>> On 5/19/2012 8:53 AM, oxtail wrote:
>>> noname wrote:

>>>> On 05/18/2012 08:25 PM, oxtail wrote:
>>>>> Tang Huyen wrote:

>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 11:51 AM, gbb wrote:

>>>>>>>      I'm currently working with the Diamond Sutra, and
>>>>>>> considering making it
>> my main practice for a while, maybe for a very
>>>>>>> long while. The reason
>> that I mention this here is that already, in
>>>>>>> my first hesitant attempts,
>> I've  noticed that when following the
>>>>>>> technique described
>> in chapter three (I'll paraphrase it just below),
>>>>>>> what TB describes in
>> the paragraphs above simply disappears; all
>>>>>>> distinctions seem to
>> disappear or at the very least, the dividing
>>>>>>> lines become very fuzzy
>> and reactive emotions loosen their grip on me
>>>>>>> until my attention wavers
>> and I return back to "normal", non-mindful
>>>>>>> attention.

>>>>>>>      The instruction is to supplant or pre-empt all
>>>>>>> other thoughts by maintaining
>> the thought "I shall liberate all
>>>>>>> beings while knowing
>> that not a single being is liberated since there
>>>>>>> is no such thing as
>> a self, a being, a life or a soul".

>>>>>>>      This technique seems to work a bit like a koan:
>>>>>>> by maintaining this
>> thought, all other thought processes stop. This
>>>>>>> is what is suggested
>> at the beginning of the sutra. I'm very keen to
>>>>>>> see how this develops
>> through the rest of the text, though I'm going
>>>>>>> to take it piece by
>> piece and let it sink in before going on.

>>>>>> This use of the Diamond scripture
>> is quite strange. It seems to me to
>>>>>> be totally contrary to the intention of the scripture.

>>>>>> Let me explain. The overall intention
>> of the scripture is along the
>>>>>> line of the Perfection of Wisdom,
>> of which it is a part. One famous
>>>>>> passage of the scripture is:

>>>>>> "the bodhi-sattva (a being devoted
>> to awakening) maha-sattva (a great
>>>>>> being) ought to give rise to
>> an un-supported thought, to a thought
>>>>>> unsupported by
>>>>>> anything, to a thought unsupported
>> by form, sound, scent, flavour,
>>>>>> tangible, object-of-mind."

>>>>>> Hui-neng overheard that passage
>> from the Diamond and awoke, and it is
>>>>>> a direct clone of:

>>>>>> "Wherefore you, householder,
>> must train yourself thus: (you must
>>>>>> think), 'I will not grasp after sight and so will have no
>>>>>> consciousness dependent on sight.' This is how you must train
>>>>>> yourself, householder." MLS, III, 310 (translation modified).

>>>>>> The Buddha himself describes his
>>>>>> awakening thus:

>>>>>> "When consciousness is unestablished,
>> it does not grow. Not growing,
>>>>>> it does
>>>>>> nothing. Not doing anything, it is
>>>>>> liberated. By being liberated, it is
>>>>>> steady. By being steady, it is
>> content. By being content, he is not
>>>>>> agitated. Being not agitated,
>> he internally blows out." SN, III, 58
>>>>>> (22, 55).

>>>>>> The important part is: "not doing
>>>>>> anything" (an-abhisankharañca,
>> variant an-abhisankhacca), where
>>>>>> sankhara is
>>>>>> from the stem kr- "to act, to do, to
>>>>>> make", from which karman in Sanskrit
>>>>>> and kamma in Pali come "deed, act",
>>>>>> also samskara in Sanskrit and sankhara in Pali "composition"
>>>>>> (literally "together-making"), as in the fourth
>>>>>> aggregate (the compositions).

>>>>>> The idea of "unsupported" is that
>>>>>> normally mind sets up a place
>> for itself to stand on, but the Buddhist
>>>>>> cultivator refrains from doing
>> so, iow refrains from setting up a
>>>>>> place where his mind can stand.
>> The mind sets up a place for the mind
>>>>>> to stand on, in closed circle,
>> and this is called support. The mind
>>>>>> refrains from setting up a place
>> where it can stand on, so that it
>>>>>> does not
>>>>>> close a circle of its own self-support,
>> and this is called absence of
>>>>>> support.

>>>>>> Above, the Buddha says: 'I will not
>>>>>> grasp after sight and so will
>> have no consciousness dependent on
>>>>>> sight.' The mind normally grasps after sight (and the other
>>>>>> sense-objects) and has a
>>>>>> consciousness dependent on sight, a
>>>>>> consciousness that grabs support on
>>>>>> sight to stand. The cultivator
>>>>>> refrains from grasping after sight,
>>>>>> thus refrains from firming up sight
>>>>>> into a mental platform on which mind
>>>>>> can stand, and that is an unsupported mind.

>>>>>> The Diamond says that the cultivator
>>>>>> ought to give rise to an un-supported thought, to a thought
>>>>>> unsupported by
>>>>>> anything, to a thought unsupported
>> by form, sound, scent, flavour,
>>>>>> tangible, object-of-mind. This
>> means that when the mind encounters
>>>>>> sense-objects of
>>>>>> all kinds, it does not grasp after
>>>>>> them, does not firm them up into
>> mental supports for itself to stand
>>>>>> on, and
>>>>>> merely experiences them and lets
>> them go. It leaves itself open and
>>>>>> flowing, and does not close a circle (by, say, firming up any
>>>>>> sense-object into a
>>>>>> mental object on which it can stand).

>>>>>> The same pattern applies when the
>>>>>> cultivator sees other people,
>> in that he does not grasp after them,
>>>>>> does not firm them up into mental
>> objects on which he can stand. Thus,
>>>>>> he helps
>>>>>> them cross over to the other side,
>>>>>> yet has no mental objects of them,
>>>>>> does not set up mental entities
>> about grabbing them and helping them
>>>>>> cross
>>>>>> over, even as he still helps them
>>>>>> cross over. He still goes through
>> with the act, but does not chunk and
>>>>>> bag
>>>>>> anything. In the Perfection of
>> giving, he gives, just like normal, but
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not form the idea of a giver,
>> a gift, and a recipient. He still goes
>>>>>> through normal acts, but does not mentate anything.

>>>>>> The Diamond thus teaches us to go
>>>>>> through our daily acts without
>> setting up mental platforms for us to
>>>>>> stand on, from external sense-objects
>> like sights to internal objects
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> objects-of-mind (ideas, notions,
>>>>>> concepts, volitions, images, etc.).
>>>>>> That is the pattern for us to follow.

>>>>>> You (gbb) take a passage of the
>>>>>> Diamond, set it up as a platform for
>>>>>> you to stand on, and use it as
>> redoubt to block other thoughts. How
>>>>>> strange!

>>>>>> <<The instruction is to supplant or
>>>>>> pre-empt all other thoughts by
>>>>>> maintaining the thought "I shall
>>>>>> liberate all beings while knowing
>> that not a single being is liberated
>>>>>> since there is no such thing
>> as a self, a being, a life or a soul".>>

>>>>>> You do everything *against* the
>>>>>> intention of the Diamond!

>>>>>> Tang Huyen

>>>>> You got it!
>>>>> Does this mean you are going to stop
>>>>> talking about the crashed people?

>>>> Tang may continue talking about "crashed people" or make fart jokes or
>>>> whatever else responds to events, but if it occurs as not-doing it won't
>>>> be the egoic Tang but the true-Tang which is involved in its happening
>>>> and yet remains uninvolved in doing it.

>>> I don't think you believe
>>> that such a thing is possible.

>> Without dwelling on what followed gbb's post, I can shed light on what
>> he is saying from my own experience and observations.

>> The Diamond Sutra's power to effect a transmission of consciousness
>> derives from having been written from an intensely aware state of mind,
>> which really be "gotten" from a shallow analytical frame of reference,
>> or a cold conceptualization, without heart and engagement of deeper
>> awareness.

>> Related to this, neurobiological studies that establish the
>> interdependence of emotional and cognitive processes show that emotion
>> is indispensable in rational decision making:

>> http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html

>> I have read research showing that individuals with impairments in the
>> ability to experience emotion have been shown to exhibit severely
>> impaired judgment.

>> The import of the story of Hui Neng's Satori experience would not become
>> clear to an ordinary frame of reference. Gbb's observation that the
>> passage works as a koan is on point.

>> When Hui Neng had an instantaneous satori experience upon hearing a
>> passage from the Diamond, it did not result from rational analysis of
>> the sutra, and investigation into the context of the particular passage
>> within the sutra or within Buddhist written tradition. That would have
>> resulted in the same kind of superficial and faulty interpretation that
>> we see above.

>> The words were spoken from a deep consciousness that his own mind was
>> prepared to resonate with.

>> Without knowing anything about the passage, the author or the body of
>> related studies, there was an instantaneous transmission of
>> consciousness. When that happened to me on reading a passage from
>> another text, I knew nothing about the author or the context of his
>> writings. The mind was just somehow prepared for a "transmission of
>> consciousness."

>> The passage gbb references, paraphrased as: "I shall liberate all beings
>> while knowing that not a single being is liberated since there is no
>> such thing as a self, a being, a life or a soul" is one of the
>> realizations that opened itself to me.  Gbb's description of experience
>> is that "all distinctions seem to disappear or at the very least, the
>> dividing lines become very fuzzy and reactive emotions loosen their
>> grip" is a function of that consciousness.

>   I don't generally read Tang, but I did read his response this time thanks to
> the fact that Jigme included it in the quoted text.

>   Tang seems to think that I'm running around through the day mumbling to myself
> "I shall liberate all beings..." in order to "stop" other thoughts from
> arising. That's a very shallow interpretation of what I wrote. I've never been
> a fan of mantra repetition, not because I think it's invalid, but rather it
> doesn't seem to do much for *me* on *my* path.

>   I understand the instruction given in the Diamond Sutra in a very similar way
> to what Tang suggests as being the correct way:

>>>>>> The idea of "unsupported" is that
>>>>>> normally mind sets up a place
>> for itself to stand on, but the Buddhist
>>>>>> cultivator refrains from doing
>> so, iow refrains from setting up a
>>>>>> place where his mind can stand.

>   I did try to offer a feeble explanation of that when I wrote (and forgive me
> for quoting both Jigme and myself at the same time):

>>   "all distinctions seem to disappear or at the very least, the
>> dividing lines become very fuzzy and reactive emotions loosen their
>> grip" is a function of that consciousness.

>   When I try describe to others the state of awareness that I have when actively
> trying to practice the instruction given in the sutra, I find myself
> stammering. I can't find words or concepts to fit the experience. What I do
> know is that something in me changes and "self" and "other" start to lose their
> definitions. Maybe paraphrasing Tang's words will help: I find myself very
> aware, but with an "unsupported" mind.

>   The difficulty that I find in this practice is that I find myself in a totally
> new place where I lose my bearings and because of that, I find it frightening
> and jump back into my "ordinary" mind in the blink of an eye. My challenge now
> is to have enough faith in Buddha, Buddhism and in life itself to be able to
> continue functioning in the new state of mind *without having any clue as to
> what is going to happen or how I'm going to react*.

>   I understand having faith as opening to the mystery of life, as opposed to
> having some stupid belief about Buddha and Buddhism being one way or another.
> But it's a difficult chasm to jump over. I'm going to have to somehow increase
> my resolve to make the jump.

>   If anyone here knows what I talking about, I'd be very interested in hearing
> about your experience about dealing in dealing with this.