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.
@seeker242 said:
Hishiryo and Fushiryo are two different things.
Yes of course. Hishiryo means non-thinking while Fushiryo not thinking. Could you show me the place where you used non-thinking, or Hishiryo in this discussions?
Anyway, it's the "ryo" which is the most important part of those two words. It means intentional and judgmental thinking, something I was discussing with @federica.
In other words, Hishiryo is when you "unleash" your mind, by not telling or directing it in any way. Your mind may be full of thinking, but it's free from intention, which brings differentiation and duality. It may know, or not know, it doesn't matter at all. This is why Bodhidharma said "People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding".
Now, this is just the functioning of the mind. Even if you know what the goal is, you are unable to achieve it intentionally, because intention is what you want to get ride of in the first place. You need realization, understanding, kensho. Hishiro is the state, but it cannot be intentionally created, so all this talk about don't know mind is worth nothing. It's like telling stories about golden nugget which you don't know how to find. No one can direct his mind into indirect "mode" without understanding.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Barah said:It's hard to be mad at a thought that helps you, isn't it? As I said before, thoughts are just pointers, they themselves are never the target our our attention. Anyway, your 'don't know' mind is now shattered, your are frustrated (which is undoubtedly criticism of yourself). You did precisely what you assumed to be wrong.
Well, I don't know how you came to that conclusion! Can we add 'psychic to your undoubtedly long list of credentials?
That may be true, but I did not encounter such a situation yet, in this topic.
Of course you haven't....
As you can see above, you are not yet on the "winning" side.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a competition... I think you're mistaken in your definition.
I don't think there are winners or losers. I think there are differing opinions. But I'm not bothered at all as to whose opinion you prefer...
Your interpretation of "don't know" mind is different than Seeker242,
That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong, of course....
but it's also not consistent. It receives severe criticism, even in those quotes from my previous post.
I am interested in opinions, because that's the basis for a healthy discussion. We cannot discuss one of the most difficult subjects there is, without listening to each other. But that's me.
What is your primary concern, if you can share it? Preaching?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Barah said:
Yes of course. Hishiryo means non-thinking while Fushiryo not thinking. Could you show me the place where you used non-thinking, or Hishiryo in this discussions?
I used it, and Seung Sahn used it, when he said "Don't know mind". Don't know mind = Hishiryo. But he didn't use the specific term "Hishiryo" because he wasn't Japanese.
Now, this is just the functioning of the mind. Even if you know what the goal is, you are unable to achieve it intentionally, because intention is what you want to get ride of in the first place. You need realization, understanding, kensho. Hishiro is the state, but it cannot be intentionally created, so all this talk about don't know mind is worth nothing. It's like telling stories about golden nugget which you don't know how to find. No one can direct his mind into indirect "mode" without understanding.
Agreed, that is why "open mouth is already a mistake". But, it's an intentional mistake to help point people in the correct direction, so that they can find out for themselves.
Thought forms empty of meaning or essence. No driving power.
Thought empty of like, craving, desire, aversion or emotion.
A thought with no substance.
Just a reflection from memory or one's current situation. But it's not given any attention. It subsides as quickly as it arises leaving no residual impression within mind.
If there is any residual effects from a thought then it had substance. You attached to it. Although the clinging may have been subtle you still attached some importance to it. As a result it lingered a bit. You were aware of its presence for more than a hair's breadth. It was significant in some way. It had power over you momentarily. Attention was detained from its natural flowing. The mind stopped, even if it's for a second, to think it over.
In this case it would be thought within thought.
An example of no thought within thought would be:
It's like when you're riding down the street and a tiny leaf blows across the way. The eyes may have glimpsed it but it has such little significance that there is no recognition of it. No energy is expended trying to understand it; categorize it or define it. Attention is not diverted or detained by it.
But also keep in mind that when there is bare minimum interest regarding internal and external affairs. Thoughts will also be at bare minimum levels.
If you have no interest in anything other than basic survival (shelter, eating and sleeping, etc.) for example, then the majority of your thoughts will be related to that. But even those few significant thoughts don't linger. And they arise Only when relevant.
Our thoughts originate from the senses having contacted and recognized objects or events of interest or significance. Which could be from past memory or currently happening in the moment.
Very seldom are objects and events relived which have no significance. And if they are. They are mere shadows with no substance.
Do you continue to think about that piece of toilet paper you just used to wipe your ass?
Or is it forgotten immediately?
It's forgotten as though it never occurred. Because it has no significance to You.
If certain types of thoughts continuously appear in mind; then whether you realize it or not, they have significance to you.
So all of the babbling that normally happens for many is due to many obvious and subtle, to completely unrealized significant aspects of their thinking.
You must explore this possibility for yourself.
So if there is a great absence of thought, It has occurred naturally as a result of Great Dispassion for whatever appears.
But thought itself is only a hindrance to even mindedness, if attention is detained by it. Otherwise it simply appears and disappears with no significance.
What if the universe is a hologram, a 3D illusion created by one-dimensional strings that are next to nothing?
@federica said:
Yeah, what if? Answer your own question.....
You can take it as a rhetorical question. The word "maya" has many meanings, like "illusion". And Maya is the name of Buddha's mother. (I'm not good in the Buddhist rhetorics).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
A rhetorical question is one that has an answer that is obvious to all. A rhetorical question is one that is ironic, because an answer - being obvious - superfluous.
It is asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
So, in a nutshell, what was the point of the question?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
A rhetorical question is one that has an answer that is obvious to all. A rhetorical question is one that is ironic, because an answer - being obvious - superfluous.
It is asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
So, in a nutshell, what was the point of the question?
I was kind of trying to figure that out myself which is why I didn't respond right away. I'm not sure what "next to nothing" means as "nothing" itself is just a handy mathematical concept in my view.
We can be said to be "next to nothing" if one equates "nothing" to empty space.
Plus the implications of a holographic universe/string theory hybrid don't seem to weigh on unabiding awareness which is what I seem to think the thread is really about.
With all these other contradictory labels that many of the greats use I find it hard to tell.
@federica said:
So, in a nutshell, what was the point of the question?
What's the point of your endless and arrogant aggressivity? Calm down.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2015
@Pöljä said: What's the point of your endless and arrogant aggressivity? Calm down.
Actually, I wasn't being either aggressive or arrogant, but frankly, I and others are heartily fed up to the back teeth of some members posting pseudo-intellectual, clever-sounding but ultimately (under scrutiny) totally meaningless and unintelligible statements that may be meant to make them sound uber-clever and wise, but ultimately do absolutely nothing to support or add to the discussion.
If you have a sensible, cogent and constructive comment to add that may move things along, pray feel free to add it.
If people have no idea what on earth you're talking about, be prepared to at least elaborate or explain, when asked to.
@ourself said: ...unabiding awareness which is what I seem to think the thread is really about.
Knowing flows naturally when unhindered, not detained or diverted by thought (associated with name, definition, descriptions, likes, aversions, judgments, cravings, desire etc.).
These particular thoughts divert and detain our attention. Then we think about that thought. What it means to us. And that causes it to proliferate into more thinking. And on and on and on.
At that point, knowing is no longer flowing naturally but instead is entangled or tied up in knots mixed with emotions and whatever other qualities we've attached to them.
So then we worry, stress, become enraged, we crave and so on.
If knowing flows naturally, without stopping or being diverted to evaluate thoughts, how is mental stress and craving even a possibility?
If you are craving chocolate for example.
You are recalling from memory, although subtly, the flavor and how it makes you feel and the sensations when you bite into it. If attention continues to flow, there is a lesser possibility of it being diverted to or stopping on subtle past memories related to the experience of eating chocolate.
You might say, how is it that I crave food I've never eaten?
If you crave by senses only, it's because it has physical qualities similar to other foods you have eaten, which you consider appealing. Which is accessed from memory through subtle thinking.
You are referencing memory and recalling qualities, you have previously attached to objects, which inherently has no qualities.
Recalling past memories is not an issue. It's the qualities we have attached to them that causes problems.
That is not the don't know mind. If you ate it with the don't know mind, there would be neither experience nor non experience and it would be as though that was your first time eating it.
Each bite after, would also be fresh and new. As though you had never eaten it before. No anticipation of it tasting like this or that.
So when attention naturally flows, knowing simply flows over, glances or skims but does not stop to allow time to ruminate. This is a big issue in the beginning because we still have a lot of things attached to our thoughts.
Where ever attention is needed it flows. And that's based on the condition of the body and environment.
If you are writing it may be at the tips of your fingers. Or at the soles of your feet while walking. Following all of the sensations flowing through your hips, legs, shoulders as you move. Whatever sensation or movement happens it's known without volition.
It's also possible for attention to be no where at all.
There is knowing. But not of any particular thing.
Not here nor there. Kind of like floating about in space without making contact with anything.
I don't mean to be cryptic but at the moment I know of no other way to describe It.
When you wake, do you need to think about how to stand up? How to dress? Where to find your clothes? Directions to work?
All of that has become habitual and automatic. As is true with countless other aspects of our existence. So really one could live most of their life not really having to think over much of anything. And by this point most of your thoughts may have lost all or most of its power over you. The attachments fell away.
Which in this case means, even if attention were diverted and detained by thoughts they would cause you no suffering.
All of, or most of the associations have been broken. Meaning you no longer associate a particular thought with a particular feeling, belief, desire or meaning etc. They have become relatively free from meaningful association.
They are like simple instructions to perform certain tasks. They contain no other troublesome qualities. No emotions, greed or anything else.
Edit:
That is not the don't know mind. If you ate it with the don't know mind, there would be neither experience nor non experience
It is an experience in the sense that there was an occurrence. Something definitely happened. The chocolate was eaten.
It isn't an experience in the sense that the occurrence wasn't defined. There was no sense of I. There was no sense of doing. The act (eating) wasn't labeled. The entire action and process was not identified, defined, categorized or described by the mind. There was no feelings about the action. No like or aversion. No qualities at all were attributed to the action or process. So in this sense, to the one acting, it's as though nothing happened. Like writing on water. So it is not labeled by their mind as an experience.
So this is why I say, neither experience nor non experience.
Something appeared to occur to outside observers but it was not recognized as such by the mind of the other. There was no mind.
Comments
Yes of course. Hishiryo means non-thinking while Fushiryo not thinking. Could you show me the place where you used non-thinking, or Hishiryo in this discussions?
Anyway, it's the "ryo" which is the most important part of those two words. It means intentional and judgmental thinking, something I was discussing with @federica.
In other words, Hishiryo is when you "unleash" your mind, by not telling or directing it in any way. Your mind may be full of thinking, but it's free from intention, which brings differentiation and duality. It may know, or not know, it doesn't matter at all. This is why Bodhidharma said "People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding".
Now, this is just the functioning of the mind. Even if you know what the goal is, you are unable to achieve it intentionally, because intention is what you want to get ride of in the first place. You need realization, understanding, kensho. Hishiro is the state, but it cannot be intentionally created, so all this talk about don't know mind is worth nothing. It's like telling stories about golden nugget which you don't know how to find. No one can direct his mind into indirect "mode" without understanding.
Of course you haven't....
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a competition... I think you're mistaken in your definition.
I don't think there are winners or losers. I think there are differing opinions. But I'm not bothered at all as to whose opinion you prefer...
That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong, of course....
Ooooh! Ok, now you're really scaring me....
Interesting to see how you react when the boot is on the other foot.
My primary concern is not your opinion, and whether you agree with me or not. I frankly couldn't give a flying duck, dearie. Back atcha...
I am interested in opinions, because that's the basis for a healthy discussion. We cannot discuss one of the most difficult subjects there is, without listening to each other. But that's me.
What is your primary concern, if you can share it? Preaching?
Moderating.
I used it, and Seung Sahn used it, when he said "Don't know mind". Don't know mind = Hishiryo.
But he didn't use the specific term "Hishiryo" because he wasn't Japanese. 
Agreed, that is why "open mouth is already a mistake". But, it's an intentional mistake to help point people in the correct direction, so that they can find out for themselves.
Thought forms empty of meaning or essence. No driving power.
Thought empty of like, craving, desire, aversion or emotion.
A thought with no substance.
Just a reflection from memory or one's current situation. But it's not given any attention. It subsides as quickly as it arises leaving no residual impression within mind.
If there is any residual effects from a thought then it had substance. You attached to it. Although the clinging may have been subtle you still attached some importance to it. As a result it lingered a bit. You were aware of its presence for more than a hair's breadth. It was significant in some way. It had power over you momentarily. Attention was detained from its natural flowing. The mind stopped, even if it's for a second, to think it over.
In this case it would be thought within thought.
An example of no thought within thought would be:
It's like when you're riding down the street and a tiny leaf blows across the way. The eyes may have glimpsed it but it has such little significance that there is no recognition of it. No energy is expended trying to understand it; categorize it or define it. Attention is not diverted or detained by it.
But also keep in mind that when there is bare minimum interest regarding internal and external affairs. Thoughts will also be at bare minimum levels.
If you have no interest in anything other than basic survival (shelter, eating and sleeping, etc.) for example, then the majority of your thoughts will be related to that. But even those few significant thoughts don't linger. And they arise Only when relevant.
Our thoughts originate from the senses having contacted and recognized objects or events of interest or significance. Which could be from past memory or currently happening in the moment.
Very seldom are objects and events relived which have no significance. And if they are. They are mere shadows with no substance.
Do you continue to think about that piece of toilet paper you just used to wipe your ass?
Or is it forgotten immediately?
It's forgotten as though it never occurred. Because it has no significance to You.
If certain types of thoughts continuously appear in mind; then whether you realize it or not, they have significance to you.
So all of the babbling that normally happens for many is due to many obvious and subtle, to completely unrealized significant aspects of their thinking.
You must explore this possibility for yourself.
So if there is a great absence of thought, It has occurred naturally as a result of Great Dispassion for whatever appears.
But thought itself is only a hindrance to even mindedness, if attention is detained by it. Otherwise it simply appears and disappears with no significance.
Many thanks
Yes, that's what I was driving at, in my posts....
You can take it as a rhetorical question. The word "maya" has many meanings, like "illusion". And Maya is the name of Buddha's mother. (I'm not good in the Buddhist rhetorics).
A rhetorical question is one that has an answer that is obvious to all. A rhetorical question is one that is ironic, because an answer - being obvious - superfluous.
It is asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
So, in a nutshell, what was the point of the question?
I was kind of trying to figure that out myself which is why I didn't respond right away. I'm not sure what "next to nothing" means as "nothing" itself is just a handy mathematical concept in my view.
We can be said to be "next to nothing" if one equates "nothing" to empty space.
Plus the implications of a holographic universe/string theory hybrid don't seem to weigh on unabiding awareness which is what I seem to think the thread is really about.
With all these other contradictory labels that many of the greats use I find it hard to tell.
What's the point of your endless and arrogant aggressivity? Calm down.
Actually, I wasn't being either aggressive or arrogant, but frankly, I and others are heartily fed up to the back teeth of some members posting pseudo-intellectual, clever-sounding but ultimately (under scrutiny) totally meaningless and unintelligible statements that may be meant to make them sound uber-clever and wise, but ultimately do absolutely nothing to support or add to the discussion.
If you have a sensible, cogent and constructive comment to add that may move things along, pray feel free to add it.
If people have no idea what on earth you're talking about, be prepared to at least elaborate or explain, when asked to.
Knowing flows naturally when unhindered, not detained or diverted by thought (associated with name, definition, descriptions, likes, aversions, judgments, cravings, desire etc.).
These particular thoughts divert and detain our attention. Then we think about that thought. What it means to us. And that causes it to proliferate into more thinking. And on and on and on.
At that point, knowing is no longer flowing naturally but instead is entangled or tied up in knots mixed with emotions and whatever other qualities we've attached to them.
So then we worry, stress, become enraged, we crave and so on.
If knowing flows naturally, without stopping or being diverted to evaluate thoughts, how is mental stress and craving even a possibility?
If you are craving chocolate for example.
You are recalling from memory, although subtly, the flavor and how it makes you feel and the sensations when you bite into it. If attention continues to flow, there is a lesser possibility of it being diverted to or stopping on subtle past memories related to the experience of eating chocolate.
You might say, how is it that I crave food I've never eaten?
If you crave by senses only, it's because it has physical qualities similar to other foods you have eaten, which you consider appealing. Which is accessed from memory through subtle thinking.
You are referencing memory and recalling qualities, you have previously attached to objects, which inherently has no qualities.
Recalling past memories is not an issue. It's the qualities we have attached to them that causes problems.
That is not the don't know mind. If you ate it with the don't know mind, there would be neither experience nor non experience and it would be as though that was your first time eating it.
Each bite after, would also be fresh and new. As though you had never eaten it before. No anticipation of it tasting like this or that.
So when attention naturally flows, knowing simply flows over, glances or skims but does not stop to allow time to ruminate. This is a big issue in the beginning because we still have a lot of things attached to our thoughts.
Where ever attention is needed it flows. And that's based on the condition of the body and environment.
If you are writing it may be at the tips of your fingers. Or at the soles of your feet while walking. Following all of the sensations flowing through your hips, legs, shoulders as you move. Whatever sensation or movement happens it's known without volition.
It's also possible for attention to be no where at all.
There is knowing. But not of any particular thing.
Not here nor there. Kind of like floating about in space without making contact with anything.
I don't mean to be cryptic but at the moment I know of no other way to describe It.
When you wake, do you need to think about how to stand up? How to dress? Where to find your clothes? Directions to work?
All of that has become habitual and automatic. As is true with countless other aspects of our existence. So really one could live most of their life not really having to think over much of anything. And by this point most of your thoughts may have lost all or most of its power over you. The attachments fell away.
Which in this case means, even if attention were diverted and detained by thoughts they would cause you no suffering.
All of, or most of the associations have been broken. Meaning you no longer associate a particular thought with a particular feeling, belief, desire or meaning etc. They have become relatively free from meaningful association.
They are like simple instructions to perform certain tasks. They contain no other troublesome qualities. No emotions, greed or anything else.
Edit:
It is an experience in the sense that there was an occurrence. Something definitely happened. The chocolate was eaten.
It isn't an experience in the sense that the occurrence wasn't defined. There was no sense of I. There was no sense of doing. The act (eating) wasn't labeled. The entire action and process was not identified, defined, categorized or described by the mind. There was no feelings about the action. No like or aversion. No qualities at all were attributed to the action or process. So in this sense, to the one acting, it's as though nothing happened. Like writing on water. So it is not labeled by their mind as an experience.
So this is why I say, neither experience nor non experience.
Something appeared to occur to outside observers but it was not recognized as such by the mind of the other. There was no mind.
Let's see:
Time for a nice hot cup of (go ahead - pick your brew)...enjoy.
*We are talking perfection, not awakening...