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.
The so-called "Don't-Know Mind" seems to be a Korean term that I can't find the Chinese characters for or the Sanskrit. It is certainly not a term used in classical Zen or Ch'an. Nor am I aware that Korean Zen master Chinul used such a term, who was very much a follower of Chinese Zen master Tsung-mi. The "Don't-Know Mind" in my book is either the product of a terrible translation or it's a new term like Shunryu Suzuki's "beginner's mind."
I hope pertinent to the discussion, Bielefeldt summarizes a criticism of Dogen's mind by Mujaku Dochu (1653–1744).
“This Zen said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (môjin soku butsu) and ignored the tranformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen ‘never even dreamt’ of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma’s mission to China, and the message of the patriarch of kanna, or koan Zen, Ta-hui” (Bielefeldt, Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 4).
I agree with Mujaku. Maybe the "Don't-Know Mind" is the deluded mind in which case students would be wise to dump this kind of Zen for a teaching that centers on awakening to Buddha Mind which comes by many different names such as unborn Mind, pure Mind, One Mind, Bodhi Mind, clear light Mind, etc.
@sile The satori or sudden awakening schools makes a lot more out of this break or disconnect with our normal patterns of thinking, describing it as a timeless moment of clarity that opens a door to understanding. I agree that knowing about something and experiencing it are not the same thing, and I'm glad Tibetan Buddhism also sees this.
But if satori or intuitive insight were the only thing, then we'd only need one koan. Once you penetrate one koan, what else is there? Why another 99 written in the book? And, a good case can be made that all koans are variations on the one fundamental koan: "What am I?"
My first Zen teacher was of the opinion that koans would never be entirely adopted or useful in Western Zen, because it's tied too firmly with the Eastern culture. There will always be that little bit of hesitation as we translate the world of the Chinese and Japanese monks into our Western experience. And, that tiny hesitation is the same as a huge chasm.
But if satori or intuitive insight were the only thing, then we'd only need one koan. Once you penetrate one koan, what else is there? Why another 99 written in the book? And, a good case can be made that all koans are variations on the one fundamental koan: "What am I?"
From a Tibetan Buddhist perspective, the answer would be that penetrating it once doesn't mean you remain in that clear state of penetration; you likely will zoom right out of it back into more thoughts, and need to penetrate it again, until over time you can do it more easily and eventually remain in that state at will. It may take a different koan every time, lol.
My first Zen teacher was of the opinion that koans would never be entirely adopted or useful in Western Zen, because it's tied too firmly with the Eastern culture. There will always be that little bit of hesitation as we translate the world of the Chinese and Japanese monks into our Western experience. And, that tiny hesitation is the same as a huge chasm.
But isn't the hesitation exactly what we're after, lol? So the satori schools should be thriving in the West! If "What's the sound of one hand?" causes the mind to disconnect, imagine the effect of "一隻手的聲音是什麼?"
But if "Don't-Know Mind" or the puzzled fumbling with koans in a Zazen hall is enlightenment, then we have a problem. That means enlightenment sucks. I'll take my preconceived view of reality over stumbling around in the dark, thank you.
Working on a koan - which doesn’t fit into the framework of our rational understanding - is like practicing “neti neti”.
I agree with Mujaku. Maybe the "Don't-Know Mind" is the deluded mind in which case students would be wise to dump this kind of Zen for a teaching that centers on awakening to Buddha Mind which comes by many different names such as unborn Mind, pure Mind, One Mind, Bodhi Mind, clear light Mind, etc.
According to all the teachers that I have heard use the term "don't know mind", they say specifically that "don't know mind" is your true nature, because your true nature is "before thinking". They also say things like "don't know mind" means "put it all down". It's not considered to be the deluded mind but Buddha Nature, etc.
The so-called "Don't-Know Mind" seems to be a Korean term that I can't find the Chinese characters for or the Sanskrit. It is certainly not a term used in classical Zen or Ch'an. Nor am I aware that Korean Zen master Chinul used such a term, who was very much a follower of Chinese Zen master Tsung-mi. The "Don't-Know Mind" in my book is either the product of a terrible translation or it's a new term like Shunryu Suzuki's "beginner's mind."
I hope pertinent to the discussion, Bielefeldt summarizes a criticism of Dogen's mind by Mujaku Dochu (1653–1744).
“This Zen said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (môjin soku butsu) and ignored the tranformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen ‘never even dreamt’ of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma’s mission to China, and the message of the patriarch of kanna, or koan Zen, Ta-hui” (Bielefeldt, Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 4).
I agree with Mujaku. Maybe the "Don't-Know Mind" is the deluded mind in which case students would be wise to dump this kind of Zen for a teaching that centers on awakening to Buddha Mind which comes by many different names such as unborn Mind, pure Mind, One Mind, Bodhi Mind, clear light Mind, etc.
I know there are two schools of thought about Buddha Nature and I've sat on one side or another, depending on if anyone clings too much to one view or the other, I suppose. The Ekacitta folks with their One Mind, Pure Mind, etc, miss the point that Buddha Mind is not "out there waiting to be achieved" but here and now reading these words. The people who try to find the horizon will walk forever as the horizon never gets any closer. Everywhere you stand is a horizon, if you but understood where you are.
But Buddha-Mind is not where you are right now, either, not unless you realize it. And when you do, you havn't accomplished anything and havn't reached some mystical level of Pure Mind. You're just you. Who else can you be?
But Buddha-Mind is not where you are right now, either, not unless you realize it. And when you do, you havn't accomplished anything and havn't reached some mystical level of Pure Mind. You're just you. Who else can you be?
To awaken to our pure Mind means actually to realize this pure Mind whereas before we did not because we were so caught up in our illusory bodies chasing after illusory ideas and objects for various illusory reasons.
Comments
The so-called "Don't-Know Mind" seems to be a Korean term that I can't find the Chinese characters for or the Sanskrit. It is certainly not a term used in classical Zen or Ch'an. Nor am I aware that Korean Zen master Chinul used such a term, who was very much a follower of Chinese Zen master Tsung-mi. The "Don't-Know Mind" in my book is either the product of a terrible translation or it's a new term like Shunryu Suzuki's "beginner's mind."
I hope pertinent to the discussion, Bielefeldt summarizes a criticism of Dogen's mind by Mujaku Dochu (1653–1744).
“This Zen said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (môjin soku butsu) and ignored the tranformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen ‘never even dreamt’ of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma’s mission to China, and the message of the patriarch of kanna, or koan Zen, Ta-hui” (Bielefeldt, Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 4).
I agree with Mujaku. Maybe the "Don't-Know Mind" is the deluded mind in which case students would be wise to dump this kind of Zen for a teaching that centers on awakening to Buddha Mind which comes by many different names such as unborn Mind, pure Mind, One Mind, Bodhi Mind, clear light Mind, etc.
But if satori or intuitive insight were the only thing, then we'd only need one koan. Once you penetrate one koan, what else is there? Why another 99 written in the book? And, a good case can be made that all koans are variations on the one fundamental koan: "What am I?"
My first Zen teacher was of the opinion that koans would never be entirely adopted or useful in Western Zen, because it's tied too firmly with the Eastern culture. There will always be that little bit of hesitation as we translate the world of the Chinese and Japanese monks into our Western experience. And, that tiny hesitation is the same as a huge chasm.
We are in the process of deconstructing such efforts.
(Imho)
But Buddha-Mind is not where you are right now, either, not unless you realize it. And when you do, you havn't accomplished anything and havn't reached some mystical level of Pure Mind. You're just you. Who else can you be?