Ted Biringer:
[To research] this truth of
moment-by-moment utter entrustment, we must research the mind. In the
mountain-still state of such research, we discern and understand that
ten thousand efforts are [each] the mind being evident, and the triple
world is just that which is greatly removed from the mind. This
discernment and understanding, while also of the myriad real dharmas,
activate the homeland of the self. They make immediate and concrete the
vigorous state of the human being in question.
Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu-yuigi, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
In
Dogen’s writings (and Buddhist literature generally) we frequently
encounter phrases that are “self-declarative.” Of these, there two basic
types; first are those expressions that refer directly to themselves,
for example, many sutras contain passages like, “Those who keep and
guard this sutra shall experience such and such…” The second type are
expressions that describe subjects as objects of subjects and objects as
the subject of objects; the most common kind of these expressions are
statements that attribute the thoughts, words, or deeds (objects) of a
particular subject as being directed or applied to that same subject,
such as, “self sees self…”, “from the mind to the mind…”, “the self
itself…”, and “Buddha actualizes Buddha…”
If our experience of
language has been limited to communications expressed from the common
dualistic perspective, such phrasing sounds awkward when we first hear
it. Once we become familiar with the nondual perspective, however, such
expressions not only sound natural, they come to mind naturally in our
own thinking and speaking. From the nondual view of Buddhism, of course,
such expressions are perfectly normal. After all, if the (true) self is
all-inclusive, as Buddhism contends, it is only normal to use
self-declarative expressions – for then all expressions must ultimately
be self-declarative.
For this reason, when we study sutras or
participate in koan training we can only benefit from remembering that
they are all self-declarative expressions, even if such is not
explicitly apparent in the structure of the phrase. For example, when a
Zen masters says, “we must research the mind” her meaning will be
clearer and more intimately understood if we remember that “we,” “the
mind,” and the activity of “research” are not three different things –
how much more intimate when we remember that “we,” the “Zen master,” and
“the expression itself” are all nondual. As our sutra or koan study
advances along this course we gradually become more aware of the
“self-declarative” (nondual) nature of all our experiences – thus, our
experience of nondual intimacy with all things gradually expands and
becomes increasingly inclusive of the myriad things we encounter in our
everyday lives.
It is your
mutually encountering your true Master within the Buddha Hall. It is
just like saying, “When seeing one person reflected in two facing
mirrors, there are three figures.”
Shobogenzo, Sanjushichihon Bodai Bumpo, Hubert Nearman
Thus
it is, from the Buddhist perspective that every aspect and moment of
our experience is an experience of the self experienced by the self – I
see a flower, a flower sees me, the flower sees itself, I see myself,
the self sees itself, seeing sees seeing, etc. Also, since in Buddhism
“existence” (places, things, locations, here, etc.) and “time”
(durations, moments, past, future, now) are nondual, every aspect and
moment of our experience is a manifest instance of the (true) self – an
actual instance of the totality of “existence-time” (uji). Therefore, my
seeing a flower “here” is my seeing all other myriad dharmas “there”,
Mahakashyapa seeing a flower “then” is Mahakashyapa seeing this flower
“now.” Thus, when the Zen masters say things like, “Huang drinks wine
and Chang gets drunk,” or “Children in Korea clap their hands and
children in China dance,” they are not being mysterious or even
ambiguous but clear and straightforward.
“The
great round mirror” is just a virtue of “the buddhas.” Saying that this
mirror “has no blurs on the inside or the outside” neither describes an
inside that depends on an outside, nor an outside blurred by an inside.
There being no face or back, “two individuals are able to see the
same.” Minds, and eyes, are alike. “Likeness” describes “a human being”
meeting “a human being.” In regard to images within, they have mind and
eyes, and they are able to see the same. In regard to images without,
they have mind and eyes, and they are able to see the same. Object and
subject which are manifest before us now are like each other within and
like each other without—they are neither I nor anyone else. Such is the
meeting of “two human beings,” and the likeness of “two human beings.”
That person is called “I,” and I am that person. “ …Taking up his
principle, we should experience in practice the faces of buddhas and the
faces of patriarchs in the great round mirror, which is akin to the
eternal mirror.
Shobogenzo, Kokyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
To
clarify this, consider Dogen’s statement in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan,
“When one side is illumined, the other side is dark.” The fact that the
“other side” is dark, rather than absent, stresses the nondual truth
that the aspect of “existence-time” that is dark (all the myriad things
of “existence-time” that are not here/now being illumined) informs and
exerts its “presence” in what is illumined – his here/now
(existence-time) is nondual (not two, not separate from) her there/then;
his “here” is her “there,” Bodhidharma’s “now” is Huineng’s “then.”
In
light of this, “where” (existence) are you “now” (time), and “when”
(time) did the morning star appear (existence) to Shakyamuni? Right
here, right now – look, look! How old are you? While an exact number
cannot be given, it would be accurate to say, “The same age as the
universe.” Listen, listen – is that the wind in the trees? Yes. Is it
the sound of cars passing by on the road? Yes. What else? Listen, this
sound here/now contains and is contained by all sounds there/then – can
you hear the Buddhas first sermon? Listen, Dogen is singing out through
all existence-time:
How joyful it
is! From kalpa to kalpa is the Flower of Dharma, and from noon to night
is the Flower of Dharma. Because the Flower of Dharma is from kalpa to
kalpa, and because the Flower of Dharma is from noon to night, even
though our own body and mind grows strong and grows weak, it is just the
Flower of Dharma itself. The reality that exists “as it is” is “a
treasure,” is “brightness,” is “a seat of truth,” is “wide, great,
profound, and eternal,” is “profound, great, and everlasting,” is “mind
in delusion, the Flower of Dharma turning,” and is “mind in realization,
turning the Flower of Dharma,” which is really just the Flower of
Dharma turning the Flower of Dharma.
Shobogenzo, Hokke-ten-hokke, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
If
the subject was experienced as an object the self would be seen (thus
treated) as “other,” and if an object was experienced as the subject the
other would be treated as “self.” Thus, from the Buddhist perspective,
treating the other as self and self as other is normal – and doing
otherwise is abnormal. As “other” does not only refer to people but to
all that is “other than self,” the practical implications of verifying
the Buddhist teaching would be profound indeed. Immediately, greed and
fear would be vastly diminished; what would we covet in a realm where
everything was already our true self? What could we fear but our self?
While we would certainly be liberated from much anguish, the even
greater result would be the opening of an enormously expanded and
enhanced dimension of experience. To verify the truth of the universe
proclaimed by the Buddhist masters would be to find ourselves in a realm
inhabited by an infinite number of beings, all capable, even desirous,
of intimate fellowship.
In meeting Buddha, we meet ourselves as buddha and others as buddha, and we meet great buddhas and small buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Peace,
Ted
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Zen%20Patriarch%20Bodhidharma
Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma:
With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of
ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled,
With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or
states are all one's Mind.
Thusness/Passerby's comments:
Here
there are 2 important points to take note. First is that Buddha Nature
is the transience. Second it is more of '应'. Means with the condition of
the eye, forms arise. With ears, sound arises.
Awareness is not
like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity is an
arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The
center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience
however is non-dual.
One must learn how to see Appearances as
Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The
person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One
should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot
experience Awareness this way.
Conventionally we experience in
the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time
continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One
should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no
subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions
of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to
understand.
Further comments:
What's seen is Awareness.
What's heard is Awareness. All experiences are non-dual in nature.
However this non-dual luminosity cannot be understood apart from the
‘causes and conditions’ of arising. Therefore do not see ‘yin’ as
Awareness interacting with external conditions. If you see it as so,
then it still falls in the category of mirror-reflecting. Rather see it
as an instantaneous manifestation where nothing excluded. As if the
universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. A moment is
complete and non-dual. Vividly manifest and thoroughly gone leaving no
traces.
Other comments:
Phrase like “everything arises
from Emptiness and subsides back to Emptiness” is equally misleading.
By doing so, we have made ‘Emptiness’ into a metaphysical essence;
similarly not to make the same mistake for “causes and conditions”, not
to objectify it into a metaphysical essence. All are provision terms to
point to our insubstantial, essence-less and interdependent nature.
As David Loy stated:
"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse
into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned
by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the
universe.
"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which
can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event
-- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is
whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by
everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for
precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but
becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."
"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."
I say:
Dependent origination should not be understood as a mirror-awareness reflecting the external world (as if reflection arise when mirror meets external conditions). In this case there is a hierarchy: the mirror, and the objects of the mirror, and this is duality.
Rather, dependent origination should be seen as everything coming together, manifesting as JUST this complete manifestation - just the sound, completely inseparable from all conditions, and completely independent of all conditions (no duality or interaction between subject and object) because it is a complete and whole and non-dual manifestation. If this is fully realized, then to call this true self or no-self is equally ok - but if this is not realized, whatever said will be distorted.
Another analogy:
We usually think dependent origination works this way:
My eyes in here, is looking over at that stuff 'out there', and due to this contact, sense perception arises, and this sense perception inside me is dependent on my seeing of something outside. Many people think dependent origination means the interaction of subject and object, inside and outside, as Dogen warned to be the false perception of an inside that depends on an outside, nor an outside blurred by an inside
this is not true!
There is really only in seeing JUST the sight! There is no inside or outside at all, what is conventionally known to be inside and outside all comes together and manifest as just one complete nondual manifestation. Because of this, seeing is at once independent of a eye-seeing-seen relationship and at the same time completely dependent on eye and object of sight in one single moment of manifestation - that means in seeing JUST the scenery, and the experience of scenery already contains the eye, the scenery, the contact, your mother, your father, the Buddha, the whole universe
So that experience of sight 'contains' or is completely inseparable from all the conditions - eye, visual object, contact, everything coming together manifesting as a non-dual, complete, whole manifestation which is completely independent of all conditions yet inclusive of all manifestation in this Existence-Time and just this is our true self, the true self inclusive of self and not-self. Not 'THE true self', but one particular instance of true self containing the whole universe... GONE
The fish swimming in the pacific ocean is the whole pacific ocean swimming the fish, or the whole pacific ocean in the swimming of fish, or a pacific-ocean-swimming-fish... I drink gin, you get drunk
I just told winsomeea:
Just feel gratitude at every moment...
Your life is sustained by your mother, your father, by the cows, the farmers, by all the living organisms, the grass, the sun, the wind.... the entire universe is sustaining your life!
There is this practice in Buddhism to feel gratitude for all sentient beings when you eat your meal. Its the same as Christian prayers before meal but in Buddhism, we don't thank god but all the causes and conditions throughout the whole universe supporting this moment of life! In this way, gratitude and compassion grows
You see, if you believe in God, you only thank God when you eat your meal. But when you know Dependent Origination, you thank the whole universe for your meal! Just to realize Dependent Origination you start feeling immense gratitude...
I know why Dependent Origination needs anatta now. Without anatta, Dependent Origination is understood as awareness reflecting conditions. With anatta one understands it as one complete nondual manifestation inclusive of everything throughout the universe past present and future in one single instance.
ITS SO FUNNY I KNEW THIS BEFORE WITHOUT KNOWING IT LOL
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I know why Dependent Origination needs anatta now. Without anatta, Dependent Origination is understood as awareness reflecting conditions. With anatta one understands it as one complete nondual manifestation inclusive of everything throughout the universe past present and future in one single instance.
ITS SO FUNNY I KNEW THIS BEFORE WITHOUT KNOWING IT LOL
do you mean that without anatta, dependent origination is still dualistic?
Yes...
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:that means in seeing JUST the scenery, and the experience of scenery already contains the eye, the scenery, the contact, your mother, your father, the Buddha, the whole universe
this part is abit difficult to understand. What do you mean? Is this 'effect' due to anatta or DO?
Means dependent origination will not be properly understood without first realizing anatta. Otherwise it becomes a mirror awareness reflecting external conditions.
You said this
There is really only in seeing JUST the sight! There is no inside or outside at all, what is conventionally known to be inside and outside all comes together and manifest as just one complete nondual manifestation. Because of this, seeing is at once independent of a eye-seeing-seen relationship and at the same time completely dependent on eye and object of sight in one single moment of manifestation - that means in seeing JUST the scenery, and the experience of scenery already contains the eye, the scenery, the contact, your mother, your father, the Buddha, the whole universe
But why does the present experience of scenery already contain everything up to the whole universe? This is something i sometimes read in the Zen books too but i never understood.
Also reading your other article which summarises the view practice and realisation etc.
As you commented, I realise that i am simply trying to maintain that awareness in my practice rather than trying to develop the right view. This is a common occurrence due to reading many books which write that we should just simply maintain mind-nature. But problem is that we haven't thoroughly broken through the wrong views of inherency and duality. So in your opinion, do we continue sustaining awareness, or is it necessary to go through self-inquiry?
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:You said this
But why does the present experience of scenery already contain everything up to the whole universe? This is something i sometimes read in the Zen books too but i never understood.
Means this moment is the manifestation of countless conditions coming together in this moment. Don't need to analyze too much... this is not an inferred understanding.
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Also reading your other article which summarises the view practice and realisation etc.
As you commented, I realise that i am simply trying to maintain that awareness in my practice rather than trying to develop the right view. This is a common occurrence due to reading many books which write that we should just simply maintain mind-nature. But problem is that we haven't thoroughly broken through the wrong views of inherency and duality. So in your opinion, do we continue sustaining awareness, or is it necessary to go through self-inquiry?
Don't worry about false view of inherency and duality first.
In Dzogchen they focus more on recognition, then followed by realization expanding into the twofold emptiness.
I focus more on I AM realization, followed by non-dual, then anatta and emptiness. Slightly different path...
Self-inquiry in itself also cannot end false view. It only leads to I AM realization.
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:this part is abit difficult to understand. What do you mean? Is this 'effect' due to anatta or DO?
Hi Dharmadhatu,
There are layers of obscurations preventing the actual dynamics of consciousness from being known.
Once you come to this stage, you will naturally understood what is it about.
Currently, the 'I', conventional way of understanding reality, conceptual thoughts, sense of solidity are blocking the experience as described.
In actuality, everything is happening at-one, in-sync with the entire 'universe'. When you eat, the whole universe vibrates (in the action of eating). This, i believe, is how a Buddha can be omniscent... able to know things that he wants as and when. ..for in actuality everything is interconnected in a holographic way.
Thank you both Simpo_ and AEN for your answers.
Simpo, did you also go through the I-AM path before realising anatta? Or did you go through vipassana?
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Thank you both Simpo_ and AEN for your answers.
Simpo, did you also go through the I-AM path before realising anatta? Or did you go through vipassana?
Yep... I stayed at I AM level understanding for many years. It was Thusness will probed and guided me to move beyond that phase.
I see, thanks! Who was Thusness teacher?
He took refuge under HH Sakya Trizin but in his own words "he is in truth a non-sectarian". I don't think he learnt under any Buddhist teacher but attribute his realization to his deep faith in Shakyamuni Buddha.
wow, self realised?
Yeah, but he say he cld not have done it if not for his deep faith in Buddha's teachings.
Wow, going have to take a while to fully digest this one, but I'd like to ask two quick questions:
In The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing there was a simile mentioned about ash and firewood:
"Firewood becomes ash; it can never go back to being firewood. Nevertheless, you should not take the view that ash is its future and firewood is its past. Remember that firewood abides in the dharma position of firewood. It has a past and it has a future. Although it has a past and a future, the past and the future are cut off. Ash exists in the dharma position of ash. It has a past and it has a future. The firewood, after becoming ash, does not again become firewood."
This is the same thing, is it?
And, this would also explain the diagram the thai monk drew about the arising of the mind right? Not sure where the diagram can be found, but it's the one with overlapping circles being how we see it and "free" circles being the correct view.
Yes. Genjokoan already summarized Dogen's thought in one short and essential article.
Do know that the disjoint unsupported is not the same as D.O. realization. The disjoint unsupported is 1st anatta stanza. But with anatta as basis, only then, can D.O. be understood... otherwise it becomes dualistic or understood wrongly.
Do read this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/03/realization-experience-and-right-view.html
Originally posted by simpo_:Yep... I stayed at I AM level understanding for many years. It was Thusness will probed and guided me to move beyond that phase.
Oh yes Simpo, can I just ask how you realised the I AM years ago?
Originally posted by realization:Oh yes Simpo, can I just ask how you realised the I AM years ago?
There are actually 2 significant events:
1. In the 1980s when i was a teenager, i sat down to meditate for the first time. I experienced great bliss. In this meditation, i experienced 'no ultimate right or wrong' aka non-judgemental and is soaked in a vast ocean of bliss for a few days. Haha... i thought i was enlightened. On hindsight now, i know that i was not. That is why now when people write about non-dual to meant 'no right/wrong' I know which stage they are at.
2. In the 1990s, i join a meditation class that held sessions every Sunday at a Buddhist temple. I was learning one-point meditation. One afternoon when i was meditating at home, all the sensory impressions stopped including thoughts. I was in a state of 'No-thoughts'. One may think that when there are no thoughts, one must be unconscious. No there is no unconsciousness. Instead what was being experienced was pure Presence/awareness. However due to not understanding the nature of consciousness and reality, this awareness was experienced as an Eternal Witness/Observer. This is the pure experience of I AM presence.