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.
So then "original mind" differs from what the koan about our original face before our parents were born points to?
I don't think it differs, as all koans are meant to point to the same thing, original mind. Or true nature, true self, ultimate truth, Buddha nature or whatever you want to call it. The thing about koans though is that they try to get you to demonstrate your understanding rather than give intellectual explanations of your theoretical understanding. If you answered something like "well, our face before we were born is non abiding mind, blah, blah, blah" that would be rejected by the teacher because that's just an intellectual theory. The teacher might say something like "don't tell me what original nature is, show it to me!" If you have seen your true self, then you should be able to easily show it rather than just explain the theory of it.
@SpinyNorman said:
So this quality of non-clinging is the mind's "original nature"? Is that basically the same as "Original mind", or something different?
I think original nature, original mind, true self, ultimate truth, ultimate reality, etc. are all meant to mean the same thing. Although, I think non-clinging is not an accurate description of what original nature is, but rather what original nature isn't. "True self is not clinging" is really a negation, rather than an affirmation. If you want to say what original nature is, I think you could say "whatever is left over after there is no more clinging, or aversion, to any phenomena." But if you think about that, what is there really that is left over after that? Emptiness? But what is emptiness? If there is some thing there that can be described as "emptiness" then wouldn't that alone make it not-emptiness? How could it be emptiness if there is something still there that can be described? Interesting questions!
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Original mind is meant to describe a fresh brand new mind so to speak. Even a teflon pan gets used, rusty, and gets stained where it lost some of its luster. A new pan that lasts and endures wont have that worn out look to it.
Somebody asked my teacher this once. They said "hey zen master, what is your true nature!?" He said "Here watch!" He picked up a cup of tea sitting there and took a sip, then he put it down, looked up, smiled and said "Understand?" LOL
Original mind/original nature..is the same thing.
Both simply teach that beyond a discriminative heart/mind......
......
That form, sensation, thought, activity & consciousness is innately pure, unstained & void.
The silly point about targeting zennies @Spinynorman is that they don't get the point, until they do, when they then realise they have to shut up! END OF THREAD...
That form, sensation, thought, activity & consciousness is innately pure, unstained & void.
Indeed.
Pure and void. You will notice words are used to describe and then become void.
It is why enlightened mind can arise but is not the arising being or pure or anything. The mind aware of 'it' can approach more subtle apprehension but will always fail to:
grasp
describe
comprehend
process
Zen description is not 'any old nonsense' it is a pristine awareness of No-Thing. So one can say anything when understood but without understanding nothing is said.
My teacher says that it is not that the nature of mind is too vague for language, but rather that language is not precise enough to point out the nature of mind.
Original mind/original nature..is the same thing.
Both simply teach that beyond a discriminative heart/mind......
......
That form, sensation, thought, activity & consciousness is innately pure, unstained & void.
My teacher says that it is not that the nature of mind is too vague for language, but rather that language is not precise enough to point out the nature of mind.
I like that. On a great day, when the vibes are right, when I'm calm and centred and so relaxed I can really let go durring meditation -
I just kind of go somewhere special, a little farther then I usually can go inside. My mind is quiet and there's no thoughts or judgement.
And the side effect is an intense security and bliss. A knowing of something beyond me. It's like a taste of heaven, a gift that keeps me positive and wanting to continue the journey.
And there's no words. I don't even bother trying to describe it to people (usually), because I think that they can get there too, but in their own way that I wouldn't understand.
BUT when someone gets there on their own merit, and tells me about it, we have a dangly conversation trying to comprehend it together - but really, there's no need, because we are both smiling, and remembering the same feeling. I can see it in their squinty eyes and sincere smile.
And I bet that interaction would be the same as I would have with an avatar if i was seeking out the answer to finding the original mind. It's wonderful because I wouldn't need to speak an ancient language, or even be Buddhist. It's something beyond my human construct of reason, yet so gentle it allows me to comprehend, if only for a little while
@Jeffrey said:
Is original mind the same thing as Rigpa?
I have read rigpa rendered as "ordinary mind."
Awareness of content without identification with content, if I may be verbose about it.
@Jeffrey said:
My teacher says that it is not that the nature of mind is too vague for language, but rather that language is not precise enough to point out the nature of mind.
This is very true and an often overlooked point in Dharma practice. Language primes you for direct experience, but language is not the experiencing in itself.
If you imagine waves coasting on the ocean, although they tell you something about its depth, where the sandbars are, where the deepest channels might cross, they are still just waves on the surface.
To answer the question 'what is original mind' maybe we should take a look at the current mind in question. What is mind?
Well, in Dharma there is the ground the path and the fruit.
What is the ground of your experience? Namely, the senses, your seamless world of ever-flowing non-intersecting rivers.
and what is the path? It is direct understanding of the four noble truths, direct like a thorn in your foot and the soothing balm that comes after. Direct like the sun on your belly in the Tennessee meadows. Direct like the smell of petunias in your garden. There is no elaboration of words that says "oh yeah here comes some dharmakaya" and then a story afterward "mmm what an awesome dharmakaya" and without the story it becomes more apparent that there is no independent lasting self
plant your seeds, help people as much as you can, be happy that you did, again and again.
study and practice, rinse and repeat. Our lives are full of richness and experience -- opportunities to practice what we know to the best of our ability and honestly assess how far we are.
It takes a long time. It really does. But a long time is still shorter than forever.
If you're fortunate enough to encounter a truly great guide in person, study and meditate frequently to have the concentration and samadhi to be able to absorb all they can share with you. Above all, stay curious, be fresh, and have faith.
What is your mind?
What does "origin" mean?
Where does the flame come from? Where does it go?
Sentient beings are you and i and all the living shapes in between. May all reach the point of non-slipping.
How do we know that Buddha never spoke of it? Is that concluded because that the concept was not discussed in the Pali Canon? Wasn't Buddhas transmission oral until that point? How do we know the entirety of Buddhas 50 years of teaching to countless individuals?
On another note do we think the abhidharma is the best understanding of the true nature of reality? Or can we say that the madyamaka understanding of dependent origination is an improvement?
@SpinyNorman how could there be two different schools but not have differences? That's a tautology that for a school do be different it has to have different teachings. Even within the Theravada traditions there are disagreements which I recall from a former NB member Dhammadhatu (DD) having heavy disgust at certain teachers such as Ajah Chan. (DD was a former newbuddhist member who got banned 2 or more times because he rage posted and was an all around dickhead).
So I propose that there were more teachings than contained in the Pali Canon alone. That explains why these teachings do not appear in the PC community. They were excluded. Thus it is logical that they appear in one school and not another. They were promoted by one and excluded by another.
@Jeffrey said: They were promoted by one and excluded by another.
Sure, but "Original mind" only appears in the Zen school. To come at it from the other direction, it's seems likely that ideas which appear in most schools were originally taught by the Buddha, because all the schools and ideas developed from the same source.
so if two lineages have same teachings it is consistent with dissemination of teaching that is to say it is reasonable. however from that it does not logically follow that cases where the teaching is only followed by one lineage are disproven.
Sorry I can't make that sentence clearer I took my meds already for tonight and it makes my thinking unclear.
I think it's like if there are finger prints on the door knob then it supports the narrative that 'so and so' was the killer. But if no prints are found that does not prove 'so and so' was not the killer.
The appearance of parallel teachings supports the notion that both came from shakyamuni. However if the teachings don't appear in all traditions we cannot conclude from that that those particular teachings were made up just like the lack of a fingerprint (does not) prove the person was not the killer.
@Jeffrey said: The appearance of parallel teachings supports the notion that both came from shakyamuni. However if the teachings don't appear in all traditions we cannot conclude from that that those particular teachings were made up just like the lack of a fingerprint (does not) prove the person was not the killer.
No, it's not conclusive, we're dealing with probabilities.
I had not come across the term 'original mind' before as far as I can remember. However it is obvious how and what it refers to from the context and usage.
@SpinyNorman said:
Sure, but "Original mind" only appears in the Zen school.
I wouldn't say it's only found in zen. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:
"[T]he tathagatagarbha is none but Thusness or the Buddha Nature, and is the originally untainted pure mind which lies overspread by, and exists in, the mind of greed and anger of all beings."
A lot of other schools have a Buddha nature concept. Of course they are all Mahayana traditions.
@genie said:
the idea of Original mind is a later invention. Buddha never spoke of it.
And...what? I'd like to hear the conclusion part of the observation.
Does the fact that we don't have a record of Buddha using the same metaphor or language to describe the mind as we decided was useful later mean Buddha would disagree, or that the words he used were wrong?
@SpinyNorman said:
Ah, the Mahayana, those great re-inventors of The Wheel.
Have you seen those early wheels? Made out of wood and metal so they broke easily and had no cushion against bumps at all, nothing but a little bit of animal grease to keep them from grinding the axle down to a nub, and you're lucky if they started out round. Progress is taking great ideas and making them new and improved. It's still a wheel, of course. The wheel was a marvelous, world changing invention. Some things about it can't be changed, or it's no longer a wheel.
@Cinorjer said: And yeah, I'm just being snarky today.
I was just teasing. I've been involved in all 3 vehicles and have always found the sectarianism tedious. You should hear what some of the Vajrayana types say about the Mahayana!
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:
This is one for the Zennies. What do you understand by "Original mind" in Zen? I had a google but couldn't find a succinct description of it. I think it's sometimes also referred to as "original nature".
There have been many terms used to refer to our essential essence, which is not anything perceivable. Please keep in mind that they are only words. We must discuss Meditativeness in order to properly train so we create words to explain the many aspects of this. What's important is what these words refer to and not the words themselves. We easily become so entangled in their usage that we forget our purpose as practitioners, which is to know it directly.
Here are some of the terms used from many traditions and sects:
Buddha nature, Original nature, Original state, Original spirit, Basic state, Rigpa, True nature, Primordial awareness, Knowing presence, Pure consciousness, Pure awareness, Inate nature, Essential essence, Parabrahma, Pure knowing, God, True self, The self, Atman, Original face, Natural state, Pure being, Don't know mind, Original mind, Brahma, Awareness of awareness, Awareness aware of itself, Consciousness without content, Krishna consciousness, Christ consciousness, etc.
Some of these terms are sometimes also used in different contexts which isn't directly referring to our Natural state. So one should really focus on the essence of this and not the specific words. That will only create more confusion.
So what is this 'Original mind'?
Let's use the term 'Awareness'. To be aware is always to know an object. Whether it be mental or physical. We are 'aware of' it. Our original mind is not an object we can know through the senses or even through mind. To know it directly all objects must be absent. All that we are not, is no longer present. Consciousness is No longer attached to objects in that moment. There is no contact between consciousness and external or internal appearances. This happens with eyes open during daily activities.
The senses lightly skims over objects with no residuals left behind. Contact happens, one could say, but there is no recognition of contact made. We function in those moments because we have learned the necessary survival skills during our lifetime.
No need to think about it. Does one need to think how to perform tasks one has done repeatedly over the years. They are habitual. There Are stored in consciousness. Consciousness need not consciously recognize an object to know how to respond to it. That is all in the background. Whatever normally appears in the world is still there but there is no interest for you. We completely let it go. There is just that knowing presence there. And we know this existence as it really is.
Bare and raw as it has always existed. Only mind gives existence and its objects qualities. Those are all man made. They do not exist outside of mind. We create such things to communicate our experiences and among each other. Essentially all things simply are Which is beyond expression. How can one truly express that which is prior to language and thought, using words?
So our original mind is this potential to know. The foundation of consciousness. Consciousness with no objects. Consciousness prior to objects. When there are objects there is the world. Without objects there is only pure knowing. The world does not exist for you.
We do not suffer in those moments because consciousness is no longer attached to objects. It knows objects but only in the most basic way. All names, definitions and descriptions for objects of the world are still there, in memory. But there is no need to consciously access that to function. One simply lives without all those disturbances. When names, definitions and descriptions are needed they are available. But when not needed consciousness let's them go. One simply lives. One is no longer this or that. One simply is.
Even one who is not fully realized can know this. We practice continuously to be able to reach the point where our practice (self observation and letting go) becomes effortless. A point where we can simply drop the world completely. We live in the world but we are no longer mentally influenced by It. We can live this way for many moments throughout our day. Until the time when We completely let go and it becomes our permanent state.
I hope I haven't created more confusion.
9
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
(No, but I bet @SpinyNorman will have an answer for you....)
Please keep in mind that I speak only from direct knowing. Whatever I have said is not from books. It's from my life as a dedicated practitioner. I'm simply using language which I have learned in my time as a seeker, to explain my personal experiences. I cannot speak about what others have or have not said or known. That is their own unique knowing and expression of it. I can only express It as I've known it.
@Jeffrey said:
SpinyNorman how could there be two different schools but not have differences? That's a tautology that for a school do be different it has to have different teachings. Even within the Theravada traditions there are disagreements which I recall from a former NB member Dhammadhatu (DD) having heavy disgust at certain teachers such as Ajah Chan. (DD was a former newbuddhist member who got banned 2 or more times because he rage posted and was an all around dickhead).
That's totally unnecessary and bad form, @Jeffrey. Let's not resort to name-calling, especially of someone who isn't even here.
No. I've never restricted myself to any tradition. I've always kept an open mind. I feel from my experience that all meditative traditions have wisdom to offer. I truly feel that if I had been restrictive, I would be completely lost. Sometimes it requires the collective wisdom of ALL traditions to completely open us up.
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
I rather took you as a rastafarian... it's the hair....dead give-away....
Hee. I just love Zen. You are all asking "What am I?" and pointing to the moon, even to ask if that's a possible answer. That tickles me. I love you folks.
Original mind is the mind asking the question. It's you. When you ask "What is original mind" it is the original mind asking itself what it is and not realizing it. Doesn't that make you want to laugh?
I am reaching out to a cup between typing these words and taking a sip of coffee. That is original mind drinking a sip of coffee. Wet. Hot. Satisfying to my desire for coffee in the morning. That craving is not my original mind, though. Then original mind paused to admire the blue field on the screen before putting more words down, words that original mind created. Those words are not original mind, though.
Original mind is you, because that's all the mind there is. What is your original mind doing right now?
@pegembara said:
Could this be what the Zennies called original mind?
There is a zen story about this.
Zen Master Ryokan lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."
Comments
I don't think it differs, as all koans are meant to point to the same thing, original mind. Or true nature, true self, ultimate truth, Buddha nature or whatever you want to call it.
The thing about koans though is that they try to get you to demonstrate your understanding rather than give intellectual explanations of your theoretical understanding. If you answered something like "well, our face before we were born is non abiding mind, blah, blah, blah" that would be rejected by the teacher because that's just an intellectual theory. The teacher might say something like "don't tell me what original nature is, show it to me!" If you have seen your true self, then you should be able to easily show it rather than just explain the theory of it.
I think original nature, original mind, true self, ultimate truth, ultimate reality, etc. are all meant to mean the same thing. Although, I think non-clinging is not an accurate description of what original nature is, but rather what original nature isn't. "True self is not clinging" is really a negation, rather than an affirmation. If you want to say what original nature is, I think you could say "whatever is left over after there is no more clinging, or aversion, to any phenomena." But if you think about that, what is there really that is left over after that? Emptiness? But what is emptiness? If there is some thing there that can be described as "emptiness" then wouldn't that alone make it not-emptiness? How could it be emptiness if there is something still there that can be described? Interesting questions!
Pure potential.
Original mind is pure potential.
Not knowing. And I don't mean ignorance. In other words, fuhgeddaboudit.
Original mind is meant to describe a fresh brand new mind so to speak. Even a teflon pan gets used, rusty, and gets stained where it lost some of its luster. A new pan that lasts and endures wont have that worn out look to it.
Somebody asked my teacher this once. They said "hey zen master, what is your true nature!?" He said "Here watch!" He picked up a cup of tea sitting there and took a sip, then he put it down, looked up, smiled and said "Understand?" LOL
@SpinyNorman
Original mind/original nature..is the same thing.
Both simply teach that beyond a discriminative heart/mind......
......
That form, sensation, thought, activity & consciousness is innately pure, unstained & void.
The silly point about targeting zennies @Spinynorman is that they don't get the point, until they do, when they then realise they have to shut up! END OF THREAD...
I like the sour cream and chives mind more than the original version.
OK @jeffrey that comment was Zennistically acceptable only if peppered with some smoked Salmon... and Dill!
Indeed.
Pure and void. You will notice words are used to describe and then become void.
It is why enlightened mind can arise but is not the arising being or pure or anything. The mind aware of 'it' can approach more subtle apprehension but will always fail to:
Zen description is not 'any old nonsense' it is a pristine awareness of No-Thing. So one can say anything when understood but without understanding nothing is said.
A very good exoteric teaching @lobster ...
My teacher says that it is not that the nature of mind is too vague for language, but rather that language is not precise enough to point out the nature of mind.
I can't quite remember ... it's on the tip of my tongue ...
Just void? No mountains once again?
Yeah, the mountains come back, which points to a radical shift in perception rather than some metaphysical hocus-pocus.
I l> @Jeffrey said:
I like that. On a great day, when the vibes are right, when I'm calm and centred and so relaxed I can really let go durring meditation -
I just kind of go somewhere special, a little farther then I usually can go inside. My mind is quiet and there's no thoughts or judgement.
And the side effect is an intense security and bliss. A knowing of something beyond me. It's like a taste of heaven, a gift that keeps me positive and wanting to continue the journey.
And there's no words. I don't even bother trying to describe it to people (usually), because I think that they can get there too, but in their own way that I wouldn't understand.
BUT when someone gets there on their own merit, and tells me about it, we have a dangly conversation trying to comprehend it together - but really, there's no need, because we are both smiling, and remembering the same feeling. I can see it in their squinty eyes and sincere smile.
And I bet that interaction would be the same as I would have with an avatar if i was seeking out the answer to finding the original mind. It's wonderful because I wouldn't need to speak an ancient language, or even be Buddhist. It's something beyond my human construct of reason, yet so gentle it allows me to comprehend, if only for a little while
I would like to trade in my original mind for a new one, it's beyond repair.
^^^ you can have mine ... I don't use it ...
I have read rigpa rendered as "ordinary mind."
Awareness of content without identification with content, if I may be verbose about it.
This is very true and an often overlooked point in Dharma practice. Language primes you for direct experience, but language is not the experiencing in itself.
If you imagine waves coasting on the ocean, although they tell you something about its depth, where the sandbars are, where the deepest channels might cross, they are still just waves on the surface.
To answer the question 'what is original mind' maybe we should take a look at the current mind in question. What is mind?
Well, in Dharma there is the ground the path and the fruit.
What is the ground of your experience? Namely, the senses, your seamless world of ever-flowing non-intersecting rivers.
and what is the path? It is direct understanding of the four noble truths, direct like a thorn in your foot and the soothing balm that comes after. Direct like the sun on your belly in the Tennessee meadows. Direct like the smell of petunias in your garden. There is no elaboration of words that says "oh yeah here comes some dharmakaya" and then a story afterward "mmm what an awesome dharmakaya" and without the story it becomes more apparent that there is no independent lasting self
plant your seeds, help people as much as you can, be happy that you did, again and again.
study and practice, rinse and repeat. Our lives are full of richness and experience -- opportunities to practice what we know to the best of our ability and honestly assess how far we are.
It takes a long time. It really does. But a long time is still shorter than forever.
If you're fortunate enough to encounter a truly great guide in person, study and meditate frequently to have the concentration and samadhi to be able to absorb all they can share with you. Above all, stay curious, be fresh, and have faith.
What is your mind?
What does "origin" mean?
Where does the flame come from? Where does it go?
Sentient beings are you and i and all the living shapes in between. May all reach the point of non-slipping.
Get back to work! ;D
I don't know.
Oh, someone already said it. Then I don't know.
the idea of Original mind is a later invention. Buddha never spoke of it.
How do we know that Buddha never spoke of it? Is that concluded because that the concept was not discussed in the Pali Canon? Wasn't Buddhas transmission oral until that point? How do we know the entirety of Buddhas 50 years of teaching to countless individuals?
On another note do we think the abhidharma is the best understanding of the true nature of reality? Or can we say that the madyamaka understanding of dependent origination is an improvement?
And one can understand why
If something only appears in one school it's reasonable to wonder about that.
@SpinyNorman how could there be two different schools but not have differences? That's a tautology that for a school do be different it has to have different teachings. Even within the Theravada traditions there are disagreements which I recall from a former NB member Dhammadhatu (DD) having heavy disgust at certain teachers such as Ajah Chan. (DD was a former newbuddhist member who got banned 2 or more times because he rage posted and was an all around dickhead).
So I propose that there were more teachings than contained in the Pali Canon alone. That explains why these teachings do not appear in the PC community. They were excluded. Thus it is logical that they appear in one school and not another. They were promoted by one and excluded by another.
Sure, but "Original mind" only appears in the Zen school. To come at it from the other direction, it's seems likely that ideas which appear in most schools were originally taught by the Buddha, because all the schools and ideas developed from the same source.
so if two lineages have same teachings it is consistent with dissemination of teaching that is to say it is reasonable. however from that it does not logically follow that cases where the teaching is only followed by one lineage are disproven.
Sorry I can't make that sentence clearer I took my meds already for tonight and it makes my thinking unclear.
I think it's like if there are finger prints on the door knob then it supports the narrative that 'so and so' was the killer. But if no prints are found that does not prove 'so and so' was not the killer.
The appearance of parallel teachings supports the notion that both came from shakyamuni. However if the teachings don't appear in all traditions we cannot conclude from that that those particular teachings were made up just like the lack of a fingerprint (does not) prove the person was not the killer.
No, it's not conclusive, we're dealing with probabilities.
I had not come across the term 'original mind' before as far as I can remember. However it is obvious how and what it refers to from the context and usage.
I wouldn't say it's only found in zen. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:
A lot of other schools have a Buddha nature concept. Of course they are all Mahayana traditions.
Ah, the Mahayana, those great re-inventors of The Wheel.
And...what? I'd like to hear the conclusion part of the observation.
Does the fact that we don't have a record of Buddha using the same metaphor or language to describe the mind as we decided was useful later mean Buddha would disagree, or that the words he used were wrong?
Have you seen those early wheels? Made out of wood and metal so they broke easily and had no cushion against bumps at all, nothing but a little bit of animal grease to keep them from grinding the axle down to a nub, and you're lucky if they started out round. Progress is taking great ideas and making them new and improved. It's still a wheel, of course. The wheel was a marvelous, world changing invention. Some things about it can't be changed, or it's no longer a wheel.
And yeah, I'm just being snarky today.
I was just teasing. I've been involved in all 3 vehicles and have always found the sectarianism tedious. You should hear what some of the Vajrayana types say about the Mahayana!
Potay-to, potah-to....
There have been many terms used to refer to our essential essence, which is not anything perceivable. Please keep in mind that they are only words. We must discuss Meditativeness in order to properly train so we create words to explain the many aspects of this. What's important is what these words refer to and not the words themselves. We easily become so entangled in their usage that we forget our purpose as practitioners, which is to know it directly.
Here are some of the terms used from many traditions and sects:
Buddha nature, Original nature, Original state, Original spirit, Basic state, Rigpa, True nature, Primordial awareness, Knowing presence, Pure consciousness, Pure awareness, Inate nature, Essential essence, Parabrahma, Pure knowing, God, True self, The self, Atman, Original face, Natural state, Pure being, Don't know mind, Original mind, Brahma, Awareness of awareness, Awareness aware of itself, Consciousness without content, Krishna consciousness, Christ consciousness, etc.
Some of these terms are sometimes also used in different contexts which isn't directly referring to our Natural state. So one should really focus on the essence of this and not the specific words. That will only create more confusion.
So what is this 'Original mind'?
Let's use the term 'Awareness'. To be aware is always to know an object. Whether it be mental or physical. We are 'aware of' it. Our original mind is not an object we can know through the senses or even through mind. To know it directly all objects must be absent. All that we are not, is no longer present. Consciousness is No longer attached to objects in that moment. There is no contact between consciousness and external or internal appearances. This happens with eyes open during daily activities.
The senses lightly skims over objects with no residuals left behind. Contact happens, one could say, but there is no recognition of contact made. We function in those moments because we have learned the necessary survival skills during our lifetime.
No need to think about it. Does one need to think how to perform tasks one has done repeatedly over the years. They are habitual. There Are stored in consciousness. Consciousness need not consciously recognize an object to know how to respond to it. That is all in the background. Whatever normally appears in the world is still there but there is no interest for you. We completely let it go. There is just that knowing presence there. And we know this existence as it really is.
Bare and raw as it has always existed. Only mind gives existence and its objects qualities. Those are all man made. They do not exist outside of mind. We create such things to communicate our experiences and among each other. Essentially all things simply are Which is beyond expression. How can one truly express that which is prior to language and thought, using words?
So our original mind is this potential to know. The foundation of consciousness. Consciousness with no objects. Consciousness prior to objects. When there are objects there is the world. Without objects there is only pure knowing. The world does not exist for you.
We do not suffer in those moments because consciousness is no longer attached to objects. It knows objects but only in the most basic way. All names, definitions and descriptions for objects of the world are still there, in memory. But there is no need to consciously access that to function. One simply lives without all those disturbances. When names, definitions and descriptions are needed they are available. But when not needed consciousness let's them go. One simply lives. One is no longer this or that. One simply is.
Even one who is not fully realized can know this. We practice continuously to be able to reach the point where our practice (self observation and letting go) becomes effortless. A point where we can simply drop the world completely. We live in the world but we are no longer mentally influenced by It. We can live this way for many moments throughout our day. Until the time when We completely let go and it becomes our permanent state.
I hope I haven't created more confusion.
(No, but I bet @SpinyNorman will have an answer for you....)
To All
Please keep in mind that I speak only from direct knowing. Whatever I have said is not from books. It's from my life as a dedicated practitioner. I'm simply using language which I have learned in my time as a seeker, to explain my personal experiences. I cannot speak about what others have or have not said or known. That is their own unique knowing and expression of it. I can only express It as I've known it.
Thank you
That's totally unnecessary and bad form, @Jeffrey. Let's not resort to name-calling, especially of someone who isn't even here.
Not at all, a very good post. Are you practising in a particular tradition?
@SpinyNorman
No. I've never restricted myself to any tradition. I've always kept an open mind. I feel from my experience that all meditative traditions have wisdom to offer. I truly feel that if I had been restrictive, I would be completely lost. Sometimes it requires the collective wisdom of ALL traditions to completely open us up.
I rather took you as a rastafarian... it's the hair....dead give-away....
apologies to you @Jason (and to DD).
Could this be what the Zennies called original mind?
No, that's a moon.
THIS is what 'Zennies' call 'original mind'
..... (A clear blue sky)...
Hee. I just love Zen. You are all asking "What am I?" and pointing to the moon, even to ask if that's a possible answer. That tickles me. I love you folks.
Original mind is the mind asking the question. It's you. When you ask "What is original mind" it is the original mind asking itself what it is and not realizing it. Doesn't that make you want to laugh?
I am reaching out to a cup between typing these words and taking a sip of coffee. That is original mind drinking a sip of coffee. Wet. Hot. Satisfying to my desire for coffee in the morning. That craving is not my original mind, though. Then original mind paused to admire the blue field on the screen before putting more words down, words that original mind created. Those words are not original mind, though.
Original mind is you, because that's all the mind there is. What is your original mind doing right now?
Zen is great, you can just make stuff up and sound cool.
There is a zen story about this.
Zen Master Ryokan lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."