Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
Takuji seiji
Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought,
the succeeding thought should be aware: since the
awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
view does not either.
This being so, how could there be a fixation on a thought
or point of view?
/*-9
"Takuji seiji" <takuj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040731235146...@mb-m01.aol.com...
There isn't. There is only an
appearance of thought or fixation
on thought.
The world can be said to appear
but not to actually *be*.
It's just a play of ideas.
Nothing more.
Noah Sombrero
to say:
Awareness is everywhen. A thought is right now.
Noah Sombrero
Takuji seiji
<somb...@mm.st> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st>
>Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:15:07 -0700
I am sure that makes perfect sense to you, but to me it is a bit
confusing.
Lets assume I grant awareness is everywhen: this implies there
is a thought right now, and if there were a thought right now being
now it would be absent to awareness.
However, since there is a consciousness of the thought, the thought
has passed and become the future already, and awareness being time
is absent of time altogether. Therefore, it would make more sense in
my opinion to say, "awareness is timeless and a thought is the past of
the future, or a thought is the past of the future amidst the timeless."
Then one can question about the reality of past and future and thereby
thought in general.
Takuji seiji
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "/*-9" <shu...@email.com>
>Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:06:46 -0400
I see Hui-neng's question pointing to something beyond the under-
standing that the world only appears as it is.
It is not that I disagree that the world only appears as it is, but to
make the world just a play of ideas, and leave it at that, seems in
my opinion to be a naive. Even so, since there would be no idea if
the thought did not abide (even as an appearance), and the point of
view likewise. Something must be held in memory, in my opinion,
for the formation of an idea to begin with, even if it is just an appear-
ance of memory.
So in my opinion your answer brings to light the understanding of the
preceding thought, but leaves the succeeding thought still in the dark
so to speak; which i believe Noah's answer brings to light in its own
way.
Therefore, one perhaps in answer Nui-neng's question through the
following axiom:
The world only appears as the past of the future amidst the timeless.
or in a word "no-thought"
Takuji seiji
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "/*-9" <shu...@email.com>
>Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:06:46 -0400
>
>
I see Hui-neng's question pointing to something beyond the under-
standing that the world only appears as it is.
It is not that I disagree that the world only appears as it is, but to
make the world just a play of ideas, and leave it at that, seems in
my opinion to be a bit naive. Even so, since there would be no idea if
the thought did not abide (even as an appearance), and the point of
view likewise. Something must be held in memory, in my opinion,
for the formation of an idea to begin with, even if it is just an appear-
ance of memory.
So in my opinion your answer brings to light the understanding of the
preceding thought, but leaves the succeeding thought still in the dark
so to speak; which i believe Noah's answer brings to light in its own
way.
Therefore, one can perhaps answer Nui-neng's question through the
/*-9
*Naive* is just another idea. *Idea* is just another idea.
. Even so, since there would be no idea if
> the thought did not abide (even as an appearance), and the point of
> view likewise.
Abide is just an idea. Point of view is just an idea, a projection of mind.
All there is, is your mind's projections.
Something must be held in memory, in my opinion,
> for the formation of an idea to begin with, even if it is just an appear-
> ance of memory.
The whole idea of memory is just another projection. Memory doesn't
prove that anything has ever actually occurred beyond appearance
or projection of appearance.
>
> So in my opinion your answer brings to light the understanding of the
> preceding thought, but leaves the succeeding thought still in the dark
> so to speak; which i believe Noah's answer brings to light in its own
> way.
>
> Therefore, one can perhaps answer Nui-neng's question through the
> following axiom:
>
> The world only appears as the past of the future amidst the
timeless.
>
> or in a word "no-thought"
No thought is just another idea appearance.
kenzen
> the succeeding thought should be aware: since the
> awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
> view does not either.
This can only hold true if thought could be broken down into a continuous
series of individual thoughts.
Perhaps this theory is wrong.
> This being so, how could there be a fixation on a thought
> or point of view?
First of all, a clarification:
The question confuses thought with point of view,
as if they are two separate things to be compared.
A garden hose is turned on with a high amount of water pressure.
The end of the hose swings and whips wildly in the air.
The water represents stream of thought, the hose your mind.
The direction in a frozen moment in time that the hose-end happens to be
pointing is its point of view.
Any moment after is not a new thought, but a new direction in which thought
has moved.
Awareness of thought (which is not thought itself) compares the two
directions, before and after.
Awareness merely controls the rate and strength of the flow and observes the
results.
Thought HAS point of view.
"Awareness of thought" does not mean thought has awareness. They are not
mutually agreeable.
The succeeding (or preceding) thought can not be aware of anything as it is
a "thought" and not the "awareness".
The fixation on the point of view of thought, or even just the thought
alone,
arises when awareness can not let go.
---------------
Just a few of my thoughts,
Ken
Noah Sombrero
>>Awareness is everywhen. A thought is right now.
>
>confusing.
I am often not able to make perfect sense.
>Lets assume I grant awareness is everywhen: this implies there
>is a thought right now, and if there were a thought right now being
>now it would be absent to awareness.
I would want to include now in everywhen.
>is absent of time altogether. Therefore, it would make more sense in
>my opinion to say, "awareness is timeless and a thought is the past of
>the future, or a thought is the past of the future amidst the timeless."
Yes, I think you say it quite well. It is no surprise that you are a
careful scholar of these things (and a number of other things, I suspect).
>Then one can question about the reality of past and future and thereby
>thought in general.
One can enjoy such amusements.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
>No thought is just another idea appearance.
So it goes with metaphor. In the end, our understanding
of it will be precisely what we wish to understand and
nothing more.
I do often say the kind of thing you say here 9. Others
will want to say that there is no truth, no absolute,
everything is relative, we can know nothing really. I
want to say, no that isn't it either.
There between the forest trees is something moving.
Do you see it? It is either an elk, or a dragon or a lion.
As we move closer, we see that it will not allow us to
get close enough to say what it is. Does that mean
it is not there? Or that we simply do not know what
it is?
Noah Sombrero
Takuji seiji
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "/*-9" <shu...@email.com>
>Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:14:57 -0400
LOL
"Just a play of ideas" is a comforting idea.
Noah Sombrero
to say:
>>No thought is just another idea appearance.
>
>LOL
>
>"Just a play of ideas" is a comforting idea.
In fear and trembling, we work out our salvations.
Noah Sombrero
Takuji seiji
<somb...@mm.st> writes:
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st>
>Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:15:01 -0700
:)
Takuji seiji
<krdie...@not.earthlink.not> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "kenzen" <krdie...@not.earthlink.not>
>Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 16:29:09 GMT
One could certainly question the premise from a philosophical
point of view; although from a practical point of view, the premise
could be a means pointing to something beyond a philosophical
point of view.
"Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought,
the succeeding thought should be aware:"
Hui-neng's question presumes that one is observing their thoughts
spontaneously arising, and ordinarily the attention of the subject is
in the direction of the object, in this case the preceding thought.
Therefore, by stating that "the succeeding thought should be aware",
Hui-neng is implying that the direction of the attention of the preced-
ing thought should turn around and reflect back (eko hensho).
Direction of the flow of attention of the preceding thought:
observer (subject) -----------> thought (object)
Direction of the flow of attention of the succeeding thought:
observer (object) <------------ thought (subject)
In the midst of this exercise of eko hensho, there is a point in which
attention is flowing spontaneously in both directions at the same time:
<------------->
…and in that moment there is neither subject nor object. Therefore,
Hui-neng asserts the following:
"since the awareness of the thought does not abide,
the point of view does not either."
With the above statement Hui-neng describes the results of the practice
of eko hensho -- "the thought does not abide, the point of view does not
either."
Therefore, Hui-neng asks the following question to encourage a remembr-
ance, and deeper reflection upon the above realization.
Noah Sombrero
say:
>>"Just a play of ideas" is a comforting idea.
>
>In fear and trembling, we work out our salvations.
Well, we might, except that "fear and trembling" are
no longer sanctioned by the social structure. These
days we prefer to insulate ourselves with dogma and
interpretation. Which is not a new idea of course.
The new idea is to interpret "fear and trembling" out
of existence.
Dare we fear and tremble? And once it starts, when
does it stop?
Noah Sombrero
tara
(in article <uarqg0dol5bpvoimm...@4ax.com>):
I honestly don't know of any other way. In all of the religious myths/truths
since the beginning, to be spiritually free, we must go into the pit and face
our demons first. And some of us need to do it again.
How we approach that pit, is significant too I think. If we are willing or
not - trust maybe; or desperation - nothing left to lose.
tara
>
> Noah Sombrero
Takuji seiji
<somb...@mm.st> writes:
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st>
>Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:39:53 -0700
A child suffering from night terrors believes they exist,
until the lights come on, and they have awakened.
The mantra "it is only a dream" may work to turn the
light on, and awaken the child to the fact that it is only
a dream, but it is only a means to an end.
If the mantra becomes such that it appears meaningless
to the child, it could induce a hypnotic state, and make the
terrors appear all the more real.
One needs not suffer night terrors to awaken to the realization
they are dreaming. Even so to induse such as a mean to bring
forth such a realization, seem a bit extreme to me.
However, naturally it would stop when one awakened to the real-
ization that it too was only a dream.
Noah Sombrero
managed to say:
>>> "Just a play of ideas" is a comforting idea.
>>
>> In fear and trembling, we work out our salvations.
>
>I honestly don't know of any other way. In all of the religious myths/truths
>since the beginning, to be spiritually free, we must go into the pit and face
>our demons first. And some of us need to do it again.
>How we approach that pit, is significant too I think. If we are willing or
>not - trust maybe; or desperation - nothing left to lose.
Either of those will do I think. My point was that even though it
is just a play of ideas, it also isn't. Even though there is nothing
to fear in the dark, there also is. We bring forth our fearsome
reason and battle with toothpicks against we are not even sure
what.
Noah Sombrero
tara
(in article <371rg0lr2heh3htfg...@4ax.com>):
And it's all real until it isn't. Until it is understood. Then we understand
that it is all real. It is us who decide what we will accept as real or not.
I really have a problem separating 'real' from 'not real'.
Why do we need to do this. A nightmare is real.
Maybe I'm going too far with this. I mean who would want to teach a child
that a nightmare is real.
Where do nightmares come from anyway. What are they.
Maybe I just don't understand anything.
Tara
Noah Sombrero
managed to say:
>And it's all real until it isn't. Until it is understood. Then we understand
>that it is all real. It is us who decide what we will accept as real or not.
But we do not decide what *is* real.
>I really have a problem separating 'real' from 'not real'.
>
>Why do we need to do this.
Because, if we don't, the speeding trucks will get us.
>A nightmare is real.
Sorta.
>Maybe I'm going too far with this. I mean who would want to teach a child
>that a nightmare is real.
>
>Where do nightmares come from anyway. What are they.
You know some answers for this, I suspect. It has to do with bringing
us to where we can deal with our deepest fears. We desensitize ourselves.
>Maybe I just don't understand anything.
Neither do I. I guess I don't say it well.
Noah Sombrero
tara
(in article <20040801195049...@mb-m25.aol.com>):
> In article <5srqg0t1s8fq1liea...@4ax.com>, Noah Sombrero
> <somb...@mm.st> writes:
>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>> From: Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st>
>> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:39:53 -0700
>>
>> While not effing the ineffable, Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st> managed to
>> say:
>>
>>>> "Just a play of ideas" is a comforting idea.
>>>
>>> In fear and trembling, we work out our salvations.
>>
>> Well, we might, except that "fear and trembling" are
>> no longer sanctioned by the social structure. These
>> days we prefer to insulate ourselves with dogma and
>> interpretation. Which is not a new idea of course.
>> The new idea is to interpret "fear and trembling" out
>> of existence.
>>
>> Dare we fear and tremble? And once it starts, when
>> does it stop?
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
> A child suffering from night terrors believes they exist,
> until the lights come on, and they have awakened.
>
true
> The mantra "it is only a dream" may work to turn the
> light on, and awaken the child to the fact that it is only
> a dream, but it is only a means to an end.
true
>
> If the mantra becomes such that it appears meaningless
> to the child, it could induce a hypnotic state, and make the
> terrors appear all the more real.
maybe...
The mantras I was taught and grew up with. -
The Prayer of Faith -
"God is my help in every need;
God does my every hunger feed;
God walks beside me, guides my way
Through every moment of the
day
I now am wise, I now am true.
Patient, kind and loving too.
All things I am, can do, and be,
Through Christ, the Truth that is
in me.
God is my health, I canąt be sick;
God is my strength, unfailing, quick;
God is my all; I know no fear
Since God and love and Truth are
here."
- and this is the other one:
"The light of God surrounds me:
The love of God enfolds me;
The power of God protects me;
The presence of God watches over me;
Wherever I am, God is."
Amen
This is what I grew up with, - what was taught to me.
With these prayers and 'beliefs' secure in my heart, I never feared the
dark. I really never did.
Later, when I grew up, I looked at what these prayers were and where they
came from ....and questioned them. As I should.
I found that 'christ' is simply the spirit of all that is.
tara
Robert Epstein
where is this from takuji? I don't recall it from the Platform Sutra,
but maybe I just forgot it.
also, I am confused about "since the awareness of the thought does not
abide, the point of view does not either." what point of view does not
abide either?
robert
Takuji seiji
<r.ep...@verizon.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net>
>Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 05:37:08 GMT
The question is not from the Platform Sutra; it is from Hui-neng's
Commentary on the Diamond Sutra.
Point of view is referring to the direction of attending the thought,
or to put it in another way, direction of attention, my understanding
of the question is as I described to Ken:
"Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought,
the succeeding thought should be aware:"
Hui-neng's question presumes that one is observing their thoughts
spontaneously arising, and ordinarily the attention of the subject is
in the direction of the object, in this case the preceding thought.
Therefore, by stating that "the succeeding thought should be aware",
Hui-neng is implying that the direction of the attention of the preced-
ing thought should turn around and reflect back (eko hensho).
Direction of the flow of attention of the preceding thought:
observer (subject) -----------> thought (object)
Direction of the flow of attention of the succeeding thought:
observer (object) <------------ thought (subject)
In the midst of this exercise of eko hensho, there is a point in which
attention is flowing spontaneously in both directions at the same time:
<------------->
and in that moment there is neither subject nor object. Therefore,
Hui-neng asserts the following:
"since the awareness of the thought does not abide,
the point of view does not either."
With the above statement Hui-neng describes the results of the practice
of eko hensho -- "the thought does not abide, the point of view does not
either."
Therefore, Hui-neng asks the following question to encourage a remembr-
ance, and deeper reflection upon the above realization.
tara
tara
tara
Robert Epstein
/*-9 wrote:
> The whole idea of memory is just another projection. Memory doesn't
> prove that anything has ever actually occurred beyond appearance
> or projection of appearance.
Yet, by saying that "memory doesn't prove anything" even merely beyond
"the projection of appearance" you are tacitly presupposing that memory
takes place in some form and that something is projected in order to
appear.
To me the miracle is that it does appear to take place. Given that it's
all a projection, how is it projected, and what is the "real" that
imagines it? Each glimpse of this pushes one off the cliff of both
understanding and imagination.
Robert
Robert Epstein
Noah,
I fear and tremble every day, throughout much of the day, but probably
for the wrong reasons.
robert
Robert Epstein
a nightmare is real as a nightmare,
but it is not real as a waking event.
a thought is real as a thought
but it is not a reality as such
if you know that getting hit by a truck in a dream
is terrifying but has no permanent impact on oneself
then having a nightmare is no longer as important
if we awaken to understand that most of what we think
are just thoughts that don't refer to anything real
then we can live without being imprisoned by those thoughts
and their implications.
life still goes on, but with different meanings.
robert
Robert Epstein
Takuji seiji wrote:
> In article <410DD2DD...@verizon.net>, Robert Epstein
> <r.ep...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>>From: Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net>
>>Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 05:37:08 GMT
>>
>>
>>
>>Takuji seiji wrote:
>>
>>> Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought,
>>> the succeeding thought should be aware: since the
>>> awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
>>> view does not either.
>>> This being so, how could there be a fixation on a thought
>>> or point of view?
>>
>>where is this from takuji? I don't recall it from the Platform Sutra,
>>but maybe I just forgot it.
>>
>>also, I am confused about "since the awareness of the thought does not
>>abide, the point of view does not either." what point of view does not
>>abide either?
>>
>>robert
>
>
> The question is not from the Platform Sutra; it is from Hui-neng's
> Commentary on the Diamond Sutra.
Thanks. I believe that this commentary usually accompanies the Platform
Sutra? My volume has Diamond Sutra, then Hui Neng's Autobiography and
Lectures. Have to see if the commentary on the Diamond Sutra is
included or not. I have to get hold of this if not. What translation
do you have, if you don't mind? The excerpts you have shared seem
extremely valuable [though a bit difficult...]
> Point of view is referring to the direction of attending the thought,
> or to put it in another way, direction of attention, my understanding
> of the question is as I described to Ken:
>
>
> "Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought,
> the succeeding thought should be aware:"
okay, let see if I can follow this: the succeeding thought [the one
after the preceding thought] should be aware of the one before it. So I
am generating an aware thought of the moment's thought that has just
passed, and thus being mindful of what the nature of the preceding
thought is.
> Hui-neng's question presumes that one is observing their thoughts
> spontaneously arising, and ordinarily the attention of the subject is
> in the direction of the object, in this case the preceding thought.
Clear enough: ordinarily one attempts to be aware of the preceding
thought, which just occurred -- although this seems to me the same as
the succeeding thought being aware of the preceding thought.
> Therefore, by stating that "the succeeding thought should be aware",
> Hui-neng is implying that the direction of the attention of the preced-
> ing thought should turn around and reflect back (eko hensho).
okay, I don't understand this implication. If the thought after the
preceding thought, ie, the succeeding thought, is to be aware of the
preceding thought, how does this imply that the preceding thought should
do anything, such as turning and reflecting back? This part of your
logic I don't understand.
Preceding thought = object.
Succeeding thought [present moment] = subject.
Subject is aware of object.
This all seems in order.
How and on what basis can the preceding thought [which is now past] turn
around and be aware of anything, and how is this implied?
> Direction of the flow of attention of the preceding thought:
> observer (subject) -----------> thought (object)
>
> Direction of the flow of attention of the succeeding thought:
> observer (object) <------------ thought (subject)
>
> In the midst of this exercise of eko hensho, there is a point in which
> attention is flowing spontaneously in both directions at the same time:
>
> <------------->
>
> and in that moment there is neither subject nor object. Therefore,
> Hui-neng asserts the following:
>
>
> "since the awareness of the thought does not abide,
> the point of view does not either."
>
>
> With the above statement Hui-neng describes the results of the practice
> of eko hensho -- "the thought does not abide, the point of view does not
> either."
> Therefore, Hui-neng asks the following question to encourage a remembr-
> ance, and deeper reflection upon the above realization.
>
>
> "This being so, how could there be a fixation on a
> thought or point of view?"
This all makes sense once you establish the dual direction of attention
which thus cannot abide with thought a or b. But how can a thought
which is past be aware of anything, be any more than object for present
awareness? And where is this implication? Please explain.
Robert
Takuji seiji
<r.ep...@verizon.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net>
>Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 05:41:03 GMT
As Ken points out, a thought can not be aware, therefore this
"succeeding thought should be aware" make no sense; for the
same reason you ask this question: "How can a thought which
is past be aware of anything." Nevertheless, this is where the
logic of language brakes down when it comes to the practical.
As an example:
"I am aware" appears to be a logical statement.
Even so, "I am" is the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought;
Therefore the succeeding thought "I am" should be aware of "I am"
The implication is in the practice of Zazen, and the understanding
of ekô henshô (of turning the light around and looking back).
The original Chinese is Zhi-guan-da-shou
Awareness - beholding - response - abiding
Osho Dogen, echoes Hui-neng when he says in his "Standard of
Sitting-Zen Recommended for Everyone), the following:
"Subekaraku ekô henshô no taiho o gakusubeshi,
And should learn the stepping back of turning the light around and
looking back.
"Shinjin jinenni datsuraku shite, honrai no menmoku genzen sen.
Body and mind will naturally be shed, and the original countenance
will become manifest."
-Trans. Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross, New Year 2003.
Robert Epstein
my attempt to work this out in verse:
turning the light around and looking back
what does it see?
the thought arising from no-thought
in the bottomless pool
the reflection back is the thought observing the subject -
an artifice of refracted light
coming back outward to the inward going gaze
but in fact there is no generation of the prior thought
I am is the prior thought
reconstituted in the present.
aware is the present thought
which draws the I am out of the past.
clearly I still need more work. turning the attention inward to observe
the inception of experienceis common to all serious practice: the four
foundations of mindfulness, practice of jhana, eko hensho, enquiry into
source of self, pratyahara in Ashtanga yoga, etc.
the above still does not resolve how the prior thought can have a point
of view towards the present thought unless you mean that the prior
thought is reactivated in the present as part of the point of view
[turnikng back on itself] of the present thought [meaning the succeeding
thought of the prior thought.] at the time the prior thought is taking
place, if it's point of view is towards its source, is it going backward
in time [towards the I Am thought]? Or is it going forward towards the
"succeeding thought" which is only realized when it arrives as the
thought which takes the preceding thought as object? And how could one
arrange to have two thoughts, one of which is moving forward and the
other backward, when they do not occur at the same time?
clearly I still need more work.
robert
Robert Epstein
Takuji seiji wrote:
> Osho Dogen, echoes Hui-neng when he says in his "Standard of
> Sitting-Zen Recommended for Everyone), the following:
>
>
> "Subekaraku ekô henshô no taiho o gakusubeshi,
> And should learn the stepping back of turning the light around and
> looking back.
> "Shinjin jinenni datsuraku shite, honrai no menmoku genzen sen.
> Body and mind will naturally be shed, and the original countenance
> will become manifest."
>
> -Trans. Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross, New Year 2003.
Step back.
Turn the light around and look back.
Step back from the present thought
and look back to the thought from whence it came,
shedding present light on the inception of thought before.
When looking inward there is no body.
When looking at the space where thought arises
there is no mind.
The original countenance
is clear like a crystal.
robert
Takuji seiji
<r.ep...@verizon.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net>
>Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:03:50 GMT
The following is instruction:
"Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding thought, the succeeding
thought should be aware:" <------ notice the colon
Imagine you are a lay person that has received instruction in Zazen from
Hui-neng, and you practice Zazen every morning and every evening. One
Saturday morning you go to the temple to here a talk on the Diamond
Sutra give by Hui-neng.
He says, "Of the arising of the preceding thought", naturally you or I are
not witnessing each thought as it spontaneously arises. However, if we
become aware of a spontaneous thought, that awareness is directed to-
wards that thought ordinarily like this (I ----------> thought).
However, the moment the thought become aware (I<----------thought) the
thought vanishes and the point of view also. If this is not the case, then
one is not doing the practice correctly.
Hence:
"Since the awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
view does not either."
Here Hui-neng does not wait for you to say, "I see!" Nevertheless, gives
the solution.
Hui-neng is taking certain things for granted in this question, most likely
because the audience, were practiced in the form of his elucidation, so
to speak, and seasoned practitioners of Zazen under his guidance.
Then he follows up with a question, as to say, 'See you have realized
there is no abiding thought nor a point of view. This being so, how can
there be a fixation on that which is transient and vanishes in the light?'
"This being so, how could there be a fixation on a thought or point of view?"
The moment one hears "Of the spontaneous arising of the preceding
thought" One becomes aware that is all, but that awareness is going
forward -- this is the awareness of the spontaneous arising thought.
Moreover, if at that moment one turns that awareness around and re-
flects back -- this is the succeeding thought being aware.
This is the "Sudden" technique of the Southern School of Chan Buddhism,
and out of all the Zen masters to use this technique, Osho Bankei was the
most proficient.
However, if one over thinks it, they miss the point.
zero
I suspect a lot of your opinions and interpretations are posted above
and perhaps you should consider putting a disclaimer that in reality
it does not represent the person's intent you claim to represent but
your opinion of what he ment.
In actuality there is nothing to say on this subject. plain and
simple. nothing to say. You can not get there from here. :-) any
attempt will result in false comments.
Robert Epstein
don't want to overthink it, but do want to get clear on what the basic
technique is.
this instruction is appreciated and makes it more clear, but I still
have a few questions before being able to practice it, which I would
like to do.
will write more questions later, with your indulgence.
encountering the direct Sudden School teaching of Hui Neng in a tangible
form is quite inspiring. Will see if I can get the abc's enough
together to practice.
robert
Takuji seiji
(zero) writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: Isqu...@aol.com (zero)
>Date: 4 Aug 2004 07:17:56 -0700
LOL
Raan
> the succeeding thought should be aware: since the
> awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
> view does not either.
> This being so, how could there be a fixation on a thought
> or point of view?
As one attends to the spontaneity with which the preceding thought arises,
no such arising is sustained but it is presently arisen. The thought, whose
spontaneous emergence should be made an object of awareness, is the
succeeding thought. Thus one has turned attention around and the arising
which occurs presently can be seen as the acausal antecedent to the
preceding thought. Thus the fixation on a thought of point of view becomes
in itself the arising emergence of the preceding thought.
--
></>
Raan
> In article <cerog0ljc28qu6me5...@4ax.com>, Noah Sombrero> >From: Noah Sombrero <somb...@mm.st>
> >Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:15:07 -0700
> >> the succeeding thought should be aware: since the
> >> awareness of the thought does not abide, the point of
> >> view does not either.
> >> This being so, how could there be a fixation on a
thought
> >> or point of view?
> >
> >
> >Noah Sombrero
>
> I am sure that makes perfect sense to you, but to me it is a bit
> confusing.
>
> Lets assume I grant awareness is everywhen: this implies there
> is a thought right now, and if there were a thought right now being
> now it would be absent to awareness.
>
> However, since there is a consciousness of the thought, the thought
> has passed and become the future already, and awareness being time
> is absent of time altogether. Therefore, it would make more sense in
> my opinion to say, "awareness is timeless and a thought is the past of
> the future, or a thought is the past of the future amidst the timeless."
>
> Then one can question about the reality of past and future and thereby
> thought in general.
That is my own thought also :-)
--
></>
Raan
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:410F0698...@verizon.net...
Depending on the capacity of ones understanding and imagination.
--
></>
Raan
Had you attended my ideas about time instead of arrogantly arguing you would
already know most of this and your confusion minimized but I suspect it may
well be simply beyond your capacity.
--
></>
Robert Epstein
It is in transcending one's own limit of capacity whatever it may be
that the space of no-thought opens to the real; and that space is quite
broad enough to encompass any human capacity and push it over the edge,
when it reaches that frontier of possibility.
robert
Robert Epstein
Your language seemed intellectual to me, particularly invoking the
future as a presence rather than an opaque horizon, which reminded me of
a lot of New Age crap about living into the future as a dynamic way of
potentiating the present. Instead of dealing with that, and having a
reasonable discussion, you launched into a months-long personal attack
on everything I said, dogging all my posts, mostly unrelated to you, as
"punishment." Of course the issue was never resolved since you are not
actually willing to discuss anything, only lecture.
If you had been capable of a focused debate on your use of the future as
an existential element we could have had an interesting discussion. But
you don't brook criticism well [this is being kind] and your ability to
engage in a civil exchange with someone who either doesn't understand
you or disagrees with you is laughably absent.
I know you see yourself as the font of knowledge and should be respected
as such, but not everyone agrees that what you are saying is true.
Inconvenient.
Robert
Raan
That is your own limiting conception.
--
></>
Raan
That is your own limiting conception.
--
></>
Robert Epstein
I thought I heard something, but it turned out to be nothing but a
breeze. Guess I'll go back to ignoring it.
robert
Raan
Ignorance is your forte.
--
></>
Takuji seiji
<Raa...@One.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "Raan" <Raa...@One.org>
>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:42:12 -0400
LOL
an after thought
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Empty space has neither inside nor outside
Just so are the ways of mind
If the likeness to an empty sky is perceived
The truth of Suchness is understood"
--The Eighth Patriarch - Buddhanandi
Raan
Without that "after thought" what thought would there be?
And just what "after thought" can there be anyway?
--
></>
Takuji seiji
<Raa...@One.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "Raan" <Raa...@One.org>
>Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 07:34:57 -0400
"nothing"
>And just what "after thought" can there be anyway?
"I don't know either"
>--
> ></>
Raan
Thought exists due to the after thought but the after thought does not exist
as such nor is it indeed after thought but thought is before it. Get it?
--
></>
Takuji seiji
<Raa...@One.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "Raan" <Raa...@One.org>
>Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:32:21 -0400
LOL
If only I could apprehend the ephemeral flower
from your hand
Raan
>
> If only I could apprehend the ephemeral flower
> from your hand
Not having apprehended it in any way, where is the flower?
--
></>
Takuji seiji
<Raa...@One.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Hui-neng's Question on Fixation
>From: "Raan" <Raa...@One.org>
>Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:25:50 -0400
nothing apprehended
tara
>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>>> -
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Empty space has neither inside nor outside
>>>>>>> Just so are the ways of mind
>>>>>>> If the likeness to an empty sky is perceived
>>>>>>> The truth of Suchness is understood"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --The Eighth Patriarch - Buddhanandi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without that "after thought" what thought would there be?
>>>>>
>>>>> "nothing"
>>>>>
>>>>>> And just what "after thought" can there be anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> "I don't know either"
>>>>
>>>> Thought exists due to the after thought but the after thought does not
>> exist
>>>> as such nor is it indeed after thought but thought is before it. Get it?
>>>> --
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> If only I could apprehend the ephemeral flower
>>> from your hand
>>
>> Not having apprehended it in any way, where is the flower?
>> --
>>> </>
>
> nothing apprehended
apprehend it or not, the flower is still here.
Raan
"tara" <jpine@ftml{removethis}.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD63C055...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>
> >>>
>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
nothing comprehended
--
></>
Anders Honore
tara wrote:
> apprehend it or not, the flower is still here.
tara
(in article <chmclk$l...@odah37.prod.google.com>):
>
> tara wrote:
>> apprehend it or not, the flower is still here.
> but how can it be a flower?
It is a form of life on this planet earth and some call this form a flower.
It can't be, it just is.
Anders Honore
maybe I dreamt up the flower?
Maybe the flower dreamt me up?
Who is to say what is still there?
The moment it leaves my field of consciousness, all that is left is but
a memory. How can I say for or against the flower's possible existence?
Robert Epstein
still, you are torturing that dead flower right now.
robert
Raan
A dead flower is all you get.
--
></>
tara
(in article <chpom4$o...@odah37.prod.google.com>):
>
> tara wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 03:34:12 -0400, Anders Honore wrote
>> (in article <chmclk$l...@odah37.prod.google.com>):
>>
>>>
>>> tara wrote:
>>>> apprehend it or not, the flower is still here.
>>> but how can it be a flower?
>>
>> It is a form of life on this planet earth and some call this form a
> flower.
>> It can't be, it just is.
>
> maybe I dreamt up the flower?
maybe, who knows
>
> Maybe the flower dreamt me up?
maybe, who knows
>
> Who is to say what is still there?
If there is no who, I guess there is no who to say
>
> The moment it leaves my field of consciousness, all that is left is but
> a memory. How can I say for or against the flower's possible existence?
Even so, who has this memory. How can there be a memory of the flower if the
flower never existed.
Does anything ever truly die?
But, your're right, we can't know, therefore we can't say yes or no.
tara
>
Raan
"tara" <jpine@ftml{removethis}.net> wrote in message
It is this "never existed" you need to drop.
What ever did truly exist in the first place?
--
></>
Noah Sombrero
>> flower never existed.
>> Does anything ever truly die?
>> But, your're right, we can't know, therefore we can't say yes or no.
>>
>> tara
>
>It is this "never existed" you need to drop.
>What ever did truly exist in the first place?
Something.
Noah Sombrero
tara
(in article <D6j0d.30169$lP4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
And the answer is......Da Da...everything was, is now, and ever will be,
right now. I don't think there was a first place.
But since I can't comprehend how this could be, I will see and smell this
beautiful flower. Here I picked it for you. :)
Tara
tara
(in article <0001HW.BD676A18...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>):
>
> Tara
P.S.: Whether this flower exists or not, it is no different from my own
existence.
It is here and I am here. This is enough. And the irony is that from this
comes knowing.
Tara
Raan
"tara" <jpine@ftml{removethis}.net> wrote in message
Your own existence?
Hard to believe you've been on this Zen group for such a long time and never
picked up the most basic insight. Maybe Noah can help you maintain this
level of ignorance with his "something".
--
></>
tara
(in article <Nbp0d.42757$Nd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>):
Yeah, I exist. nevermind the own. just a mean of describing it.
> Hard to believe you've been on this Zen group for such a long time and never
> picked up the most basic insight. Maybe Noah can help you maintain this
> level of ignorance with his "something".
bugger off!
lol
tara
>
tara
(in article <0001HW.BD6799D9...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>):
P.S. Lighten up. I know you are sincere and I respect and appreciate this.
But god damm it man, someday you will get to the point (I hope) where you
can understand that there is no understanding through intellectualization
alone. As a matter of fact it's a deterrent if anything.
It took me years of struggle to get to this point - of understanding.
love,
Tara
>>
>
>
tara
>
> P.S. Lighten up. I know you are sincere and I respect and appreciate this.
> But god damm it man, someday you will get to the point (I hope) where you
> can understand that there is no understanding through intellectualization
> alone. As a matter of fact it's a deterrent if anything.
>
> It took me years of struggle to get to this point - of understanding.
And if I really want to know, I should throw this understand away too.
Tara
>
> love,
>
> Tara
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
zero
get real. the flower did. perhaps in the la-la world you live in it is
called something else or is something else... perhaps molecules but
then we could look at the atoms which are in themselves mini universes
with life and planets... or we could be real and simply see a flower
or not.
tara
(in article <91e0999b.04091...@posting.google.com>):
yes
tara
Noah Sombrero
to say:
>> Hard to believe you've been on this Zen group for such a long time and never
>> picked up the most basic insight. Maybe Noah can help you maintain this
>> level of ignorance with his "something".
>
>bugger off!
To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the
emptiness of things is to miss their reality.
Hsin Hsin Ming
As provided by Keynes
Not that the quote proves anything. It is nice to have scriptural
confirmation though.
Noah Sombrero
Robert Epstein
the question is raised to point out the distinction between mind and
reality. mainly that reality is only apprehended through mind and
outside of present mind there is only mental traces and nothing more.
where is the flower now? is a fair question, but it assumes a flower
that is still "somewhere," so "where was the flower ever" challenges the
reality of that which isn't present. But that negates the flower, which
also tends to affirm its existence, even though it's not here. In the
present, when it's before you, is it a flower or not? this goes to how
we organize and define things. All of zen is about the nature of mind
and how we apprehend and define things, not really about reality "out
there."
Robert
Raan
"tara" <jpine@ftml{removethis}.net> wrote in message
Who has little and give it away is more generous by far than who has plenty
and gives only some but who has plenty and gives it all away is far more
generous indeed. And if this applies to anything at all then you have more
of it than I have but who is more full of it really? :)
Affectionately yours
--
></>
Raan
"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@mm.st> wrote in message
news:9v15k0pbef0fkncbb...@4ax.com...
What then is it to assert the reality of things?
--
></>
Raan
Even as the flower is presently seen it can be said to be only a mental
trace. All awareness is present knowledge of the past. Only the will can
truly grasp the flower and so confer upon it an enduring existence. But
what then is the nature of this will? That is what Zen is really about, as
distinct from the majority of Buddhism which seems focused on the passivity
of awareness rather than the activity of the will.
--
></>
Raan
"zero" <Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91e0999b.04091...@posting.google.com...
I'm not talking about some subjectivist idealism here.
If you still don't undertand what I meant by what I said then ask.
Why argue against something you clearly don't get?
(Atoms as definitely not like little solar systems at all.)
--
></>
zero
perhaps you could teach me raan... :-) i would certainly listen if you
were to ever post something other than complete shit..
zero
a lot can be said about beating a dead dog also but then why bother?
All awareness is present knowledge of the past.
no. this is not true.. not even close.
Only the will can
> truly grasp the flower and so confer upon it an enduring existence. But
> what then is the nature of this will?
will? more complete bullshit, raan.
That is what Zen is really about, as
> distinct from the majority of Buddhism which seems focused on the passivity
> of awareness rather than the activity of the will.
and that is why you post the idiotic crap you post... I doubt you know
much of anything about buddhism ...and your understanding of zen ...
you expressed above :-) at some point you need to relax, breathe, and
enjoy the flower.. perhaps realizing the less you know..the more you
understand.
Noah Sombrero
>>
>> To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the
>> emptiness of things is to miss their reality.
>>
>> Hsin Hsin Ming
>> As provided by Keynes
>>
>> Not that the quote proves anything. It is nice to have scriptural
>> confirmation though.
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
>What then is it to assert the reality of things?
Neither affirm nor deny.
Noah Sombrero
Raan
Deny affirmation and denial huh? lol
--
></>
Raan
Yeah ok know-it-all... atoms are little solar systems.. now go and play in
the muck.
--
></>
Raan
It seems apt for you to think the less you know the more you understand then
to say I know nothing which would mean i understand all lol. Just calling
what I say idiotic crap and bullshit and telling me I know nothing does not
constitute a valid argument and your words only reflect back on you.
So to meditate is to engage in passive awareness like a good little Buddhist
but then what will you be aware of presently except sensory perceptions of
events already past and thoughts which are echoes of the past? The actual
present moment is when awareness occurs but how could you meditate to sit
passively and just be aware unless it was an act of will?
--
></>
Noah Sombrero
>> >What then is it to assert the reality of things?
>>
>> Neither affirm nor deny.
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
>Deny affirmation and denial huh? lol
That too. Neither affirm nor deny.
Noah Sombrero
Robert Epstein
When awareness attempts to grasp the reality of something outside of
itself, from the simplest act of perception to the most complex
analysis, it is only conscious of the past because it is focused on
something that can only be known in duration beyond the moment. But
when awareness is simply aware of the occurence of its own experience
qua experience, it is no longer focused on the past, but on its own
present. Awareness is able to focus totally on the present awareness
[itself in a clunky manner of speaking, since there is no "it"] when it
doesn't cling to the illusion of a past or future defineable reality.
At that moment it is free from the tyranny of both the illusion of time
and the illusion of a defined object outside of its own momentary
experience.
I've been noticing in my "zen jogging" lately [a new age hybrid that I
would not try to promote to anyone but myself, or at least would urge
anyone, including myself, not to call it that] patterns of leaves on the
pavement as I run, and how they don't seem to continue switching
positions in my eyespace in a smooth pattern, but seem to "clink" into
place from one framed experience to the next. It is as if the seeing
cannot take place and define the pattern of the leaves unless my eyes
make a framing decision that is beyond the simple taking in of chaotic
sense-data. It is an interesting attempt to allow the leaf pattern to
change more smoothly as it comes down the conveyor belt of mobile
eyesight, but this can only be achieved by a kind of visual passivity
that is "more awareness of what is seen, and less looking." It suggests
to me the possible difference between "seeing in the moment without
clinging," [leaving aside whether what is seen is defined as immediate
past data or present processed information - I think the latter is more
accurate because the former assumes that there is an actual reality of a
certain sort to be processed, rather than that the way that the pattern
is apprehended *is* the reality that there is to apprehend] and creating
clung-to patterns of apprehension that are controlled by the seer to
conform to whatever visual-emotional expectations he has in relation to
the world as it comes into his purview. An interesting project in any case.
Robert
zero
ah, but we can all all see you know a lot or so you "think"
> So to meditate is to engage in passive awareness like a good little Buddhist
> but then what will you be aware of presently except sensory perceptions of
> events already past and thoughts which are echoes of the past? The actual
> present moment is when awareness occurs but how could you meditate to sit
> passively and just be aware unless it was an act of will?
you tell me... your payments to me are way overdue and to be quite
frank I don't see you as the model patient.
Raan
That is simply incoherent.
What else from an irrationalist?
--
></>
Raan
You are a waste of time. Disappear.
--
></>
Raan
A very interesting occurrence that is of some interest and on which I might
have a few things to say but better I think to stay on topic at least to the
matter of a question posed and not addressed. The true nature of the will.
--
></>
Noah Sombrero
>
>"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@mm.st> wrote in message
>news:m9a7k0ds1h5lhlkk6...@4ax.com...
>> While not effing the ineffable, "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> managed to say:
>>
>> >> >What then is it to assert the reality of things?
>> >>
>> >> Neither affirm nor deny.
>> >>
>> >> Noah Sombrero
>> >
>> >Deny affirmation and denial huh? lol
>>
>>
>> That too. Neither affirm nor deny.
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
>That is simply incoherent.
>What else from an irrationalist?
Ok, I will try to make it more clear.
Neither affirm nor deny and
Neither affirm nor deny that you can neither affirm nor deny.
Hard pill for a rationalist to swallow. But I think that you
will find time forcing it down your throat. You will be a
lot less likely to choke if you allow yourself to swallow.
Noah Sombrero
Raan
In other words "Shut up". I got it. But your trying to force bullshit down
my throat will not do it. How about simply demonstrating it as an example?
And take the opportunity to try to swallow your own bullshit.
--
></>
Noah Sombrero
>> Ok, I will try to make it more clear.
>>
>> Neither affirm nor deny and
>> Neither affirm nor deny that you can neither affirm nor deny.
>>
>> Hard pill for a rationalist to swallow. But I think that you
>> will find time forcing it down your throat. You will be a
>> lot less likely to choke if you allow yourself to swallow.
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
>In other words "Shut up". I got it.
Raan misses again.
> But your trying to force bullshit down
>my throat will not do it.
Nothing to do with me.
>How about simply demonstrating it as an example?
>And take the opportunity to try to swallow your own bullshit.
You're choking, Raan.
Noah Sombrero
Robert Epstein
awareness is neither passive nor active; to realize its presence without
adding a definition or proviso is enlightenment; just being as "tathata"
is passive from the standpoint of the "self," because the self wants to
be in charge and prove its own existence. But it is not really passive.
the act of "minding" awareness is really redundant but is still
necessary as a matter of practice.
robert
Robert Epstein
fair enough. thanks for the honorable mention. I have said something
sideways in another post that may reflect on the will indirectly, as I
don't want to debate it at the moment, but would rather circle around it.
robert
Raan
Awareness is passive but the will is active. Since awareness is only of
what has already occurred and is static and fixed how can it be active?
Only the will is active since it is always directed to that which is free
and undefined. It cannot be known or realized nor be made an object of
awareness but must be lived. Speak from true insight and experience not
from second hand descriptions and the living will is manifest.
--
></>
Raan
It would help if you had a well considered idea of your own about it first
before you assume you would debate about it if you didn't beat around the
bush. You might even find you agree and have something to add to it.
--
></>
Raan
Hardly since I am still talking and you missed your own opportunity to
exercise some wisdom and self consistency instead of adding more bullshit
and exhibiting your own capacity of swallowing and spewing it out. Now say
anything meaningful that does not affirm or deny and don't try to dodge with
some pseudo Zen ambiguity. Otherwise you are still best to just shut up and
quit trying to act like you have any clue at all about anything.
--
></>
Noah Sombrero
>Hardly since I am still talking and you missed your own opportunity to
>exercise some wisdom
Don't have any.
>and self consistency instead of adding more bullshit
>and exhibiting your own capacity of swallowing and spewing it out. Now say
>anything meaningful that does not affirm or deny
Of course, Raan, it can't be done. Meaningful becomes
a concept without a referent.
>and don't try to dodge with some pseudo Zen ambiguity.
You mean I should affirm or deny? Nothing doing.
>Otherwise you are still best to just shut up and
>quit trying to act like you have any clue at all about anything.
You know I will of course, rsn.
Noah Sombrero
Robert Epstein
Honestly, Raan, my reaction to will as the primal element is a negative
one. I understand will as the strongest force in samsara, but very much
of and by samsara as well. To assert energy and project purpose onto
the framework of manifest living is necessary to be sure, but to
identify with it is in the opposite direction of realization in my
opinion. Realization is not about making anything happening or being
more powerful in life, although power does come as a result in a certain
way. It is really completely about letting go, and will is one of the
things that has to be let go of. I am repeating myself by saying that
to me will is of the ego, but that is my firm conviction. Again, it is
the most powerful thing between the personality and the elements of
life, but is very weak in the realm of enlightenment. I'm open to an
opposing view, but that both makes sense to my understanding and my
intuition. The primordial nature as awareness is neither active nor
passive. It is prior to any such pair of opposites.
Robert