Hi K,
Also true. The two types of teaching are only different for the purpose
of teaching. They are the same and no difference. All Chan teaching,
no matter what or how, end up in the center, and whole, or ONE.
In our school, for the ease of communication, we don't use "mind". We
say that there is this "consciousness to forms" which "clouds" our
"spirit". When our attachment/focus/awareness/consciousness to form
disappear, then the spirit shine through. In the western teachings,
these two states are two sides of the same coin, because western
teachings uses "mind". We don't. Joe seems to be utilizing this
analogy as well. This is a lot easier to teach.
However, dualistic views do have its problems. People may constantly
judge and stay within the seven consciousness, etc. Yet, in the
original Chinese text, both the "spirit" and the "consciousness" can be
explained with a single chinese character, "xin" with modifier, such as
"consious xin" and "spirit xin",
while westerners translates into a single word of "mind". It is a lot
harder to teach and more difficult for beginners to grasp.
At the end of it all, both path, actually all paths, all descriptions
end up in the same original place.
I wrote this post merely to point out, that there seems to be more
indulgence to forms lately and not to dispute with your post, which I do
enjoy reading. You always manage to cut through the clouds.
jm
On 7/20/2012 1:09 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
On 7/20/2012 1:17 AM, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） wrote:
True. "Understanding" is for the conscious mind and not our spirit.
Pure spirit "sees" everything just as is. Pure spirit functions
according to the nature of Chan, or Buddha nature if we prefer.
When we indulge ourselves in the past (i.e. our past glories, what
year I did what), or in form (i.e. quoting the sutra, life's
phenomena), then we are no longer in the present.
Where does all this appear? When?
When we are no longer in the present, our spirit no longer
functions. Only our physical self does.
Where is this physical self? When does it appear?
For last few months, there are much attachment to the experience, to
the words, to memoirs, to the views, pleasurable perhaps. Pure
spirit? No.
Where is this pure spirit?
That's when suffering arises.
Where is this suffering?
When we are in the present, there is "no form", going "no where"
and we are "nobody".
When else presents but the present, as presence of mind (such as it
appears)?
Then we are in the infinite and timeless.
Otherwise? There is no otherwise to be found.
Formless is timeless is infinite. Without boundaries, there is no way
to distinguish these. These cannot be found to be other than mind.
Such distinctions arise as mind. Formless, timeless, infinite....
Ordinary mind makes distinctions of here and there, now and then, all
the 10,000 things. Buddha mind recognizes this to be the nature of
ordinary mind, realizing such forms as emptiness/no-mind. Thus
Realized/Original/Buddha mind is indistinguishable from ordinary mind.
To 'be present' could not be simpler. No one attains presence, no one
escapes presence. No form of effort/understanding leads to
realization, no forms prevent this. Mindlessness? Mindfulness? What
point in struggling with this? No-mind does not require sacrifice of
mind. Mind cannot attain no-mind. The is nothing to attain. Nothing
lacks. Recognizing this, seeing mind as no-mind, there is only
realization.
Why attach to/reject/settle for stories of this and that, just because
there is nothing else to learn?* The matter is already settled. Mind
is already too still to be felt, too clear to be seen. Perfect
emptiness, presenting as the wonder of experiencing, as empty thoughts
and feelings of the 10,000 things.*L*
*This, is of course just another such story. Or so it appears.
K
