Ch'an Buddhism Discussion

[Scott R. Brown]

Quoted from Chris

hey Scott - sorry, missed this one


well, I would agree at the beginning - in other words, it is the mind that realizes that, in the words of the Great Sage Daffy Duck - "sumptin's amiss here", and so one consciously embarks on a quest of self-improvement (first mistake! 20 blows!); from the perspective of my experience in Ch'an practice, you then can "do" any number of meditative exercises (counting breath, mantra recitation, etc.) - and one is certainly using mind to monitor one's internal state - surfing the balance of agitation and dllness (if you're not thinking about paying bills, you're falling asleep, right?); at some point, the mind "settles", and one is no longer "thinking" about what is going on, there is simply perception of suchness, without the filter of analysis; the "idea" is that the mind no longer functions as an intermediary, but steps out of the way - this "state of awareness", if one has experienced it, is like a tall glass of cool mountain spring water - crisp yet without flavor, and very refreshing (from personal experience that's as far as I can tell you - the rest would be passing on the dregs of someone elses meal, not just of my own!); but the point is, if it is mind introspecting, it is not doing so in the "everday" sense of it - you are not "figuring out" what is wrong and how to fix it (unlike psychotherapy), so that's what I guess I meant...

also, thinking about Hui Neng - the way he became awakened, according to the tory, he simply heard the Bddha Dharma recited once, and got it - was he using mind?



it's an interesting proposition - I don't disagree, but it seems a bit paradoxical - when you stop caring about whether you live or die, it suggests you may not do something that would otherwise save life; at the same time, perhaps ones field of awareness is such that one is never in the wrong place at the wrong time? or perhaps none is able to respond in a life-sustaining manner but without the fear response mediating it...in a vry small way, I can say I have experienced the benefit of this approach in dealing with certain aspects of life - the big one is fear of death - it's easy to think you have overcome that, but since we have minimal opportunity to test if that is really the case, it's hard to say...:p

anyway, thanks for the input...

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Chris,

What Hui-Neng and Suzuki assert is that clinging is what is to be avoided; we do NOT avoid using the Mind, thinking. It is the ego that clings, not the Mind. The ego is merely a condition of Mind that performs a specific function.

When it is said that one does not care whether one lives or dies it must be understood to mean that one does not cling to the idea of life or death, NOT that one is not concerned with life or death or that one is not aware of the consequences of life or death circumstances.

Clinging obstructs perception. The choice to move out of the way of a rushing semi becomes a practical decision based upon purpose and goal as opposed to a desperate (emotional) attempt to avoid death. With an unobstructed Mind one is able to perceive the situation and react more efficiently because the Mind is not working against itself.

Hui-Neng addresses the concept of “Mind is Thought” in his chapter on “Samadhi and Prajna”, but it is not very clear unless one understands the context of his comments in terms of Buddhist philosophy. Hui-Neng uses the metaphor of a lamp and its light to correspond to the Buddhist philosophical concepts of Body and Use. Suzuki explains this in his commentary on the Sutra of Hui-Neng entitled, “The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind”.

In short, for anything to exist, according to Buddhist philosophy, it must have Body, Form, and Use. Body corresponds to Substance, Form to the object's tangible, measurable, qualities, while Use corresponds to the usefulness or utility of the object. Since Mind is formless it does not possesses the quality of Form.

Mind IS, it exists, this existence is also referred to as SUCHNESS, and this is its Body, its substance. Mind has a Use, its use is to think, have thoughts. While for conventional reasons we refer to these qualities as two, they are in essence One. Hui-Neng states the lamp and its light are One, as such Mind and its Thoughts are One. There is no separation of the two. Where there is one there is the other. The Mind without its thought is a dead mind, just as a river that does not flow is not a river. The function, Use, of the Mind is to think.

We are not to seek to avoid thought, but to avoid clinging to thought. It is not something we TRY to do. Hui-Neng suggests that once we realize that there is no other way to think, thoughts become unobstructed spontaneously “of themselves”, without any effort. It is like trying to see an optical illusion. You can't actually TRY to see it. You either see it, or you don’t. Once you can see it for the first time, you can perceive it every time you look at it in the future. This is the “seeing without obstruction” that Hui-Neng refers too. In essence, Life is like an optical illusion, except the illusion is a condition of the Mind. This is why seeing past the illusion cannot be accomplished by trying. We must look, without actually trying to look, or perhaps without clinging to the idea of looking.

[cjurakpt]

it's like, the way Hui Neng gets out of the way of an on-coming tractor trailer is different from the way I would do it, because he is not worried about what would happen if the trailer hits him, meaning that he is 100% focused on getting out of the way, giving him a better chance to actually do it than someone standing there taking the time to freak out first and processing that they are about to cash in their chips and noticing that their pants seem damp and heavier and then, if they have time, to actually move themselves laterally...

again, this always brings me to the term "choiceless awareness" favored by J. Krishnamurti - despite his eschewing of classical forms of Buddhism (which I think he did as much to help his "followers" not become attached to another "ism" as it was his own way of saying something that's been said before), it is very much a Ch'an concept, etc.

anyway, thanks for the reply - and also for starting a new thread, although I really don't think it was necessry, given that these exchanges are typically self-limiting especially when both parties are in general agreement and appear to be at the same level of understanding; but then again, you are much more compassionate than I am...:D

[Scott R. Brown]

I am not sure I agree with the concept of choiceless awareness, Unless I am misunderstanding its meaning. I haven't read Krishnamurti in about 30 years.

It seems to me that choice is the essence of freedom. Any action involves a choice. If we respond to stimuli using choiceless awareness it seems we are merely engaging in conditioned response. To choicelessly move out of the way of a semi presumes I choose to live. So the response is conditioned by that previously determined choice.

While this seems like a ridiculous example it should be easy to see how it can apply to other more mundane choices.

but then again, you are much more compassionate than I am...:D

That remains to be seen! ;)

[cjurakpt]

I am not sure I agree with the concept of choiceless awareness, Unless I am misunderstanding its meaning. I haven't read Krishnamurti in about 30 years.

It seems to me that choice is the essence of freedom. Any action involves a choice. If we respond to stimuli using choiceless awareness it seems we are merely engaging in conditioned response. To choicelessly move out of the way of a semi presumes I choose to live. So the response is conditioned by that previously determined choice.

While this seems like a ridiculous example it should be easy to see how it can apply to other more mundane choices.

I think what J.K. was talking about was not giving up the faculty of choice - in fact, I can think of at least one example where he very definitively spoke to a former stuent of Bhagwan Rajneesh and told that she he istake had been to give away to the Bhagwan the most important thing a person has, which is the ability to decide for oneself what to do; I think rather what he means is that when one is confronted by a situation, that one is fully aware of it without "choosing" from one's database of previous experience how to interpret and act upon the situation based on habit, but rather to deal with it directly, without bringing in all of one's pre-existing psychological baggage and assumptions; so it is the opposite of conditioned response, at least as far as I am aware - the idea is to be fully aware at that moment in order to be able to choose "freely", not making a choice that is dependent on habituation; so moving out of the way of the truck would be based on awareness of the immediacy of the situation, as opposed to freezing because your conditioned response to stress is to panic and freeze, I guess...

BTW, your're probably right, I think I am more compassionate than you are - deal with it!

[Scott R. Brown]

I think what J.K. was talking about was not giving up the faculty of choice - in fact, I can think of at least one example where he very definitively spoke to a former stuent of Bhagwan Rajneesh and told that she he istake had been to give away to the Bhagwan the most important thing a person has, which is the ability to decide for oneself what to do; I think rather what he means is that when one is confronted by a situation, that one is fully aware of it without "choosing" from one's database of previous experience how to interpret and act upon the situation based on habit, but rather to deal with it directly, without bringing in all of one's pre-existing psychological baggage and assumptions; so it is the opposite of conditioned response, at least as far as I am aware - the idea is to be fully aware at that moment in order to be able to choose "freely", not making a choice that is dependent on habituation; so moving out of the way of the truck would be based on awareness of the immediacy of the situation, as opposed to freezing because your conditioned response to stress is to panic and freeze, I guess...

I see, thank you for the very clear explanation. I agree with this view. I am pretty sure that IS what I said too, so NOW I see where you drew the comparision:)

BTW, your're probably right, I think I am more compassionate than you are - deal with it!

:eek:Sniff!! Sniff! I don't know now! THAT was pretty cruel!! Sniff! Sniff!:(

I think I like the compassionate you better!:)

[Doc Stier]

"....when one is confronted by a situation, that one is fully aware of it without "choosing"....but rather to deal with it directly....fully aware at that moment in order to be able to choose "freely"....based on awareness of the immediacy of the situation..."



Good point! :) This perspective is also presented in the Traditional Taoist Spiritual Classic T'ung-Shu (Penetrating the Scripture of Change) which states: "Thinking is the foundation of the Sage's achievement and the opportunity for good fortune or misfortune", and in the I-Ching(Classic of Change) when it states: "The superior person perceives the beginnings of events, and acts without waiting all day." ;)

Doc

[sanjuro_ronin]

Chan Buddhism seems to be about "clarity of purpose" and as such is great for MA training, though I wonder how much of it is "adding on" to us as opposed to "stripping away" what bogs us down.

[Scott R. Brown]

Chan Buddhism seems to be about "clarity of purpose" and as such is great for MA training, though I wonder how much of it is "adding on" to us as opposed to "stripping away" what bogs us down.

It is not so much about clarity of purpose as clarity of perception. This is often referred to as an unobstructed mind. An unobstructed mind is one that perceives without the perception being filtered through the ego.

There is no “adding on” or “stripping away” from the perspective of the mind that perceives without obstruction. However, amongst those of us who still perceive with an obstructed mind we “refer” to it as “stripping away” out of convention in order to allow us to discuss a condition that inherently cannot be described. “Adding on” occurs when we cling to the idea of “stripping away” or when we cling to method rather than just "DO". This is contrivance and misses the point. It is focusing on the finger and not the moon.

As an example: Hui-Neng repeatedly admonished those that came to him who repeated Sutras over and over again to not merely repeat the Sutra, but to apply the principles the Sutra taught. Once one is able to apply the principles taught within a Sutra he becomes the Sutra,

If your mouth recites and your mind practices, you ‘turn’ the Sutra, but if your mouth recites and your mind does not practice, the Sutra ‘turns’ you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

One wonders how much this was "needed" before man became "civilized".

[Scott R. Brown]

Good point!

I think of it more as how much was needed before man had language? It is actually language that orders our lives and minds in a linear fashion. It organizes our perception of time as well. Life must have had a very different quality back then.

[cjurakpt]

Good point! :) This perspective is also presented in the Traditional Taoist Spiritual Classic T'ung-Shu (Penetrating the Scripture of Change) which states: "Thinking is the foundation of the Sage's achievement and the opportunity for good fortune or misfortune", and in the I-Ching(Classic of Change) when it states: "The superior person perceives the beginnings of events, and acts without waiting all day." ;)

Doc

I like to think it has something to do with Chuang Tzu talking about "the men of old breathed straight down to their heels"...

[cjurakpt]

Good point!

I think of it more as how much was needed before man had language? It is actually language that orders our lives and minds in a linear fashion. It organizes our perception of time as well. Life must have had a very different quality back then.

I think that tool use was the start of the "problem" - it allowed "man" to hyper-adapt to the environment, took man out of the immediacy of his situation, changed the rate and effectiveness with which things got done, began the path towards abstraction and language (which probably was pictorial before verbal) and ultimately allowed the cerebral cortex to hypertrophy, which is now the current sad state in which we find ourselves - too d@mn smart for our own good...

I don't know about language organizing perception of time necesrilly - time is inherently a spatial phenomennon so I don't think you need language per se to be aware of it - I mean, one can notice the sun moving across the sky without having language, and this is awareness of time...but I maybe wrong...

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Chris,

Language is linear, it influences man's perception to be linear. Our perception of time is related to linear thinking patterns. Man did not necessarily perceive in strictly linear terms prior to organizing thought in a linear manner through language.

Language compartmentalizes our thoughts into units or rather we perceive them to be occurring in units. Once we began to think in language our thoughts no longer occur in a non-broken continuous stream and even this is a presumption. We don't actually know if it was a stream. However, we do know that thoughts occur one after another and this structures our experience of time.

As long as thought occurs in units our perception is limited by those units. The principle of "thought of no-thought" or "mind of no-mind" is pre-language thinking. Normally when we think, we think in units called words, when we return to our original ability to think without words, in a non-discursive manner, we are thinking with "no-thought" that is, not in units, and this is what is referred to as "the thought of no-thought", "mind of no-mind".

When thoughts occur without linear organization they occur at once and therefore there is no sense of time per se. It is like the difference between looking at a picture and describing the picture. I see it in an instant, but it takes time to describe it. This is due to the linear nature of words. The words, determine how a phenomenon is experienced because it structures the experience in linear units. Change the manner of perceiving a phenomenon and we change the experience.

[Scott R. Brown]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say time is experienced differently!

[AdrianChanWyles]

Chan Buddhism seems to be about "clarity of purpose" and as such is great for MA training, though I wonder how much of it is "adding on" to us as opposed to "stripping away" what bogs us down.

The 6th Patriarch, Hui Neng, is said to have been illiterate. His understanding of the sutras was however, flawless. He would have people read a sutra to him, and then he would explain the sutra's deep meaning to them. His understanding was beyond the requirement of the reading of words, and the comprehension of mere surface meaning.

In his Platform Sutra, he likens the Mind to a bright light that is split into six channels. Each channel corresponds to one of the six defined senses in Buddhist philosophy. But the light, although apparently split into separate channels of perception, is, infact - one light. Through turning our attention inward, toward the source of the light, we eventually perceive that the origin of our senses - which cause all our suffering - is exactly the same. This is the state of 'one-ness' talked about in the sastras and treatise. The Ch'an adept is then asked where this 'one-ness' returns? This wipes-out the subtle 'separation' between 'viewer', and object 'viewed', between 'subject' and 'object'. The state that the Ch'an master Lin Chi (Rinzai) spoke of as the toughest nut to crack, on the path toward enlightenment.

In the Surangama Sutra, the Lord Buddha describes consciousness in a similar way to Hui Neng. But here, the analogy of a piece of cloth, containing six knots is used. As we progress along the path, each knot is untied. However, it is said that if the sense of hearing is followed to its origination, in an instant, the origin of all senses are immediately known. That is, from the undoing of one knot, all knots are undone. Or, from the following of one branch of the light of Hui Neng, the origins of all branches are known. This is the direct Ch'an method. Other forms of Buddhism, tend to undo each knot, one at a time, over a very long period - which might span lifetimes.

Words that do not return the hearer, to their essence, remain only superficial. The Ch'an masters used words that 'turned' the hearer's Minds back on themselves, so that the essence could be clearly discerned.

Thank you

Shi Da Dao

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Although a bit circular in concept, my understanding of this is a bit like "getting out of your own way".. that when we perceive situations we tend, as Scott suggests, to describe the situations to ourselves through linear language, "Monkey Mind".. now, the first and most obvious inconsistency with this process is that we are talking to "ourselves".. thinking in common language is a discussion we already know what we are saying to ourself.. what occurs, is that this internal discussion get filed with so many previous discussions that in order to be useful we have to rumage through our mental filing cabinet, re-access the appropriate experience, re-evaluate its relationship to a more current experience and then apply its wisdom to...... wait!, the experience we intended to apply this wisdom to has already passed, it's no longer applicable.. we face a new experience, and another trip to the mental filing cabinet.. from here, it's very difficult to catch up...

Another, more beneficial approach to perception, as my experience suggests, is to by-pass the mental description, the engagement of the analysis during the present experience.. if we can still the mind, if we can let the "now" slip past the mind directly to our consciousness.. if we can avoid the categorizing and labeling during the actual experience, we will have internalized the experience.. accepted it as an unprejudiced aspect of BEing.. later, as a choice of prudent awareness, we may choose to feel the experience again, and invoke analysis.. analysis is almost always a product of the past, past lessons, past mentors, and the act of analyzing itself is dealing with a past experience..

The most beneficial aspect of this "getting out of your own way, is that it sets the stage for future experiences "in the moment".. past experiences which were "internalized" are a part of "who we are", not a catalogued data entry in the mental filing cabinet.. so that in the present ongoing experience, "who we are" is current.. it naturally expresses its interaction in real-time, appropriate interaction has the benefit of being "choiceless".. by that, i mean there is very little left to choose when appropriate action "mutually arises" with whatever experiences unfold.. the "choice" was made in the past, we chose to be fully present in our current moment of creation.. we slip into pure experience, we "get out of our own way".. rather than choosing from a list of possibilities and consequences, that "list" is replaced by the stilled mind, letting that which mutually arises set the course.. that which mutually arises from within our "internalized" BEing naturally expresses "who we are", our "nature" arises with the current experience.. but, as soon as we engage in questioning or analysis, our nature is corrupted.. suddenly we are in the past debating with our mentors about so many issues and consequences with our Monkey Mind.. while current experiences slip by unnoticed, unable to experience our "nature"..

Anyway, that's "my" understanding.. Be well...