Thought after Enlightenment

[deci belle]

This topic is thought AFTER enlightenment, OK?

 

"This Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can understand."

 

Having abandoned one's habitual dependence on the human psychological apparatus to discern the worldly, one naturally begins to enter the ocean of reality. Eventually one may develop the freedom to effectively employ this device or let it rest, at will. Can one ever be certain?

 

"If you're determined to take up this great affair, I ask you to boldly apply your spirit, and make a clean break with this, the root of birth and death and delusion, which comes as the vanguard and leaves as the rearguard: this is the time to appear. At just such a time, you can finally use the verbal meanings and mental thoughts to effect.

 

"Why? Because once the Storehouse Consciousness has been cleared away, then birth and death and delusion have no place to stay. When birth and death and delusion have no home, then thinking and discrimination themselves are nothing but transcendent wisdom and subtle knowledge: there's not the slightest thing further to obstruct you."

 

This is AFTER enlightenment. Until one begins the gradual effort of entry into the inconceivable by shedding the habitual reliance on intellectual views and finally sees one's essential nature, how can one be certain?

 

So P'an Shan's saying, "A complete mind is buddha; a complete buddha is human…"

 

 

 

ed note: the quotes are from Ta Hui's letter to Hsieh K'uo-jan, in J.C. Cleary's translation of Swampland Flowers. ISBN 978-1-590-30-318-4

 

There is a reason why my posts and threads aren't really up for discussion, other than in a private setting.

 

Hopefully this can be discerned effectively by those habituated to intellectualism until they themselves realize the need to drop various ignorant conceits and take up this great affair.

 

 

[Nungali]

If your posts are not up for discussion maybe request your threads to be locked after your first post ?

 

Or buy some add banners ?

 

Or not use words, intellectualisms and your own 'psychological apparatus' yourself?

 

* this post is not up for discussion, comments or insults ... thankyou.*

Edited August 15, 2014 by Nungali

[z00se]

This is AFTER enlightenment. Until one begins the gradual effort of entry into the inconceivable by shedding the habitual reliance on intellectual views and finally sees one's essential nature, how can one be certain?

 

When there is no doubt, easy as that....

 

Next

[GrandmasterP]

Just one thread- related thought ( after enlightenment) here at the moment that...

Some folks just pure do not like themself and seek to share their discontent with others.

 

It's always sad but, sadly; not uncommon.

We've all met folks like that.

Edited August 15, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[deci belle]

Drop your referencing dear~ it's just more imitation on your part… just because I'm calling you on your borrowed grandstanding (both in style and content), doesn't mean that all of a sudden I don't like anything— including you.

 

As for Zoose, how does one go on to what's NEXT when one has never stopped? In that case, there is no moving on for you, dear.

 

Certainty is a matter of seeing neither before nor after, and seeing that there has never been the point of self-reference in between. I notice you didn't get into what constituted certainty, only that you pissed a little post and got the hell out of Dodge without actually contributing anything. THAT's what's easy.

 

And how could you? In a hurry to rack up as many posts as possible under your new identity? What about your nonoriginated identity?

 

See your nature easy as that (which you haven't) and then you can begin to find out how NOT EASY it is~ either before or after.

 

But then that's how it is with recreational free (associating) thinkers. Another day at the office, huh?

 

You needn't show up tomorrow… hehe.❤︎

 

WHO MIGHT HAVE THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOUGHT AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT other than the few disgruntled ones I've picked on lately, hmmmmmm?

 

 

 

 

ed note: typo (') in first line

Edited August 15, 2014 by deci belle

[GrandmasterP]

Deci, are you under the impression that I have posted on TTB under another identity before?

I've only been GMP on here since I first joined and have never posted here under any other name.

I trust clears up any misunderstanding.

 

Edited August 18, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[4bsolute]

This topic is thought AFTER enlightenment, OK?

 

"This Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can understand."

 

Having abandoned one's habitual dependence on the human psychological apparatus to discern the worldly, one naturally begins to enter the ocean of reality. Eventually one may develop the freedom to effectively employ this device or let it rest, at will. Can one ever be certain?

 

"If you're determined to take up this great affair, I ask you to boldly apply your spirit, and make a clean break with this, the root of birth and death and delusion, which comes as the vanguard and leaves as the rearguard: this is the time to appear. At just such a time, you can finally use the verbal meanings and mental thoughts to effect.

 

"Why? Because once the Storehouse Consciousness has been cleared away, then birth and death and delusion have no place to stay. When birth and death and delusion have no home, then thinking and discrimination themselves are nothing but transcendent wisdom and subtle knowledge: there's not the slightest thing further to obstruct you."

 

This is AFTER enlightenment. Until one begins the gradual effort of entry into the inconceivable by shedding the habitual reliance on intellectual views and finally sees one's essential nature, how can one be certain?

 

So P'an Shan's saying, "A complete mind is buddha; a complete buddha is human…"

 

 

 

ed note: the quotes are from Ta Hui's letter to Hsieh K'uo-jan, in J.C. Cleary's translation of Swampland Flowers. ISBN 978-1-590-30-318-4

 

There is a reason why my posts and threads aren't really up for discussion, other than in a private setting.

 

Hopefully this can be discerned effectively by those habituated to intellectualism until they themselves realize the need to drop various ignorant conceits and take up this great affair.

 

We still our thoughts to get to our Source. Just to re-learn how to properly utilize it, as creative beings. With thought we create.

 

From nothingness arises an intention, a very subtle vibration, which is then consciously translated into a thought.

[deci belle]

We create without seeing reality. i.e.: "with thought we create", as you said. Afterwards, we do not create. Why? Creation is karmic. Enlightening being is adapting without entering creation. This is the meaning of freedom from karmic evolution.

 

Enlightenment is the identity of mind uncreated. This is our nature. Awareness has never moved. We don't get to our source, we see it is as is, and this seeing is Sameness, being no different than reality. We are beyond creation. Why would such an enlightened person stoop to catch intention arising out of nothingness and translate it into a thing?

 

That is the working definition of the thieving consciousness of delusion— and a very good description by you too!

 

We do not translate intention into thought out of nothingness unless it is unawares.

 

You are taking an awful lot of credit by saying "From nothingness arises an intention, a very subtle vibration, which is then consciously translated into a thought."

 

Immediate knowledge is not thinking; before the first thought, there is no translation necessary.

 

What about that?

 

Your post is a cut above the others, by the way, 4bsolute.❤︎

[deci belle]

Once the Storehouse Consciousness has been cleared away, then birth and death and delusion have no place to stay.

 

This is not a matter of sudden enlightenment.

 

Clearing away the storehouse consciousness is just resting in the Unborn. It's just smiling in open awareness with no thoughts in thoughts.

 

No thoughts in thoughts is presence unmoving in the midst of ordinary affairs. Why? How could anything come to pass when nothing has ever come to pass? Inevitability is assured. Acting according to circumstances is adapting impersonally. One just passes through events normally, in full knowledge of the inevitability of outcomes without attaching to them.

 

Nobody knows, so going along without knowing is simply how it is. Others may assume views based on attachment to outcomes, but they really are totally unnecessary in terms of reality.

 

This is not the same as not knowing in terms of hope, in terms of striving, in terms of right and wrong. The Unborn open aware countenance, present and unified, is just the function of inherent enlightening being, no different than you own mind right now.

 

Of course, I was very devious in calling this thread "Thought after Enlightenment". How could I call it Thought before Delusion"? But these two phrases mean the same thing, after all. Unborn mind is neither enlightenment nor delusion. Why? Because presence of awakened Mind is not created and is equal to reality. Seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics is recognizing reality as is.

 

Just smiling in the face of creative evolution without attachment to outcomes entertaining views of before and after is the Virtue of Nonresistance in the midst of resistance. Subtle adaption being the Supreme Vehicle is saying the same thing.

 

Thoughts continuing in the aftermath of sudden enlightenment are no different than beforehand. Why? Because nothing is gained by complete perfect realization.

 

This just means mind is inherently enlightened. No one has a mind other than this unified open aware nature.

 

Just smile in the face of creative evolution without feeling there is a person attached to outcomes in the breath, not knowing whose breath after all… what is it?

[nestentrie]

The ready yes, and the sycophantic yeah; why should grappling with whatness master the where? Whatness will not yield all its details nor reveal its wholeness. Agreeing with my lips is only so much 'non-moving' air. So how do we address the higher part that is not bright and the lower part that is not obscure?

 

If 'ordinary affairs' would be easy (if they were inevitable), it would be because what we can neuters what we shouldn't against what we will. By this, resistance is rendered inert. With resistance inert movement goes on and crosses over the valleys that our disgust in plainness would feign hope is immaterial. We would do without willing, believing in our part without the karmic need to accept any extraneous worry. Things would go aright per their own agreements with guide and rule.

 

If 'ordinary affairs' aren't necessary (or don't achieve anything) then why would we be interested in them? Why should what we can surprise any of us and commit us to what we will? The real question is why we shouldn't be interested.

 

When 'ordinary affairs' are conflated to the everywhen, when where they occur is avoided, why diffuses in every direction and dulls muddy water. The lower part of whatness, that shouldn't be obscured and that should (for its part) command the why, leaves no quarter for the proper retreat of entropy. Why can then only create sickly, cleaving and clinging, bored torpor, that lessens the pre-eminence and primacy of cohesion that will only bind the necessary where it necessarily is.

 

Which is the detail of whatness. Or rather, this is of the detail of whatness that can have mastery over where. See, for every act of doing in 'ordinary affairs' there is a non act, a can't do, that relates to extraordinary affairs. Ordinary is plain. Ordinary is common. Ordinary is that that we would have obscured. Extraordinary on the other hand is something that may start small, but through iteration, magnification, and extensibility becomes, through what we won't do: a 'grand affair'. What is grand is what, for a turn (or for a part), we leave out. We leave it out to let it be what it is 'as is'.

 

Having in is how to achieve, and leaving out is what is the name of achievement.

 

Having in is saying "I do this for expediency", because "I do this for what will be (for me)". Having in is saying "where I can't, I shouldn't" because "what I shouldn't should stand for what I won't (for myself)". Which is wrong. When entropy properly retreats it can still flatten how ordinary would include extraordinary. How we positively reflect what we shouldn't, through what we can, has no inertia that would save it. And this is precisely what we can leave out (when the where of what we can't do for ourselves is exhausted).

 

 

So it is that that what we can't is the same as what we won't. No other combinations are necessary. This is part of the transcendence over the ordinary into the extraordinary. This maybe not what I would call Complete Reality (or that anyone would as I have not covered every aspect of the Wu Xing), but it may prove some grounds for discussion. When we have it that we can't be ordinary, we won't be.

[nestentrie]

My post turned out pretty rough in the end, but I hope it's ok to sit here in the thread.

[GrandmasterP]

Every single separate word I understood.

It was your sentences that stumped me buddy.

[nestentrie]

Yes it was a bit of pastiche. My bad.

[deci belle]

Nestentrie, why not wait until it is fine? Even so, flight requires space. Space is one whole. I see you didn't waver too much.

 

As for grappling with whatness to master where, we can cover it pretty much in terms of what we will, and that is, we don't.

 

Grappling is not possible outside of not going along with possibilities we imagine to be. True effort is in the dissolution of mental habit; grinding down the patterns of perception and response relative to the person who is going to die.

 

All is revealed, where it is, as it is, naturally, according to the time, without any effort on our part.

 

Yes, doing leaves a trail of undoneness, and that is why action relative to the person is delusion. Just avoid it altogether. Not-doing without coming or going according to the situation and the time is selfless adaption.

 

Ordinary affairs are neither easy nor difficult. What else is there besides inevitability perpetually the singular presence resting incipiently in terms of the very pivot of awareness active yet not dwelling on circumstances?

 

Being is knowledge; doing is folly— even enlightening activity. Impersonal adaption is selfless in more ways than one, but it is so principally in terms of spontaneous response without admitting one's own power made possible by no attachment to outcomes.

 

In fact, outcomes is a concept relative to the person used to describe reality. Outcomes actually do not exist as such in terms of enlightening being because enlightening activity is not relative to the person. Mainly, it is just a matter of equanimity of perpetual total acceptance whether it be, grand, common, or unconventional. Ultimately these distinctions are moot ramifications swirling in the eye of inconceivability.

 

Nobody knows.

 

We do not make choice one over another an occupation of cultivation, we just observe the inner and outer terrain, adjusting the inner to meet the outer on its terms to maintain equipoise relative to conditions as they evolve.

 

 

When this is stabilized in terms of everyday ordinary affairs, potential is recognized as the real essence comprising form, and awareness itself is recognized as one's own presence of selfless intent, pure and whole, spontaneously ready, yet always resting in stillness, not predisposed, therefore without bias or inclination. This is freedom from karmic energies.

 

 

Your above post is a very rough draft, yes~ muuuuch too mechanical, but it has a point. This is not too creative (that's a good thing), but there is a rootedness in the psychological. Let the psychological underpinnings dissolve and let the uncreated settle out without attempting to make arrangements.

 

There is simply nothing to know in terms of evolution. Just let it all go, noted as it appears without following it. This is a temporary expedient which whittles down attachment to outcomes. Eventually, after a long time, the relative aspect has no person; attributability is not beyond space. Ego is not the eye, nor its sensibility: time is its consideration, therefore it waits.

 

I would say that achievement is only relative to the situation as any potential is inherent in the situation itself~ even if that be the situation of a lifetime. The identity of the self is awareness, which is empty, uncreated, immaterially open energy, inconceivably nonbeing being all at once.

 

Enlightening activity is naturally its expression, therefore nothing is ever achieved.

 

Transcendence is seeing the extraordinary by virtue of the ordinary without needing to do anything because complete reality is already presence, immaterial, no different than your own awareness as is, in terms of the situation.

 

The extraordinary has no differentiating quality. Potential is the essence of the ordinary. I say seeing this is absorbing it, but that is only a way to describe that inconceivable aware nature is inherent in ordinary circumstances, not dependent on self and other.

 

In seeing reality, we do not go along with created cycles because there are none. Transcendence in this regard is just letting the dross of creation be while unconsciously expressing the unity of the essentially real by adapting to conditions as they occur without any attachment.

 

nestentrie wrote:

 

When we have it that we can't be ordinary, we won't be.

 

 

This is partially true, because this is clinging to one side in terms of describing nonbeing. Since we must come to terms with the Middle Way to see complete reality, therefore Suchness, nonbeing within being, ordinariness is extraordinary and extraordinary is ordinary too. Why? Reality looks the same whether one is deluded or not.

 

As for being deluded, Dogen said, "Further, there are people who attain realization upon realization and people who are deluded within delusion."

 

He also said, "Those who have great realization about delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded within realization are sentient beings."

 

When the traces of enlightenment come to an end, and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly in subtle adaption to situations, one can finally become a person deluded within delusion.

 

Realization upon realization is the same as clinging to one side. This is the traces of enlightenment to be forgotten. Then we can consider the possibility of finally coming around to really express non-differentiation from within delusion itself: mind activated without dwelling on anything.

[GrandmasterP]

Yes it was a bit of pastiche. My bad.

 

No biggie.

It still makes more sense than anything the OP has ever contributed.

[deci belle]

It's not really that realization upon realization is necessarily cued on the absolute~ it's just that essence is not to be differentiated in terms of the whole.

 

Delusion being termed the false is not to be denied. It is by virtue of the false that we see the true. In seeing the true as it is inherently consisting of the false, seeing is the release of the karmic matrix, freeing potential from the bonds of creative evolution.

 

This is enlightening being in the midst of polluted existence, naturally so.