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.
What is "Original mind"?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
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".
1
Comments
I've heard "Original mind/nature refer to the state we are born in before we learn anything and I've also heard it used to imply that there is no original mind/nature.
Sneeze just once and it'll clear up any confusion.
On a more intellectual level, I was once asking my teacher what, precisely, Dharma was. I poked and prodded him, giving him little or no space for the casual Zen one-liners. Finally, his face screwed up in exasperation, he said, "well, maybe it's kind of like the pointless point."
Another one-liner, I grant, but if experience could be captured by words, we'd all be in the borrrrring soup.
It is and ... it'snot?
... ssss ... bad cructacean, bring out the sticks ...
Exactly in the moment between not sneezing and the body just doing, where is the 'sneezy mind'? Hi ho.
Hi Ho
HIHO ... I feel a mantra coming on ...
It's said that Buddha could recall all of his past lives but for the life of me, I don't remember ever hearing anything about his very first one.
Somehow I don't think there is one.
Forgive me because I can't tell if that's actually on topic.
I'm still far from clear what "original mind " is intended to mean in a Buddhist context. Is it a state of mind we're aiming to return to, like a blank piece of paper or something?
Surely one of you Zennies can explain it clearly!
Far too cryptic for me, could you explain?
You know that moment between one thought and the next? That void which inevitably happens when you are focused on one thing, and suddenly, your attention is distracted by a remote sound, or something just moving in your peripheral vision....
Or maybe you're walking along the beach, and you're looking at the sand and the stones, and you suddenly look up at the horizon, and the vision of the sunset, in the clouds is just indescribable, and your mind is just filled with an empty 'awesome!'....?
No words, just wonder, just still. In that instant.
That is original Mind.
In my opinion.
Not being one of yer Zennies....
@SpinyNorman
If you can describe what selflessness is, compared to self protection,
you are explaining what original mind is, compared to worldly mind.
At the point of sneezing, one closes the eyes and the body and mind 'commits' to the sneeze. Original Mind.
When hit on the head for being too clever, the body reacts to pain. Original Mind.
Just before trying to understand, there is a pause in which to understand what is understood. Original Mind.
"What is "Original mind"?"
"I" don't know....
Many a true word said in jest
@SpinyNorman -- Self-serving as it may be, here is a piece I wrote a long time ago that may seem less obscure.
On the other hand ...
then lets just rest in the greates jest!
Although I am not a Zennie, I do carry some Zen teachings with me. Original mind is the sproutling and not the thicket I believe.
So you mean a mind without self-view?
Original mind is the mind that recognise its true nature... "Kensho"
But what is the mind's "true nature"?
@SpinyNorman -- No disrespect intended, but stop playing the dummy!
I'm not playing anything. I'm asking a basic question about Zen, which I assumed the Zennies here would be able to answer in a clear and informed way.
Google it. It's easy.
http://onedropzen.org/uploads/originalmind.pdf
@SpinyNorman -- ... and thus, in answering, would provide you with an answer that would suffice ... and thus pacify your question and, as a sidelight, reduce Buddhism to an intellectually and emotionally quantifiable entity? If that is somehow the case, how much different could it be from the unsatisfactory ways of being that led you to study Buddhism in the first place?
Zen -- or any of the Buddhist teachings, I would argue -- is sometimes described as "the teaching outside the scriptures." This saucy phrase obviously points to the scriptures per se, but it also points to the intellectual and emotional constructs those scriptures partake of... the same intellectual and emotional constructs that whiz through our monkey minds.
The tale is told that once Gautama was asked to sum up all of the teachings in one simple nutshell. The Buddha paused and then, "summoning up all of his powers" (imagine that! all of his powers!) he said simply, "It's not intellectual."
So... maybe there is an answer to the question of "true nature." But if there is, how true could it possibly be?
Ajahn Chah try to explain"the origianl mind" or a state of enlightenment, the original mind where all is gone (just as described in the heart sutra?).
Ajahn Chah: "firstly we follow this wandering mind. Follow this mind until we see it as unsertain and changing. The mind must clearly precive itself, seeing that it has nothing that can be grasped. Then it will let go completley. The mind let go of this very mind..it exhaust
the minds ability to concot thought, it becomes unconfused by any of this".
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn_Chah_The_Mind_Lets_Go_of_Itself.pdf
So how to get there? Samadhi and right concetration?
Selflessness does not actually seperate itself from any view.
Original mind is simply a mind freed from attachment.
The Prajna paramita, (as Namada noted) points to it by describing what it is not.
Like Enlightenment or Nirvana, it's best help to a practitioner is as a sign post pointing the way towards suffering's cessation. Trying to possess this sign, or pull it out of the ground to bring with you, simply says where one has chosen to progress no further along that path.
@SpinyNorman if asked this question, a Zen master (or Mistress
) might well ask "Who wants to know?" 
Is original mind the same thing as Rigpa?
This is what wiki says about it (excerpt):
Rigpa and mind[edit]
In Dzogchen, a fundamental point of practice is to distinguish rigpa from sems (citta, (grasping) mind).[9] Sems is the mind which is temporarily obscured and distorted by thoughts based on a dualistic perception of subject and object.[10] Rigpa is pure awareness free from such distortions.[10] Cittata, the nature of mind, is the inseparable unity of awareness and emptiness, or clarity and emptiness, which is the basis for all the ordinary perceptions, thoughts and emotions of the ordinary mind.[web 1]
but as mind cannot really grasp or cling to anything, it's all the same slippery thing in the end - enough of this stupidity!
Mind is mind (of any description) and cannot be changed into something else - remember it's like you can't become a buddha, because you have to be one in the first place! But some people will never get that, because they are so attached to the concept of the buddha that they (can or will/or aspire to be) the magic bean that leads to the giant's castle, golden harp and the goose that lays golden eggs! (OK Jack and the beanstalk may be a fairy tale - but it suffices in this short outburst!..... or perhaps we need a few squirrels so OLD ROALD DHAL gets to tempt us with a dark chocolate trail.... like J M Barries PP Neverland or even worse C S Lewis's Narnia....
What is worse reality, or the reality of the imagination....
shudder!
Is it the place where thoughts come from rather than the stories the thoughts tell?
Thank you. I needed a good laugh.
OK, I'll swallow the hook and thrash around in the sea of language for a bit. I've only done a few foolish things so far today so I need to reach my quota.
Keep it simple. Original mind compared to what? Obviously the mind you have now. What other mind is there? Since Zen stresses the emptiness of self and mind is mind and that's all you can say about it, you cannot point to something and say, "Here is the mind I used to have, my original mind." So we chase our tails.
Original is translation of term otherwise called "beginning mind". Strip away the layers of learned beliefs, of habitual assumptions, of expected behaviors, of petty hurts and anger and frustrations, and what is left? A mind that observes, that responds, that is focused on what is happening now. It is original meaning "source". For many schools of Zen, it's called "beginner's mind".
No wonder, no instant.
Just still.
One of the reasons we meditate is to 'just still'.
Most of us are in the mine digging for what is mine. Heigh ho. Jewels of ego a plenty.
However ...
Original Mind can not be a 'mine', a precious jewel to attain.
It can be realised BUT one can not realise it by attaching to being.
It is bare attention but not the attendee.
It is beginners mind without the beginner.
The ego of still mind can be awareness but can not grasp the stillness
or qualities of original mind because Original Mind has no qualities.
One particular comment from TTBoLaD that I remember, was when Sogyal Rinpoche, still a young, wet-behind-the-ears lad picking up and learning what he had to pick up and learn, was being instructed in meditation, and finding the concept difficult to grasp... His master, in the middle of conveying instruction, paused, looked him squarely in the eye and asked him -
"What is 'Mind?' "
It shot every single present thought from his head and absolutely blew him away ....
And there was his answer....
The Lankavatara Sutra says that "words can't express the highest reality". Bodhidharma says "True nature is subtle and mysterious".
I'm guessing this is the reason why there is no succinct description of it. Trying to describe something the defies description to begin with, that's going to be a problem!
It still makes me feel good that we try.
Just for the sake of learning and un-learning.
Approximately remembered: A Zen student was once complaining to his teacher about his difficulties in practice ... how his mind wandered and so forth.
"Put it all down," the teacher advised.
"I can't," the student replied.
"Well then, pick it up," the teacher said.
Strong, weak, rich, poor, sage or dolt -- where do the most cherished beliefs go in the middle of a sneeze? Literally ... nothing fancy ... where do they go?
This koan comes to mind thinking about this
I think one could argue that Joshu right here describes it. Although, some people might consider that to be the nonsensical rambling of a crazy old man. I thought that too when I first encountered zen, but not anymore!
In the Platform Sutra, the 6th patriarch says "Non-abiding is man's original nature." That's a good one too I think.
Isn't "non-abiding" another term for moving around?
I don't know. What does "moving around" mean.
That was helpful (lol).
Well, "abide" can mean to stay, to continue or to accept so...
I wasn't playing around, I really had to look it up just to make sure.
So I guess I was safe in assuming "non-abiding" means "not staying put" or else he was saying that man's original nature is non-acceptance.
It makes sense because the only true constant is change.
So, @SpinyNorman what do you think of the answers? Confused more, gave up, have an idea of your own?
In this context I think "abide" would mean "to stay", rather than accept, etc. "Moving around" as in "not being stuck on something", I think that would be an accurate synonym for "non-abiding". "Not-clinging" would be another good one I think. There are two good analogies that talk about "non-abiding" that I heard from various zen teachers. One of the teachers I met once calls it "having a teflon mind, rather than a velcro mind." Nothing sticks to teflon, meanwhile sticking is a quality of velcro. Good little analogy! Other teachers use the analogy of a mirror. Nothing that comes in front of a mirror ever gets stuck on the mirror. The mirror does not get stuck on the things that come before it. It just reflects. When the thing disappears, there is no leftover residue from the image. The mirror doesn't try to get it back and it doesn't shun any particular new thing that appears. The mirror does not "abide" in, or get stuck on, the things that appear, or don't appear, in front of it. I don't think the same can be said about us unenlightened folk. We're carrying around all kinds of residue! And some of it is decades old!
Using the example from the Platform sutra, I think you could say "not-clinging is man's original nature". We all should know what clinging is, so "original nature" would simply be not doing that.
good post @seeker242
When we fry the monkey mind (so to speak) it jumps about the pan BUT the mind trained by Buddha Dharma is still in the Teflon pan.
Cooking!
That works.
So then "original mind" differs from what the koan about our original face before our parents were born points to?
Is it synonymous with "beginners mind"?
I'm just trying to understand this from another view so as not to be "sticky", lol.
You are already stuck
No mind available. Find out if mind exists.
http://liberationunleashed.com
Look Ma, no mind! "CRASH"
No mind equals no sense.
Who needs the dharma of the mindful when we can be mindless?
I decided to register to see what they're all about.
The first thing I saw was "…because self is the biggest trick that mind ever played…"
I like that and agree but would add that it is also a very handy tool of exploration.
Going to go read there for an hour before meditation.
Edit:
Half hour into reading the beginning of Gateless Gatecrashers. At times I like what they are saying and at others it seems like wishful thinking. As if we bear no responsibility for our actions for the lack of free will.
Sorry @SpinyNorman for the off topic if indeed it is.
Edit:
Ok, there it is good.
-From The Gateless Gatecrashers (suggested reading material upon entering Liberation Unleashed.
Here is something for those who require '... um .... practice'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Tou
Mine is ...
Que?
Either nobody really knows, or there are numerous different interpretations. I haven't decided which yet.
What is "Original mind"?
@SpinyNorman Here's the answer ...take your pick
Careful, you don't want to start a cushion turf war with @lobster, who I heard is "well-connected" and some say a "Made Lobster". You could end up "going to the mattresses"!
Yes, I've heard the mirror analogy in Tibetan Buddhism too, the idea of reflecting without getting drawn in. And in the suttas there is mention of "consciousness without surface", which is perhaps pointing to the same quality.
So this quality of non-clinging is the mind's "original nature"? Is that basically the same as "Original mind", or something different?