The original face

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, steve said:

This controversy regarding whether we need to clean or whether we are always already pure seems to arise from a failure to acknowledge the two truths. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

To the extent that we are able to rest in the nature of mind, accruing no karmic traces, in every waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment, what is there to clean? Hui Neng's poem was an indication that HE had realized the primordial, stainless perfection. It was not an instruction that there is nothing to purify for those of us who are not yet there. 

 

To the extent that we continue to live in the world of cyclic existence, there is plenty opportunity for cleaning and purification. 

 

Nui Heng had realised this primordial perfection but in the commentary I referred to in post#4 he "still had to sweep out the filth of the delusions of views and thought." 

If not before his 'realisation' then after his 'realisation', or do you discount this commentary?

 

[Bindi]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Is it the general idea in buddhism or even daoism , that one is supposed to purify and endorse a self?

 

It's an interesting question, my take would be that Buddhists attempt to remove delusions of the mind and allow primordial Buddha nature to shine, whereas Daoists attempt to refine energy throughout their body which includes removing delusions of the mind, and endorse a primordial spiritual self. 

[Stosh]

Is an 'Aha !' event seeing  the unsupported mirror? 

[doc benway]

13 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Nui Heng had realised this primordial perfection but in the commentary I referred to in post#4 he "still had to sweep out the filth of the delusions of views and thought." 

If not before his 'realisation' then after his 'realisation', or do you discount this commentary?

 

No, I don't discount it at all...

 

18 hours ago, steve said:

To the extent that we are able to rest in the nature of mind, accruing no karmic traces, in every waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment, ...

Hui Neng had realized primordial perfection but that is only the beginning. He was acknowledging that he was not yet a Buddha, therefore even though he had such a realization, he was still accumulating karma and had cleaning to do.

 

[3bob]

using Buddhist terminology I'd say it is kind of "poison arrow" to spend to much time trying to figure out and nail down who is truly enlightened or a "Buddha" per all sorts of textual information, correlation, and even well meaning intellectual speculation...thus true spiritual teachings say just get on with the practices or dharma....(including an imperfect me doing so)

Edited May 29, 2018 by 3bob

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

using Buddhist terminology I'd say it is kind of "poison arrow" to spend to much time trying to figure out and nail down who is truly enlightened or a "Buddha" per all sorts of textual information, correlation, and even well meaning intellectual speculation...thus true spiritual teachings say just get on with the practices or dharma....(including an imperfect me doing so)

The junior monks in the story didn't care about the whole dharma either , that's why they didn't give a response when challenged with a verse, and why they wouldn't come to the understanding that Hui did. Buddhism challenges one so that one exhausts all the confusions they have and opt for the truth. 

If phase one , accepting that ones true nature is not a parsed out  thing , as an individual ego.. phase two would be breaking the bad habits and behaviors which are inconsistent with the new view.

I suppose one can try to change the behaviors without comprehending their true nature but the junior monks in the story remain as they were inside, ego driven., that is operating to preserve a secure view of themselves as individuals.

It probably looks much the same. 

[3bob]

that was well said Stosh and thanks your reply.

 

My take is that one will never exhaust all "confusions" as you put it since the mind will forever churn out some new variation of argument, speculation, or doubt...thus for me the best that the mental approach can attain is to accept its own futility in trying to resolve that which can never be resolved per the dualistic tool that it is.  So to calm the mind and not to nail down mind per various riddles is to let Spirit come and act through it...for then mind knows it place as servant to truth which is Spirit/Self free of ego, karma, and death!

[Stosh]

45 minutes ago, 3bob said:

that was well said Stosh and thanks your reply.

 

My take is that one will never exhaust all "confusions" as you put it since the mind will forever churn out some new variation of argument, speculation, or doubt...thus for me the best that the mental approach can attain is to accept its own futility in trying to resolve that which can never be resolved per the dualistic tool that it is.  So to calm the mind and not to nail down mind per various riddles is to let Spirit come and act through it...for then mind knows it place as servant to truth which is Spirit/Self free of ego, karma, and death!

A valid point .

But , Personally,  I do not think that when one is intellectually honest with themselves ,

that the confusions just go on interminably. Certainly that happens in umm.. a situation like the trump thread ,

where the point is just not to look bad, to never concede a point , obfuscate

and otherwise knowingly evade getting to the real heart of the matter,

OR just dig ones heels in vowing to never budge.

The point there is to preserve a view of the ego that it is already right , because to put that in doubt ,

exposes one to the chance that one might indeed be swayed, or they may get seen as having been swayed.

We learn all sorts of bogus tricks to avoid that very thing, so many in fact ,

that one can forget whether they are expressing a genuine gripe or not!   

Sincerity about getting to the truth of the matter , commitment to getting there .. can make a difference. 

Buddhists seem to have argued enough over the centuries , to establish that they don't think its a waste of time.

If you're, hell bent on waiting for grace , Ok fine , I'll leave you to it, and I'll just see ya on the other side  

 

 

 

 

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

What was your original face before your mother and father were born?

[ion]

Have intensity, but keep it subtle. Be what the world naturally goes to, and comes from.In this way what is naturally human doesn't vanish.

 

Be as you were born.

Know the brightness, but keep being soft and easy.

Be what is compared to "not natural"; being natural, the power of nature does not stray.

 

Know where pride is said to be due, but remain humiliated.

 

Be what the world returns to; remaining as you we're born, not lacking in anything you are perfectly sufficient.

 

Be un-efected; the effected are easily exploited and used.The wise do not exploit, or use, so it is good to be as you were born.

Edited May 29, 2018 by ion

[Jeff]

30 minutes ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

What was your original face before your mother and father were born?

 

If you believe you were born, then it is not the original face...

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

What was your original face before your mother and father were born?

Something like Frank Perdue.

[dwai]

On 5/28/2018 at 12:38 PM, steve said:

This controversy regarding whether we need to clean or whether we are always already pure seems to arise from a failure to acknowledge the two truths. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

To the extent that we are able to rest in the nature of mind, accruing no karmic traces, in every waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment, what is there to clean? Hui Neng's poem was an indication that HE had realized the primordial, stainless perfection. It was not an instruction that there is nothing to purify for those of us who are not yet there. 

 

To the extent that we continue to live in the world of cyclic existence, there is plenty opportunity for cleaning and purification. 

 

All you need to do, is nothing. Simply be still. All the effort that is needed is in letting go of (the attachment to) the modifications of the mind. So the "cleaning" is the process of disentanglement (letting go of this and that), which will reveal that which we already are...

 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

All you need to do, is nothing. Simply be still. All the effort that is needed is in letting go of (the attachment to) the modifications of the mind. So the "cleaning" is the process of disentanglement (letting go of this and that), which will reveal that which we already are...

 

 

That is my approach and it sounds like yours as well.

It doesn't work for everyone.

Some can simply rest into the nature of mind.

Some need to actively clean.

Some need to pray and chant.

We all need different things at different points in our lives.

That's why there are so many different paths, most of which have validity.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

That is my approach and it sounds like yours as well.

It doesn't work for everyone.

Some can simply rest into the nature of mind.

Some need to actively clean.

Some need to pray and chant.

We all need different things at different points in our lives.

That's why there are so many different paths, most of which have validity.

Yes agreed 100%. It is a process for sure. 

[doc benway]

On 5/28/2018 at 12:27 PM, Stosh said:

Is it the general idea in buddhism or even daoism , that one is supposed to purify and endorse a self?

 

No, but that self we all experience is all we have to work with until we have a deep realization of its empty nature.

And that self is the source of our various challenges, hence the cleaning.

 

I think there is alot of similarity in Daoism. 

While the self is not a subject of much discussion in the classics, subjugation of the self in the Way lies at the heart of fundamental ideas like Ziran and Wu Wei. This is well illustrated in Zhuangzi's parable like the Empty Boat and the Archer, for example. 

 

[Stosh]

....What chapters are you referring to? Boat and archer ... arent they Merton or somebodys? And so , not being Chuang are second hand and dont convey the full depth of an issue, I know folks who buckle down and focus taking things serious exceeding what they do goofing around. 

And the boat thing is about blame of other, I certainly Can hold you at fault for not acting , neglect, just following orders , and unintended consequences. 

[3bob]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

A valid point .

But , Personally,  I do not think that when one is intellectually honest with themselves ,

that the confusions just go on interminably. Certainly that happens in umm.. a situation like the trump thread ,

where the point is just not to look bad, to never concede a point , obfuscate

and otherwise knowingly evade getting to the real heart of the matter,

OR just dig ones heels in vowing to never budge.

The point there is to preserve a view of the ego that it is already right , because to put that in doubt ,

exposes one to the chance that one might indeed be swayed, or they may get seen as having been swayed.

We learn all sorts of bogus tricks to avoid that very thing, so many in fact ,

that one can forget whether they are expressing a genuine gripe or not!   

Sincerity about getting to the truth of the matter , commitment to getting there .. can make a difference. 

Buddhists seem to have argued enough over the centuries , to establish that they don't think its a waste of time.

If you're, hell bent on waiting for grace , Ok fine , I'll leave you to it, and I'll just see ya on the other side  

 

 

 

 

 

there are all sorts of connotations about Grace, not unlike there are all sorts of connotations about enlightenment, liberation, etc..so one out of the many ways that Grace  can be pondered upon is that there is really no waiting on it willy-nilly like, and no time or space limits to it, it is already and always available if one is open to it...another example or term would be  unconditional love which has no conditions to its all pervading power to act except per what the receiver enables with an opening of heart and  being-ness, and even if one is largely closed off it can still find a crack in the armor of ego and do its  work, although never with forcing or harming.    Grace can never opt out of a sincere approach to it - and its wisdom is greater than we can see, hold or know by thought.

[Stosh]

I certainly hope it works that way for you. I cant say it wont, and dont yet know if theres a phase three yet. 

[Bindi]

Historically there is "non-doing" (wuwei) and "doing" (youwei). 

 

Quote

Superior virtue is the way of "non-doing": one immediately realizes the original "celestial reality" (tianzhen), which is never affected by the change and impermanence that dominate within the cosmos. Inferior virtue, instead, is the way of "doing" the Neidan practice in order to "return to the Dao."

 

This 'immediate realisation' seems also to be the prize for all the non-dualists and neo-advaitans and the 'awakened' that seem to abound in modern spiritual circles, sometimes I just get a bit annoyed and frustrated that their view is so dominant, and considered to be so superior, when what I see in its proponents tends to be merely shallowness. 

 

I did think the other day there's not really much use in me having a problem with the non-doers, they are the popular voice and that's that, I can only trundle on with my lowly doing ways and try to be content with my own path. Perhaps it's harder for me cos I'm not already perfect, so I can't be smug.    

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bindi

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

....What chapters are you referring to? Boat

The Tree on the Mountain

 

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

and archer ...

The Full Understanding of Life

 

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

arent they Merton or somebodys? And so , not being Chuang are second hand and dont convey the full depth of an issue, I know folks who buckle down and focus taking things serious exceeding what they do goofing around. 

And the boat thing is about blame of other, I certainly Can hold you at fault for not acting , neglect, just following orders , and unintended consequences. 

Both are Outer Chapters, so there's that.

For me, that doesn't lessen their brilliance and value.

 

It's certainly possible to accept a simple interpretation like "the boat thing is about blame of other" and leave it at that, but I think there is far more to it. Here is a bit longer excerpt than what we would normally see quoted, as in Merton. This translation is by Legge:

 

"The ruler rejoined, 'The way to it is solitary and distant, and there are no people on it - whom shall I have as my companions? I have no provisions prepared, and how shall I get food? How shall I be able to get (to the country)?' The officer said, 'Minimise your lordship's expenditure, and make your wants few, and though you have no provisions prepared, you will find you have enough. Wade through the rivers and float along on the sea, where however you look, you see not the shore, and, the farther you go, you do not see where your journey is to end - those who escorted you to the shore will return, and after that you will feel yourself far away. Thus it is that he who owns men (as their ruler) is involved in troubles, and he who is owned by men (as their ruler) suffers from sadness; and hence Yao would neither own men, nor be owned by them. I wish to remove your trouble, and take away your sadness, and it is only (to be done by inducing you) to enjoy yourself with the Dao in the land of Great Vacuity. If a man is crossing a river in a boat, and another empty vessel comes into collision with it, even though he be a man of a choleric temper, he will not be angry with it. If there be a person, however, in that boat, he will bawl out to him to haul out of the way. If his shout be not heard, he will repeat it; and if the other do not then hear, he will call out a third time, following up the shout with abusive terms. Formerly he was not angry, but now he is; formerly (he thought) the boat was empty, but now there is a person in it. If a man can empty himself of himself, during his time in the world, who can harm him?'"

 

Zhuanzi suggests we must empty ourself of ourself and what is there to harm?

 

 

Here is a longer excerpt including the archer parable, also translated by Legge:

 

"Yan Yuan asked Zhongni, saying, 'When I was crossing the gulf of Shang-shen, the ferryman handled the boat like a spirit. I asked him whether such management of a boat could be learned, and he replied, "It may. Good swimmers can learn it quickly; but as for divers, without having seen a boat, they can manage it at once." He did not directly tell me what I asked - I venture to ask you what he meant.' Zhongni replied, 'Good swimmers acquire the ability quickly - they forget the water (and its dangers). As to those who are able to dive, and without having seen a boat are able to manage it at once, they look on the watery gulf as if it were a hill-side, and the upsetting of a boat as the going back of a carriage. Such upsettings and goings back have occurred before them multitudes of times, and have not seriously affected their minds. Wherever they go, they feel at ease on their occurrence. He who is contending for a piece of earthenware puts forth all his skill. If the prize be a buckle of brass, he shoots timorously; if it be for an article of gold, he shoots as if he were blind. The skill of the archer is the same in all the cases; but (in the two latter cases) he is under the influence of solicitude, and looks on the external prize as most important. All who attach importance to what is external show stupidity in themselves.'"

 

Zhuangzi suggests that we only have all of our skill when we are not attached to the result, to me that is also letting go of the self - the one who is concerned with winning. This parable also addresses the common theme that certain things transcend the intellectual, cannot be taught or learned. For me this is an exposition of Wuwei and Ziran, letting go of self and allowing the natural flow of the Way.

 

I freely acknowledge that whenever we interpret things, particularly spiritual and philosophical, we bring much of ourselves to our interpretation. So my own bias will clearly show through my interpretations here.

 

 

[Stosh]

Ah, these strike me differently. Now I get your point. Thanks.

[doc benway]

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Historically there is "non-doing" (wuwei) and "doing" (youwei). 

Both paths are equally valid in my opinion and I work with both.

 

 

I really respect and appreciate you sharing your feelings on this.

 

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

This 'immediate realisation' seems also to be the prize for all the non-dualists and neo-advaitans and the 'awakened' that seem to abound in modern spiritual circles, sometimes I just get a bit annoyed and frustrated that their view is so dominant, and considered to be so superior, when what I see in its proponents tends to be merely shallowness. 

I think this is a very valid criticism.

The "pop spirituality" appropriation of non-duality and dzogchen is often as empty as the emptiness they misunderstand.

There's a lot of misunderstanding and misapplication of these things and there's a lot of spiritual materialism and ego out there. 

I see those tendencies in myself, including many misunderstandings, and try to be very aware of it and address them whenever I can. Your post is a great reminder so thank you!

 

One of the teachings in the Bön dzogchen cycle I'm currently studying, called the Oral Transmission of Zhangzhung, cautions against feeling superior because of practicing dzogchen. It's considered the highest vehicle but it is not the "best." By highest, what is meant that the view of dzogchen encompasses, the views of all the other "vehicles" in the Bön system. It does not exclude any of the other views. This egotism related to practicing the "highest" path is one of many pitfalls we need to navigate in the practice and it's very real. One thing that helps me avoid this pitfall is being honest with myself as to how much farther I have to go and how weak my practice it.

 

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

I did think the other day there's not really much use in me having a problem with the non-doers, they are the popular voice and that's that, I can only trundle on with my lowly doing ways and try to be content with my own path. Perhaps it's harder for me cos I'm not already perfect, so I can't be smug.    

I think this is, in part, a Western phenomenon.

We are always infatuated with the best, the fastest, the highest, etc...

It doesn't matter if it is real, or effective, as long as it satisfies the ego's cravings.

So when we see dzogchen is the "highest vehicle," well then that's the one for me!

 

Spoiler

 

 

I think knowing where I am and what's working with that, being honest with myself about that, will take one much further than the folks you are referring to. Many of them get an intellectual glimpse of things like non-duality at a conceptual level and don't really do anything with it. They are stagnant, in part because they think they understand something that cannot be intellectually grasped and also because they are following a path that is not legitimate. And they're fine with it, they're not really working on themselves, only collecting a trophy. Your sincerity, on the other hand, will serve you well and I think you'll see meaningful growth as a result. 

 

53 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Quote

Superior virtue is the way of "non-doing": one immediately realizes the original "celestial reality" (tianzhen), which is never affected by the change and impermanence that dominate within the cosmos. Inferior virtue, instead, is the way of "doing" the Neidan practice in order to "return to the Dao."

 

 

Not sure how to quote the quote within the quote....

 

I was a "doer" on the Neidan path for about 15 years in my meditation practice before getting a glimpse of the non-doing path and beginning to follow it in a dedicated way. I'm still a doer in very many ways, including my formal and informal practices. We never stop doing. If we think or claim that we have, it is evidence of a serious lack of awareness in our practice. 

 

 

 

[3bob]

21 hours ago, Stosh said:

I certainly hope it works that way for you. I cant say it wont, and dont yet know if theres a phase three yet. 

 

Stosh, Thanks for that hope,  and fortunately it has worked that way which I was recounting  witness to.

 

Btw, and as you may already know in Hinduism there are the 5 actions of Lord Siva (related to the depiction of Lord Nataraja)  with one being called, "revealing Grace" and there is also the very important Grace of the True Guru. (who also works with that action)

[Michael Sternbach]

 

On a practical note, when you meditate, it's best to simply dwell in the desired state of mind (to the best of your current ability) without worrying about results too much.

 

I always found it peculiar when in the description of a sesshin (retreat) in Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, the meditating participators are motivated by the priest in charge along the lines of: "Just twenty minutes left... Try your very best to achieve enlightenment still! But make no mistake, your enlightenment will be nothing like the Buddha's far superior enlightenment!" And so on. - Instead of just sitting there in (external and internal) silence! (As I experienced especially in the Sosenji in Kyoto.)

 

And it is telling that in the same book, Alan Watts (without actually calling his name) is sharply critisised as having "the attitude of a beginner", even though there is plenty of support for his non-doing approach in classical Zen literature.

 

While Watts did not hold back mockery of what he liked to call "the-aching-legs-brand of Buddhism"...

 

But to each their own, I would say.