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.
i.e. I am sorry but I think it is just a straight forward account of things, and in my own opinion, it can be never deducted with thought (reference Heart Sutra: no discrimination) because how can something which is secondary in this case i.e. discrimination deduce the true meaning of this Sutra which points to something beyond consciousness Abu
@Abu, Yeah but bringing it back to the points made initially, having a conceptual understanding of emptiness and dependent origination, despite obviously being ultimately contradictory, paradoxical and futile in regards gaining true insight, is beneficial as a basis for practice leading to direct insight of right-view. As otherwise, why would Nagarjuna have bothered writing the Seventy Stanzas? And you kind of invited this tail-chasing by beginning the discussion "Sutra Studies: The Heart Sutra" in the first place!
i.e. I am sorry but I think it is just a straight forward account of things, and in my own opinion, it can be never deducted with thought (reference Heart Sutra: no discrimination) because how can something which is secondary in this case i.e. discrimination deduce the true meaning of this Sutra which points to something beyond consciousness Abu
@Abu, Yeah but bringing it back to the points made initially, having a conceptual understanding of emptiness and dependent origination, despite obviously being ultimately contradictory, paradoxical and futile in regards gaining true insight, is beneficial as a basis for practice leading to direct insight of right-view. As otherwise, why would Nagarjuna have bothered writing the Seventy Stanzas? And you kind of invited this tail-chasing by beginning the discussion "Sutra Studies: The Heart Sutra" in the first place!
Yeah I know and you noticed! Dang!
Well I can only say how it was for me. Personally (and I am grateful for this myself) I was always interested (and that can read obsessed) with Buddhist practice, but one of my own saving graces was that I was always prepared to 'set aside' -- which means not rejecting and not yet accepting NOR pouring a lot of energy into -- those items that I did not yet fully understand (read: know) through my own practice.
So that means I also read about emptiness before and I skimmed DO. And I also read and appreciated Nagarjuna.
But my thirst and passion was always for the juice in real life, the real knowing etc. So therefore, I read and was informed but never:
1. Diverted too much effort into it, trusting that if my practice was to reveal it, it would come when it was right, and 2. I never wanted to be someone who mistook intellectual understanding for genuine understanding. And genuine understanding necessarily precedes and supercedes the intellect.
That is one of the most common traps.
OK but you are right, and I posted this because it is one of our central Suttas in Mahayana Buddhism and just by reading it, we have formed a connection. Plus, this is a Buddhist forum so we might as well discuss some good Buddhist texts, as well as our opinions, I thought
My only encouragement would be not to mark the flag poles too early and allow your practice to guide you itself. i.e theories and all are fine as interim guides
By the way, you used the word contradictory. I used to have a phrase which said: 'In practice, all contradictions are resolved' and I fully believe and stand by that today.
So playing is OK I think, as long as we don't mistake that for the insight of the Buddhas. I wouldn't know what that is, but the Heart Sutra gives us hints and I guess I thought it was a good idea to refer to a text like this to give us context on the potentialities of practice, often marred by the materialism focus of many of our surroundings.
If the mind is just no mind because it is just thought. Gone. Thought. Gone. Thought.
And the body is one sensation. Memory. Another sensation. Memory.
Plus the color, shape, and form.
When eyes are closed there is no sight of body. Even the tactile sensations do not form a body its just points of contact. And even those just dissolve into spacious presence.
There is absolutely no thing but a vast ocean of being. And even the being isn't a thing so really what is this?
LOL I sniffed a rat right from the beginning - a set-up! :rolleyes: :banghead:
But my thirst and passion was always for the juice in real life, the real knowing etc. So therefore, I read and was informed but never:
1. Diverted too much effort into it, trusting that if my practice was to reveal it, it would come when it was right, and 2. I never wanted to be someone who mistook intellectual understanding for genuine understanding. And genuine understanding necessarily precedes and supercedes the intellect.
My only encouragement would be not to mark the flag poles too early and allow your practice to guide you itself. i.e theories and all are fine as interim guides
Agree 100%. Like I've said before- keep 'don't know' mind.
By the way, you used the word contradictory. I used to have a phrase which said: 'In practice, all contradictions are resolved' and I fully believe and stand by that today.
So playing is OK I think, as long as we don't mistake that for the insight of the Buddhas. I wouldn't know what that is, but the Heart Sutra gives us hints and I guess I thought it was a good idea to refer to a text like this to give us context on the potentialities of practice, often marred by the materialism focus of many of our surroundings.
I'm with you on this one too. Contradictory only in terms of rationalization/conceptualization of wisdom which transcends the intellect. And personally I love paradoxes and the open-ended/unresolved.
So what happens when we try to take it apart, to dissect it to see what makes it so special? The lines become nonsense, or meaningless, or illogical or confusing. Just when we think one line or point being made begins to make sense, the next line takes us in a different direction.
Dear Cinorjer old friend! Thanks for your input. I would just like to add my perspective which is the Sutra is just a fully open honest basic expose of reality. It is so beautiful in its truth and to me, it is an encouragement that practice makes all things possible -- to the extent that the words make perfect sense in genuine realisation - just as they are.
I know that might sound offensive, but I just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility.
Best wishes, Abu
I think you have a mature understanding. Sometimes a message is so simple, it's almost impossible to comprehend in spite of being exactly what it says on the label.
If form is empty, if the rest of the skandhas are empty, then we must ask, empty of what? But we can't ignore that it also insists that emptiness is form, and therefore we come back around the great circle in our mind. It is brilliant. And if everything is empty, then isn't the great magic perfect mantra at the end also empty? It's an amazing mind trap equal to the best our Zen masters have created.
I'm with you on this one too. Contradictory only in terms of rationalization/conceptualization of wisdom which transcends the intellect. And personally I love paradoxes and the open-ended/unresolved.
And if everything is empty, then isn't the great magic perfect mantra at the end also empty? It's an amazing mind trap equal to the best our Zen masters have created.
How are the books going? I hope well. Can you make a living from it? I would love to know how to make a living on one side and do what I love on the other
Thankyou for your comments, I would just say again that I don't think it's necessarily a mind trap, but YMMV and things keep changing.
If the mind is just no mind because it is just thought. Gone. Thought. Gone. Thought.
And the body is one sensation. Memory. Another sensation. Memory.
Plus the color, shape, and form.
When eyes are closed there is no sight of body. Even the tactile sensations do not form a body its just points of contact. And even those just dissolve into spacious presence.
There is absolutely no thing but a vast ocean of being. And even the being isn't a thing so really what is this?
In emptiness -- and yet there is consciousness, form. Dependent origination.
Yes, I get that, but it seems to be contradicted by that quote later in the sutra: "Therefore, in emptiness, no forms, no sensations, perceptions, impressions, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind;"
Unless it's pointing to the fact that these categories are just the labels we give to our experience?
Care to elaborate @Floating_Abu ? The beginner's mind I'm speaking of is the one which is not lulled into belief that mere intellectual reasoning is true wisdom (like you stated), and that one should not give up questioning one's own understanding/views, i.e. avoid falling into stagnation; of believing one's own opinions and views to be solid and correct (closed-minded/overly-opinionated). Of keeping interpretation of experience open to possibilities. As well as trying to avoid the conceited and closed "know-all" mindset of the experienced practitioner/'expert', with the aim of keeping the mind fresh, humble and receptive without clinging, holding views lightly. In doing so we also avoid fueling the ego. Don't you agree that this also speaks of right-view in terms of 'no-view'? When I was younger I was a know-it-all, now the older I get the more I know that I don't know.
And if everything is empty, then isn't the great magic perfect mantra at the end also empty? It's an amazing mind trap equal to the best our Zen masters have created.
How are the books going? I hope well. Can you make a living from it? I would love to know how to make a living on one side and do what I love on the other
Thankyou for your comments, I would just say again that I don't think it's necessarily a mind trap, but YMMV and things keep changing.
With kind regards,
Abu
Eh, royalties give me a bit of spending money every quarter but nothing to brag about. Got another book coming out this summer and still waiting for what's left of the reading public to discover what a genius I am.
... Further to my prior post regarding this statement you made @Floating_Abu. Are you talking about the absolute knowing of the fully enlightened? Of which there is no doubt?
... LOL, (you've got me thinking with that ambiguous comment @floating_Abu, told you I love ambiguity!) OR, having just read the article you provided a link to in the discussion about awareness being aware of itself, the knowing of, meditation [which] offers a powerful opportunity to discover and rest in a receptive mode of knowing
Which brings it back to Dogen's 'zazen is enlightenment'.
... As well as spinning-out on analysis, which I'm doing now. Phew! Time to resort back to don't know mind, breath and enjoy a brew me thinks! LOL :eek2:
I just posted that link because Fede was looking for the source, I didn't read the article.
I don't think that awareness is aware of itself. Moreso I thought it would be more akin to: 'Do you want to understand? Just discern the things perceived; you cannot see the mind itself.' (Foyan)
As to don't know mind, I think it is a very good encouragement, and I agree with what you say above ('In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few' - Suzuki).
To your point about doubt, I do believe myself that there is a stage where doubt is no longer a hindrance for it is known for what it is. In that state, there is a very pure knowing which transcends and supercedes a lot of problems. Even knowing then is not an issue per se. Per se. But this is just my thinking.
Thankyou for your encouragement, and practice. Abu
Eh, royalties give me a bit of spending money every quarter but nothing to brag about. Got another book coming out this summer and still waiting for what's left of the reading public to discover what a genius I am.
Hope they catch on pretty soon and thanks for the info.
In emptiness -- and yet there is consciousness, form. Dependent origination.
Yes, I get that, but it seems to be contradicted by that quote later in the sutra: "Therefore, in emptiness, no forms, no sensations, perceptions, impressions, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind;"
Unless it's pointing to the fact that these categories are just the labels we give to our experience?
In emptiness -- and yet there is consciousness, form. Dependent origination.
Yes, I get that, but it seems to be contradicted by that quote later in the sutra: "Therefore, in emptiness, no forms, no sensations, perceptions, impressions, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind;"
Unless it's pointing to the fact that these categories are just the labels we give to our experience?
Found something by Master Sheng-Yen:
Buddhadharma speaks of different levels of emptiness. First is the emptiness viewed by ordinary sentient beings, which is illusory, or false, emptiness. Second is the emptiness perceived by Hinayana practitioners, or emptiness derived from analysis. Third is the emptiness of Mahayana practitioners, who see emptiness as reality.
People who believe in an illusory, or false, emptiness may say that life is an illusion and therefore feel they can do anything they want. It sounds like Buddhism, but these people speak from their intellect and imagination. These people do not understand through direct experience the principles of causes and conditions and cause and consequence (karma).
Buddhadharma states that there are causes and conditions, and cause and consequence, but there is no self-nature -- something that is unchanging, independent and eternal. It is in this sense that Buddhism uses the word emptiness. One can only understand this through direct experience, but even this truth is not ultimate emptiness. If one stops at this point, it is considered emptiness derived from analysis. Ultimate emptiness, or emptiness as reality, is where one realizes that all dharmas, whether they be mental or physical -- are empty AND existent. In other words, existence is identical to emptiness. If one has no attachments and makes no discriminations based on a self-center, then one recognizes that every dharma exists and is empty. One recognizes that existence and emptiness are really the same thing. One further recognizes that there really is no such thing as existence or emptiness. This is the emptiness of the Mahayana tradition.
...
Practitioners of the Mahayana tradition who experience enlightenment perceive that all phenomena, in every moment, are simultaneously existent and empty...Mahayana practitioners let go even of the Dharma and so do not apply it to analyze things. The Heart Sutra speaks of the highest level of emptiness.
...
To attain liberation, we must hear the Dharma, practice methods and contemplate the five skandhas until we directly realize their true nature.
One recognizes that existence and emptiness are really the same thing. One further recognizes that there really is no such thing as existence or emptiness.
I understand the first line, but what does the second line mean? Existence and emptiness are the same, but they don't really exist? :crazy:
its because reality is beyond designation that designation is possible in the first place. emptiness requires existence and existence requires emptiness.
but that's completely missing the mark as well.
what does it mean to experience existence? or experience emptiness?
what is experience?
and the answer to that isn't anything we can conceptually formulate. there is nothing I or anyone else can hand you. it requires a bare attention to whatever is your experience in the immediate.
my opinion, your opinion, our condition, etc all fall apart and become cast aside when we acknowledge this moment with an open mind/heart. the giant reset button is only required in hindsight.
form is no different to emptiness, emptiness no different to form
I never quite "got" this until, perhaps, just now. Is it fair to say that all reality is a construct of the mind?
in some sense yes because how we normally view reality is with subjects and objects. we make experience into things or make processes into entities.
but if we saw reality is all mind, then that asserts an independently existent mind. Where is such mind? In experience mind is not experienced. There is only the stream of experience constantly arriving. We can call the stream mind, but it has no center or edge. Thus its more like no mind. But even that is a designation. The lack of mind only has relevance in relationship to the mind we construct. So if all that is dropped whats left is whats left. And as such we cannot conclude really anything about reality, yet it stands nakedly as it is. shimmering yet hollow.
Awareness can perceive awareness in some sense. You can see the effects in your experience. Maybe not effects but qualities. But since awareness is real it is ungraspable. It is real because it is a reliable refuge. All objects of awareness are unreliable when pinned down. But the world is good and we can work with it. There is no boundary between awareness and the world!
As dissatisfying as it is for your intellectual mind, you will never be able to understand this through the intellect alone.
Otherwise, Buddhism would just be a University philosophy course (which it is sometimes) but not the world transcending door of freedom that it can truly represent.
Anyone who tries to explain it to you is doing you no favors, and you know it.
its because reality is beyond designation that designation is possible in the first place. emptiness requires existence and existence requires emptiness.
but that's completely missing the mark as well.
what does it mean to experience existence? or experience emptiness?
what is experience?
and the answer to that isn't anything we can conceptually formulate. there is nothing I or anyone else can hand you. it requires a bare attention to whatever is your experience in the immediate.
my opinion, your opinion, our condition, etc all fall apart and become cast aside when we acknowledge this moment with an open mind/heart. the giant reset button is only required in hindsight.
That still doesn't explain no body, mind, thought
This is not just a matter of labelling or not labelling.
@Floating_Abu, if awareness didn't perceive itself then why (and how) would we talk about Rigpa? We must be perceiving awareness otherwise there would be no teachings. The entirety of Buddhism is to bring confidence back to trust in our awareness. The qualities of awareness are the three kayas.
Buddha-nature, the essence of awakened enlightenment itself, is present in everyone. Its essence is forever pure, unalloyed, and flawless. It is beyond increase or decrease. It is neither improved by remaining in nirvana nor degenerated by straying into samsara. Its fundamental essence is forever perfect, unobscured, quiescent, and unchanging. Its expressions are myriad. Those who recognize their true nature are enlightened; those who ignore or overlook it are deluded. There is no way to enlightenment other than by recognizing buddha-nature and achieving stability in that, which implies authentically identifying it within one's own stream of being, and training in that incisive recognition through simply sustaining its continuity, without alteration or fabrication. All spiritual practices and paths converge, and are included, in this vital point. This recognition is the sole borderline between Buddhas and ordinary beings. This is also the great crossroads at which we find ourselves every moment of our lives. The illusory history of samsara and nirvana begins here and now; the moment of Dzogchen, the innate Great Perfection, is actually beyond past, present, and future, like a seemingly eternal instant of timeless time. This is what we call "the fourth time": timeless time, beyond the three times, the ineffable instant of pure ecstatic presence or total awareness, rigpa.
Rigpa, primordial being, innate awareness is primordially awakened: free, untrammeled, perfect, and unchanging. Yet we need to recognize it within our very own being if it is to be truly realized. Rigpa is our share or portion of the dharmakaya. Those who overlook it have forgotten their true original nature.
Rigpa! Beautiful rigpa!
I too remember reading the Dzogchen writings when I first studied Buddhism and I always enjoyed it, it reminded me so much of my current home, Zen. The costumes may differ but the insights are surely the same -- it is so beautiful..
I looked up rigpa again to make sure I understood your language.
As I understand it, rigpa is the primordial awareness. It is aware but I have not seen it said that awareness is aware of itself.
In my own meditations and experience, awareness -- well words cannot capture it but I do not think the eyes look back at themself.
Does that make sense, or perhaps I have misunderstood you in some way.
I hate to call it anything but for this purpose, zen is the closest.
Yeah sorry to make you label yourself
If you have faith then, or even if not, then I would say only zazen - here - can unfold that mystery to you.
Let me give you my own example, and of course YMMV.
When I was younger maybe 17 18 21 I don't remember I heard the Heart Sutra in a movie. And for some reason, I positively fell in love with this sutra. Loved it! Learnt it, recited it, didn't have a clue what it meant, nor ever ever ever expected to. A friend at work in my first job said that she studied the Heart Sutra (and oh if you keep reciting it you will get it)
I genuinely doubted that, and I never looked at it with a hope to understanding it. Fast forward many years and I went through a phase of positive Buddhism fever, fervor, you name it, I was crazy about it. I read voraciously, visited centres and teachers around the world and tried to do practice (whatever the hell that meant, I could never understand what people even meant when they said practice). Fast forward many many years later and nothing much more has changed except that .. well it also has... Practice unfolds and it can inform you personally in ways that are even beyond the scope of books and words and lessons. It informs in ways that only you intimately can know but the joy, the laughter, the heart of it is .. rewarding. And the Heart Sutra, I have found, is something which when you know, you will know. Not in the way others may explain it, but in ways that are deeply evident to you, and can only affirm the supreme perfection that can be found in the realm of genuine Dharma fruition. Master Sheng Yen was pretty good in his explanation I think. All meanings are tentative until then anyway, and only serve as good encourgements, for the good hearts along the Way-
The Prajnaparamita Sutra says, "The perfection of wisdom is beyond thought." It should not be conceived of, for it is inconceivable and cannot be described. The absolute truth is not something that can be apprehended by the mind of ordinary beings. In order to indicate this to beings, in a relative way, the Buddhas have said that the void nature is like the sky, while its luminous expression is like the sun. But in truth, even a Buddha cannot entirely express the nature of the mind; there are no words or examples to explain it. It is utterly beyond the relative mind of beings. Yet it is not something that did not exist before, like a new thing appearing for the first time.
Mind-Nature Teachings Concerning the View, Meditation, and Action of Dzogpa Chenpo, the Innate Great Perfection
A quote from the rigpa test I purviewed, which is relevant to this discussion
@Floating_Abu, there is also conditioned awareness, sems. The gelug school says that can be observed as evident in their meditations. But then what awareness observes awareness? As far as I can tell conditional awareness cannot be established by conditional awareness. Without infinite regression at least.
But I think it's a paper problem. What's more interesting what happens in the first five minutes of a life of meditation perhaps. That's awareness too. Wisdom longing for wisdom.
@Floating_Abu, there is also conditioned awareness, sems. The gelug school says that can be observed as evident in their meditations. But then what awareness observes awareness? As far as I can tell conditional awareness cannot be established by conditional awareness. Without infinite regression at least.
But I think it's a paper problem. What's more interesting what happens in the first five minutes of a life of meditation perhaps. That's awareness too. Wisdom longing for wisdom.
Wisdom longing for wisdom is clear. But I do not relate to conditioned awareness.
Can you point me to a reputable lama's teaching on this? Then I can read what they are saying. It may be a wording issue but the conditions are the conditioned. Awareness is rigpa, pristine awareness.
@Floating_Abu, yes Rigpa is like the void and the sun. Clarity, openness, sensitivity is my lamas word for it. We can discover it but we cannot find it.
The language of some other teachers is unimpeded (void - open), clear, and luminous (sensitive)
There is also clarity meaning relative clarity which comes and goes, we become more and less clear in terms of this meaning. But in the ultimate perspective confusion is clarity we just are not noticing it.
@Floating_Abu, there is also conditioned awareness, sems. The gelug school says that can be observed as evident in their meditations. But then what awareness observes awareness? As far as I can tell conditional awareness cannot be established by conditional awareness. Without infinite regression at least.
But I think it's a paper problem. What's more interesting what happens in the first five minutes of a life of meditation perhaps. That's awareness too. Wisdom longing for wisdom.
@Floating_Abu, yes that wisdom longing for wisdom is unconditioned but it manifests in ungraspable (dukkha) conditioned phenomena. That is what the itching and impatience is.
Thank you @Floating Abu. Your experience is very familiar to me. As for me, the Diamond Sutra - when you know, you will know. Not in the way others may explain it, but in ways that are deeply evident to you And I find that the more times I read it, the deeper it seems to become. I guess the light always was that bright, but just seems to get brighter as we clean the windows.
Sounds like Trekcho is not too dissimilar from the practice I am familiar with and it is therefore recognition of the intrinsic nature of mind.
How would you integrate what is never apart though?
Perhaps your teachers have taught you something different , but Dzogchen I understand from my Tibetan friends needs expert guidance and advice. Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Comments
Ah I see (hahaha). that makes sense. thank you.
Well vision is something that is very important to me. It goes on the scale with pizza and ginger ale.
Thanks again.
Well I can only say how it was for me. Personally (and I am grateful for this myself) I was always interested (and that can read obsessed) with Buddhist practice, but one of my own saving graces was that I was always prepared to 'set aside' -- which means not rejecting and not yet accepting NOR pouring a lot of energy into -- those items that I did not yet fully understand (read: know) through my own practice.
So that means I also read about emptiness before and I skimmed DO. And I also read and appreciated Nagarjuna.
But my thirst and passion was always for the juice in real life, the real knowing etc. So therefore, I read and was informed but never:
1. Diverted too much effort into it, trusting that if my practice was to reveal it, it would come when it was right, and
2. I never wanted to be someone who mistook intellectual understanding for genuine understanding. And genuine understanding necessarily precedes and supercedes the intellect.
That is one of the most common traps.
OK but you are right, and I posted this because it is one of our central Suttas in Mahayana Buddhism and just by reading it, we have formed a connection. Plus, this is a Buddhist forum so we might as well discuss some good Buddhist texts, as well as our opinions, I thought
My only encouragement would be not to mark the flag poles too early and allow your practice to guide you itself. i.e theories and all are fine as interim guides
By the way, you used the word contradictory. I used to have a phrase which said: 'In practice, all contradictions are resolved' and I fully believe and stand by that today.
So playing is OK I think, as long as we don't mistake that for the insight of the Buddhas. I wouldn't know what that is, but the Heart Sutra gives us hints and I guess I thought it was a good idea to refer to a text like this to give us context on the potentialities of practice, often marred by the materialism focus of many of our surroundings.
Thanks for your patience.
Namaste,
Abu
If the mind is just no mind because it is just thought. Gone. Thought. Gone. Thought.
And the body is one sensation. Memory. Another sensation. Memory.
Plus the color, shape, and form.
When eyes are closed there is no sight of body. Even the tactile sensations do not form a body its just points of contact. And even those just dissolve into spacious presence.
There is absolutely no thing but a vast ocean of being. And even the being isn't a thing so really what is this?
:rolleyes: :banghead: Agree 100%. Like I've said before- keep 'don't know' mind. I'm with you on this one too. Contradictory only in terms of rationalization/conceptualization of wisdom which transcends the intellect. And personally I love paradoxes and the open-ended/unresolved.
Who is it that sees? What is this?
We keep faith. We keep practicing, and I'm told, eventually we'll see our original face; our true nature. Then there will be no doubt.
Namaste all _/\_
:bowdown:
If form is empty, if the rest of the skandhas are empty, then we must ask, empty of what? But we can't ignore that it also insists that emptiness is form, and therefore we come back around the great circle in our mind. It is brilliant. And if everything is empty, then isn't the great magic perfect mantra at the end also empty? It's an amazing mind trap equal to the best our Zen masters have created.
_/\_
_/\_
Thankyou for your comments, I would just say again that I don't think it's necessarily a mind trap, but YMMV and things keep changing.
With kind regards,
Abu
Tricky stuff, but also very very interesting IMO, better than any book IMO.
_/\_
"Therefore, in emptiness,
no forms, no sensations, perceptions, impressions, or consciousness;
no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind;"
Unless it's pointing to the fact that these categories are just the labels we give to our experience?
:om:
Which brings it back to Dogen's 'zazen is enlightenment'.
... As well as spinning-out on analysis, which I'm doing now. Phew! Time to resort back to don't know mind, breath and enjoy a brew me thinks! LOL :eek2:
I just posted that link because Fede was looking for the source, I didn't read the article.
I don't think that awareness is aware of itself. Moreso I thought it would be more akin to: 'Do you want to understand? Just discern the things perceived; you cannot see the mind itself.' (Foyan)
As to don't know mind, I think it is a very good encouragement, and I agree with what you say above ('In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few' - Suzuki).
To your point about doubt, I do believe myself that there is a stage where doubt is no longer a hindrance for it is known for what it is. In that state, there is a very pure knowing which transcends and supercedes a lot of problems. Even knowing then is not an issue per se. Per se. But this is just my thinking.
Thankyou for your encouragement, and practice.
Abu
Abu
_/\_
its one of those things you just sit with. reality is designation. when there is no designation, well then...
its because reality is beyond designation that designation is possible in the first place. emptiness requires existence and existence requires emptiness.
but that's completely missing the mark as well.
what does it mean to experience existence? or experience emptiness?
what is experience?
and the answer to that isn't anything we can conceptually formulate. there is nothing I or anyone else can hand you. it requires a bare attention to whatever is your experience in the immediate.
my opinion, your opinion, our condition, etc all fall apart and become cast aside when we acknowledge this moment with an open mind/heart. the giant reset button is only required in hindsight.
emptiness no different to form
I never quite "got" this until, perhaps, just now. Is it fair to say that all reality is a construct of the mind?
but if we saw reality is all mind, then that asserts an independently existent mind. Where is such mind? In experience mind is not experienced. There is only the stream of experience constantly arriving. We can call the stream mind, but it has no center or edge. Thus its more like no mind. But even that is a designation. The lack of mind only has relevance in relationship to the mind we construct. So if all that is dropped whats left is whats left. And as such we cannot conclude really anything about reality, yet it stands nakedly as it is. shimmering yet hollow.
All is well.
All is well.
As dissatisfying as it is for your intellectual mind, you will never be able to understand this through the intellect alone.
Otherwise, Buddhism would just be a University philosophy course (which it is sometimes) but not the world transcending door of freedom that it can truly represent.
Anyone who tries to explain it to you is doing you no favors, and you know it.
Well wishes,
Abu
This is not just a matter of labelling or not labelling.
If it were, Buddhism would be easy.
What is your practice?
How does awareness perceive awareness, dear friend?
Those things do not need to be explained.
Buddha-nature, the essence of awakened enlightenment itself, is present in everyone. Its essence is forever pure, unalloyed, and flawless. It is beyond increase or decrease. It is neither improved by remaining in nirvana nor degenerated by straying into samsara. Its fundamental essence is forever perfect, unobscured, quiescent, and unchanging. Its expressions are myriad. Those who recognize their true nature are enlightened; those who ignore or overlook it are deluded. There is no way to enlightenment other than by recognizing buddha-nature and achieving stability in that, which implies authentically identifying it within one's own stream of being, and training in that incisive recognition through simply sustaining its continuity, without alteration or fabrication. All spiritual practices and paths converge, and are included, in this vital point. This recognition is the sole borderline between Buddhas and ordinary beings. This is also the great crossroads at which we find ourselves every moment of our lives. The illusory history of samsara and nirvana begins here and now; the moment of Dzogchen, the innate Great Perfection, is actually beyond past, present, and future, like a seemingly eternal instant of timeless time. This is what we call "the fourth time": timeless time, beyond the three times, the ineffable instant of pure ecstatic presence or total awareness, rigpa.
Rigpa, primordial being, innate awareness is primordially awakened: free, untrammeled, perfect, and unchanging. Yet we need to recognize it within our very own being if it is to be truly realized. Rigpa is our share or portion of the dharmakaya. Those who overlook it have forgotten their true original nature.
Rigpa! Beautiful rigpa!
I too remember reading the Dzogchen writings when I first studied Buddhism and I always enjoyed it, it reminded me so much of my current home, Zen. The costumes may differ but the insights are surely the same -- it is so beautiful..
I looked up rigpa again to make sure I understood your language.
As I understand it, rigpa is the primordial awareness. It is aware but I have not seen it said that awareness is aware of itself.
In my own meditations and experience, awareness -- well words cannot capture it but I do not think the eyes look back at themself.
Does that make sense, or perhaps I have misunderstood you in some way.
Namaste,
Abu
But this is only so because one makes a distinction between rigpa and what we deem as non rigpa.
Yeah sorry to make you label yourself
If you have faith then, or even if not, then I would say only zazen - here - can unfold that mystery to you.
Let me give you my own example, and of course YMMV.
When I was younger maybe 17 18 21 I don't remember
I genuinely doubted that, and I never looked at it with a hope to understanding it.
Fast forward many years and I went through a phase of positive Buddhism fever, fervor, you name it, I was crazy about it. I read voraciously, visited centres and teachers around the world and tried to do practice (whatever the hell that meant, I could never understand what people even meant when they said practice). Fast forward many many years later and nothing much more has changed except that .. well it also has... Practice unfolds and it can inform you personally in ways that are even beyond the scope of books and words and lessons. It informs in ways that only you intimately can know but the joy, the laughter, the heart of it is .. rewarding. And the Heart Sutra, I have found, is something which when you know, you will know. Not in the way others may explain it, but in ways that are deeply evident to you, and can only affirm the supreme perfection that can be found in the realm of genuine Dharma fruition. Master Sheng Yen was pretty good in his explanation I think. All meanings are tentative until then anyway, and only serve as good encourgements, for the good hearts along the Way-
FWIW and sorry for all the words,
Abu
after one can go into presence the goal is to integrate presence with all aspects of the 5 senses. through dance, singing, eating, etc.
what happens is that the dualistic tendencies of aversion and attachment arise again when we fall into ignorance. or we make this and that.
thus presence or knowledge is lost.
this practice is called Trekchö.
But I think it's a paper problem. What's more interesting what happens in the first five minutes of a life of meditation perhaps. That's awareness too. Wisdom longing for wisdom.
Can you point me to a reputable lama's teaching on this? Then I can read what they are saying. It may be a wording issue but the conditions are the conditioned. Awareness is rigpa, pristine awareness.
The language of some other teachers is unimpeded (void - open), clear, and luminous (sensitive)
There is also clarity meaning relative clarity which comes and goes, we become more and less clear in terms of this meaning. But in the ultimate perspective confusion is clarity we just are not noticing it.
when you know, you will know. Not in the way others may explain it, but in ways that are deeply evident to you
And I find that the more times I read it, the deeper it seems to become. I guess the light always was that bright, but just seems to get brighter as we clean the windows.
Dear @taiyaki
I read the following:
http://www.bodhionline.org/ViewArticle.asp?id=231
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Dzogchen
Sounds like Trekcho is not too dissimilar from the practice I am familiar with and it is therefore recognition of the intrinsic nature of mind.
How would you integrate what is never apart though?
Perhaps your teachers have taught you something different , but Dzogchen I understand from my Tibetan friends needs expert guidance and advice. Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Best wishes,
Abu