dogens being-time.

    We are being-time. Each instant is being-time.

    Hence no being-time as an idea, or solid thing.

    This is the full understanding of impermanence with no things, which is full on flux = no thing changing.

    in regards to knowing. knowing depends on the object and the object depends on knowing. so yes, time and space require knowing of time and space. it requires the referents (form, color, sensation, smell, taste, etc) and the ideas (time and space). Because time and space is built on the basis of conditions, causes, concept it is empty of inherent existence.

    To realize Dogens being-time one has to sit zazen and actualize the one function in the myriad dharmas. Each moment is all the infinite causes and condition arising as that instant of knowingness say like the sound.

    Steve Hagen eloquently describes it much better than I can:

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Steve Hagen

    "Here's another example of a foolish-sounding Zen question that is actually an expression of just seeing: What is the sound of one hand clapping? When we conceive of a hand, it's just a single, isolated hand, and we're puzzled at the question. To clap, we need two hands. But this is approaching the question in our ordinary way - that is, conceptually.

    With naked perception however, we see that a hand is not a separate and distinct hand. Everything is included with it. One hand clapping is the sound of two hands clapping is the sound of ten hands clapping. It's the sound before and after two hands clap. It's also the sound before and after one hand claps.

    Conceptually, we think that sound is sound and silence is silence. The two seem neatly separated and distinct - in fact, opposite of each other. But this is only how we think, how we conceptualize. This is not how Reality is perceived, before we put everything into neat, nicely labelled (but deceptive) little packages.

    We think there only has to be sound for there to be sound. We overlook that there must also be silence for there to be sound. And because of sound, there is silence. Were there no sound, how could there be silence?

    Before you strike a bell, a sound is already here. After you strike the bell, the sound is here. When the sound fades and dies away, the sound is still here. The sound is not just the sound but the silence, too, And the silence is the sound. This is what is actually perceived before we parse everything out into this and that, into "myself" and "what I hear."

    The sound of the bell is inseparable from everything that came before and that will come after as well as from everything that appears now. This includes your eardrum, which vibrates in response to it. It includes the air, which pulses with varying waves of pressure in response to it.

    It includes the stick that strikes the bell. It includes the metallurgists, past and present, and those who learned to extract metal from ore and those who fashioned the bell. And it includes that ancient furnace, that supernova obliterated long ago in which this metal formed.

    Remove any of these - indeed, remove anything at all - and there can be no sound of the bell. The sound of the bell is thus not "the sound of the bell." It is the entire Universe..."
    riverflowJeffreymisecmisc1
  • Hi, @misecmisc1. If you have a teacher, ask them for a good concentration exercise. If you're working on your own, I would strongly recommend working on anapanasati at least until you can get a solid first jhana going. Insight practices are much easier at that point. With Each and Every Breath has good instructions on anapanasati in parts I & II.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited May 2013
    Misecmisc, I've said it to you before I think, but I'll say it again. I think it is good not to over analyse everything. If meditation does not have immediate results, don't start to doubt or think you are doing it wrong. If you take this analyzing attitude into meditation that could very well be the reason of it not taking off, because you may constantly be 'judging' the process. Perhaps looking at it as something separate from yourself. Like there is 'you' overlooking the meditation. From this perspective it will not work, because you have to disappear allowing meditation to do its own thing. In that state there are no more questions of whether the meditation is done correctly. And that includes stopping to try and fit things in the framework of our intellectual perceptions, trying to see things in terms of techniques.

    I could be mistaken of course, because I can't look inside your mind, but I think the above is good advise even so.
    Jeffreymisecmisc1
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited May 2013
    @misecmisc1
    in zen method of just sitting, it is said to let thoughts be as such, without grasping and without rejecting - just be in here and now. a question came to my mind - what is this method leading to - means ok after some time, this can happen that we would not be too much concerned with our thoughts as they come and go, but later on also thoughts will arise and cease - we will try to be in present moment, but this way the whole life will pass, so where is that awakening?

    I will answer from a vipassana viewpoint. When you are sitting doing your zen meditation and thoughts arise, do you feel that those thoughts are "your" thoughts? ie. those thoughts belong to you. If you feel that they are your thoughts, in Buddhism that is a delusion. So perhaps if you just sit in the present moment watching thoughts arise and cease then you may eventually one day come to the realization that those thoughts don't actually belong to you ie. that those thoughts are not-self. Then that's an awakening.
    how can we be in present moment and still handle the worldly situations

    Being in the present moment means being aware. So just make sure you are being aware/mindful. As unenlightened beings, I don't think it's possible to be 100 per cent aware/mindful all of the time. So you just do the best you can. I suggest you try to keep your awareness on your bodily movements. For example, when setting your alarm clock, just be aware of the movements of your hands and fingers even while you are thinking about what time you want to get up. Don't worry about not being able to maintain 100% awareness. I don't think that's possible anyways.

    i am trying to develop the perception to be aware of this knowingness - i am not able to develop it, but still trying.

    I think this is normally for very advanced practitioners. In the vipassana school, it is meant for those who attain a level of concentration where they feel their entire body has disappeared and instead of just being absorbed by the feeling of absolute stillness, it is advised to steer one's awareness to the consciousness that is doing the knowing of the stillness and use that as the object of meditation. In that way, you move away from concentration meditation to insight meditation by studying the nature of consciousness.
    so if someone is truely in the present moment, does in that sweating period also, that person will feel nice? means how does it feel to be truely in the present moment - does it feels nice or neutral or since we will be in present moment, we will not feel anything?

    If it feels nice and you are aware that it is feeling nice, that is being in the present moment. If it feels neutral and you are aware that it is feeling neutral, that is being in the present moment. So whatever it feels like, just be aware of it.


    misecmisc1
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran

    @Florian: Thanks for your reply.

    on browsing internet, i found Dogen's Uji (the time-being) and its commentary - Dogen said in it - time is self and self is time. the moment is having everything in it and is complete by itself. it is time-being : time is being and being is time. the moment cannot be hold onto. this moment is having everything sentient or insentient in it. we are this time-being. i think Dogen has said it brilliantly about moment of time.

    as i understand it, time is nothing but just a concept, which is conventional. everything is occurring in space and time, the space differs, but time is flowing continuously - flowing not in the normal conventional sense of time just passing - but since it cannot be static (as we are always in a moment), so it flows, moment after moment, with no moment disturbing any other moment, rather every moment being complete in itself.

    so this lead me to think that time is nothing other than our own awareness or our own knowingness of our surroundings - without our awareness, time does not exist for us. so time is empty of inherent existence as time depends on our awareness.

    hi all,
    any thoughts on above, please. also please correct me if my understanding of Dogen's Uji is going in the wrong direction. thanks in advance.

    Double awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.