Some Questions of Trevor

[Iolaus]

kow,

Suffice to say though, one thing that David and kow both agree on, is that non-duality is not, cannot be an experience.

Yes, I noted that, but I am doubting that either of you really means it. Nonduality is not an experience, but can it be experienced? And you speak of it 'manifesting.' I don't think anyone here knows what you mean. How? To whom? How can anyone know about it?

If you refer to the Hui Neng poems, then the glaring difference has already been pointed out.

You are pretending.

Pye,

Have you looked into kriya yoga, pranayama? You might be ready for it.

I do not share the "ego death" aspect of modern buddhism, in fact, I think such a thing intrinsically impossible, as one's sense of self shall always accompany them as long as they live.

Yes, I have not bought it, either, though I ponder it a lot and have a few authors I respect on both sides of the question.

Paradoxically, I think it is expansion of one's sense of self that is called for

Yes, and herein I think might lie the answer to those descriptions of ego death, which may indeed be dramatic. It is not so much that the ego ceases to exist or never existed, but that one's sense of self becomes greatly expanded, releasing one from the narrow, constricting little membrane we are usually confined within.

I don't think that can be entirely gradual. One has either gotten outside the membrane or one has not. Getting out is scary, and engenders resistance because it is assumed that it will be a destruction, but instead one enters a bigger world.

[kowtaaia]

kow,

Suffice to say though, one thing that David and kow both agree on, is that non-duality is not, cannot be an experience.

Yes, I noted that, but I am doubting that either of you really means it. Nonduality is not an experience, but can it be experienced?

It means the same thing.

And you speak of it 'manifesting.' I don't think anyone here knows what you mean. (1) How? (2) To whom? (3)How can anyone know about it?

(1) "The absence of thought" has already been said. Do you mean "How does that absence come about?"

(2) There's no "to whom". How could there be?

(3) You only know that it happened.

Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body. That's the greatest news that you'll ever get.

If you refer to the Hui Neng poems, then the glaring difference has already been pointed out.

You are pretending.

Goodness, no!

kowtaaia: By the way, your translation of Hui Neng's poetry, stinks.

From memory:

There never was a Bodhi Tree,
Nor bright mirror standing.
Fundamentally, not one thing exists,
So where is there dust to cling?

Do you understand why the above translation points directly to truth and why the one that you posted, does not?


David Quinn: My one reads:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

You're chasing shadows. They both point to the same fundamental truth of emptiness. The reason why all is empty is because, fundamentally, not one thing exists.


kowtaaia: It's right in front of your face and you don't see it! Your quote is dusty. :)

Davids version is not quite empty. Dust, dust! :)

[Iolaus]

Pye,

From a book by Sankara Saranam, God Without Religion, I'd like use some quotes to explain the importance of pranayama, or breath control. First, re the expanded sense of self:

Though the finite self manifests in physical bodies, its source eludes investigators...Modern science has discovered, however, that the finite self is not merely a phsiological by-procudt of the spine and brain, indicating what while a sense of self relies on the spine and brain, self-awareness cannot be limited to them.

This quandary was addressed by a theory of self that derived from the ancient Vedas and eventually - through the philosophies of Samkhya, Vedanta, and Yoga - evolved into the science of intuition. According to the theory, the spine and brain operate like a receiving set, inuiting a sense of self; as for the self, it relies on the cerebrospinal apparatus to manifest, yet is not is by-product. This theory makes it clear why every spiritual and religious tradition emphasizes the importance of surrendering to the infinite: because the individuated human self is merely a localization of an indivisible infinite self, meaning that satisfaction depends entirely on recognition of its infinite nature as opposed to its seemingly finite one.

Even the nontheistic Buddhist doctrine of no self affirmed the indivisible substance of self by denying its apparent individuation.

Satisfaction in the here and now comes from intuitively knowing this infinitude rather than merely piecing together the mortal self gleaned from sensory data.

***********************
About pranayama itself, which is withdrawal of the life force energy, or chi, from the outward flow toward the senses to an inward flow toward the brain:

The techniques involve accessing the path to the brain via the spine by controlling the body's energies... utilizing the breath to direct nervous energy toward the spine and realize intuitive knowledge. Systematic regulation of the breath allows humans to intuit a more expansive self.

From a broader perspective, pranayama becomes a scientific approach to life and truth seeking. Based on on principles of electromagentism rather than local beliefs or myths, it considers the human body the only temple of God or spiritual laboratory, and the infinite substance of self the only source of absolute knowledge.

The goal of pranayama is liberation of the intuited sense of self from its bondage to sensory conditioning.The sense organs can record only finite forms and overt forces, which are then interpreted by the mind. Sense perceptions are further limiting because they suggest that the world is absolutely real.

Eternity emerges the moment the senses are withdrawn and the mind-made illusions of space, time, and individuation are eliminated. Along with eternity of substance comes the awareness of an ever-expanding sense of self.

The path straight to God through pranayama practices can be described as follows. When energy feeding the senses is freed to retire inward, the spine accumulates enormous amounts of nervous energy, electrifying the cells. In response, the cells stop producing carbon waste; breathing slows; the heart rests, no longer needing to pump so much blood; and in turn, the senses switch off even more, pulling additional nervous energy to the spine. Eventually, the nervous energy that previously fed the breath, heart, and senses shoots up the spine to the brain. Once that energy is sealed in the brain, eventually uniting with infinite substance, intuitive knowledge obliterates the world of space-time, the narrow sense of self vanishes, and superconsciusness ushers in an experience of bliss, or direct awareness of God.

[Iolaus]

It means the same thing.

Well, no, and this is causing unnecessary confusion. Nonduality refers to more than just whether or not an individual is having thoughts. Nonduality means the ultimate unity of the universe.

1)No, I didn't mean how does the absence of thought come about, (useful though that is!). I rather meant that when you speak of nonduality manifesting, it seems like a movement, like nonduality blooms somewhere.

2) I can't quite agree that there is no self.

3) If you know it happened, there was an experience. If we seek it diligently, there must be a reason to desire it. Is there a memory of it, or what is the effect upon the person when they 'come to'?

All you said regarding the poems was:

Your quote is dusty. :)

That is no explanation. All I can see is you find the translation better when it says "not one thing exists" versus "all is empty"

Yours might be a clearer translation, but I do not see a real difference.

[unwise]

Is there a memory of it, or what is the effect upon the person when they 'come to'?

Pye's 'glimpse' will not be forgotten. He saw the Cosmic Self - the great Universal Self shared by all. In realization the Cosmic Self in it's thoughtless state continues to be the base of the new 'ego.' The other 'old' ego arises as it will for all time, but this now is no problem. No more important than a hand or foot, but fun to play with. No longer an existential concern. The personality remains, but now highly expanded and also seen in all others. One sees the Cosmic Self and the entire world as Self. Husband is united with wife.

One's self is now identified with the boundless sea of consciousness and seen as non-different in every creature. In realization a person is made aware that the Cosmic Self was always there, nothing has changed - only the ego has been made aware of it. Like a person looking for a necklace and finding out that she was wearing it all along.

Reality is the marriage of Cosmic Self with Mind. -- Serving each other as the married couple in the bridal chamber.

[kowtaaia]

It means the same thing.

Well, no, and this is causing unnecessary confusion. Nonduality refers to more than just whether or not an individual is having thoughts. Nonduality means the ultimate unity of the universe.

Non-sequitur. You asked: "Nonduality is not an experience, but can it be experienced?"

1)No, I didn't mean how does the absence of thought come about, (useful though that is!). I rather meant that when you speak of nonduality manifesting, it seems like a movement, like nonduality blooms somewhere.

It is the absence of thought.

2) I can't quite agree that there is no self.

Do you believe in Hinduisms big 's' Self?

3) If you know it happened, there was an experience.

There are alot of examples of knowing that something happened, but not experiencing it, but there is nothing comparable to the manifestation of non-duality.

If we seek it diligently, there must be a reason to desire it.

It makes no sense to seek it. Where is the absence of thought?

Is there a memory of it, or what is the effect upon the person when they 'come to'?

We've already gone over the 'memory' question. The person, the ego is born anew.

All you said regarding the poems was:

Your quote is dusty. :)

That is no explanation. All I can see is you find the translation better when it says "not one thing exists" versus "all is empty"

Yours might be a clearer translation, but I do not see a real difference.

Then you are blind! Read the poems over and over again, until you understand. To repeat for the last time: Davids version is not quite empty. Dust, dust!

[Bo]

Why do you and Kow both assume I'm missing the point simply by the questions I posted?

Best wishes.

Fuck yourself.

It's not an assumption.

Best wishes.

[Iolaus]

kow,

I'll let David argue with you about whether nonduality is the absence of thought.

Probably I believe in Hinduism's big Self. I like the exerpts I quoted a little earlier. I can't be sure what all Hindus believe.

You seek the manifestation of nonduality perhaps through meditation, perhaps pranayama. What do you think - it is a random accident?

We've already gone over the 'memory' question. The person, the ego is born anew.

In the same way as after sleep?

Alright, I reread the poems and I see your point.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There are pages of questions to affirm a student's 'grasp' of this. Clearly it is not just a punchline, but nor is it just a 'wow' factor that is fed in like a subconscious strand - and again it cannot be something comprehended by the intellect alone.

Pages of questions to affirm 'grasp', eh? Grave digging and necrophilia is what you're describing.

You say it's not comprehended by intellect alone. So with which faculty in our body this 'other' comprehension is performed? Rule of thumb? Magical tale bone? Perhaps the problem is not finding this other faculty that would help our comprehending but to not restrict our intellect to an imaginary bean counting center somewhere inside the brain. The mind is greater than you might think and the intellect or lack of it, by any definition, shouldn't be imagined as being separated from any move the mind makes.

[Pye]

.

Iaolus, thank you very much for your textual labors; I have read similar things, but indeed, you and Scott catch me out with the hindu/sanskrit names and means, and your greater depth of study.

When I took on eastern philosophy as a whole, I read the various approaches to meditation along with it, until I decided to stop reading and start experiencing. For that part of my experience, I have not looked at or into another book or learned any further names/methods. Instead of being told what I ought to do or what was likely to happen, I felt that the general notion of looking straight at the contents of my everyday mind, and then working "toward the gap" (i.e. silence/pure being) was sufficient enough guide. Yes, I broke all the rules about seeking a teacher and thought that the experience would be teacher enough. Along with the meditation, I taught myself some yoga movements, and even invented a few personal asanas in which to sit, in which I best felt the flow of bodily energy for myself, simply from having become quiet enough to notice it.

I must say, though, that all the godfulness that comes from or attaches itself to these practices has not been my hunger or my goal. Perhaps I have simply always been well-disposed toward my existence as it is, for really, it is my existence as it is that all of this has given me, paradoxically speaking. To be sure, I think that learning the nature of my own mind has broken considerable barriers in understanding human mind altogether, so all those promises of compassion that the early books mentioned have somewhat come to realize themselves in me. Too, I learned what conceptual sickness is and how wisdom aligns itself to more than our abstractions.

Ta again.


.

[Pye]

.

oh, and the Oneness thing. I remember delighting in this idea as a young hippie; and believing I understood it through certain drug experiences later on; and I had an intellectual grasp upon this through philosophical studies in adulthood, and physics studies, too, but, it wasn't until the deep year of meditation that I actually experienced this. It is so hard to form out of one's mouth the idea that everything is in everything else; that we all come from the same thing; that everything is one, etc. -- it is so hard to express this without it sounding so trivialized, like the speech of the young hippie I once was.

The difference now is that it is no longer just an 'idea', an abstraction, or even an 'understanding' or experience. Instead, it is.


.

[kowtaaia]

kow,

You seek the manifestation of nonduality perhaps through meditation, perhaps pranayama. What do you think - it is a random accident?

Seeking truth is an immature thought process based on delusion. Attention is not seeking.

We've already gone over the 'memory' question. The person, the ego is born anew.

In the same way as after sleep?

No. After sleep you recognize the world and delusions continue.

.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

You make an interesting opint. If we include within mind something other than linear bean counting, which is generally referred to as the intellect, you are no doubt correct. However, so many people, self included, have noted a sharp difference between what is understood in a conceptual way, a book learning, wordish way, and the actual experience of it being so. After which the person says, Oh! So now I get it! And I thought I understood it before. (Or, I never could quite understand this, but now it makes perfect sense.)

I describe this other way of knowing as a perception. For a crude example, it's like unenlightened people see in black and white, and enlightened people see in color. You can learn about seeing in color all you want, and the black and white scientists can study the eyes and know exactly what components are working differently in each, but once you see color you don't need the books. Nor did the books give you that experience.

Now, having begun to see in color, the understanding follows and the intellect understands. But perception - a full-on experience that is more than just intellect - had to happen.

[Iolaus]

Pye,

I too do not seek a teacher. I have my internal teachers. I think your hands on approach is superior to my endless reading.
Nonetheless, some pranayama techniques might be pretty good, and that way everyone doesn't have to reinvent the wheel.

I also agree am with you in not seeking out of hunger particularly. It once was, but now I feel fairly satisfied, and it is more of a journey that I enjoy the constant unfolding of, a kind of honeymoon with God.

oh, and the Oneness thing. It seems like your paragraph is a perfect example of what I was trying to say to Diebert.

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

kowtaaia: By the way, your translation of Hui Neng's poetry, stinks.

From memory:

There never was a Bodhi Tree,
Nor bright mirror standing.
Fundamentally, not one thing exists,
So where is there dust to cling?

Do you understand why the above translation points directly to truth and why the one that you posted, does not?


David Quinn: My one reads:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

You're chasing shadows. They both point to the same fundamental truth of emptiness. The reason why all is empty is because, fundamentally, not one thing exists.


kowtaaia: It's right in front of your face and you don't see it! Your quote is dusty. :)

Davids version is not quite empty. Dust, dust! :)

You're playing semantic games here, trying to muddy the waters. I can understand why you might choose to do this, as it is clear that Hui Neng, in both versions of his poem, speaks directly against your own belief-system.

Let's look at it again:

"Dust" refers to our thoughts. The second version essentially says, "Since all is empty (of inherent existence), where can our thoughts ultimately settle?"

The first version essentially says, "Since nothing inherently exists, not even our thoughts inherently exist. So what can possibly settle?"

There might be a slight difference in emphasis between the two versions, but the core message in both cases is the same: Since nothing inherently exists to begin with, we do not have to eliminate our thoughts in any way or strive for a state of no-thought. Nor do we have to attach our thoughts to any particular view-point or perception. Nor do we have to try and expose (or manifest) any kind of hidden reality. All these activities are short-sighted and superfluous.

Remember that Hui Neng's poem was a response to the head monk's poem, which was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

Hui Neng's core point, which is clearly expressed in both versions, is that trying to achieve a state of no-thought is deluded. It is a redundant activity, like trying to paint legs on a snake. Thought is already fundamentally non-existent, so there is nothing further to be done in that regard. Moreover, there is fundamentally nothing for our thoughts to settle on and cling to. There is nothing that we have to strive for, no particular state that we have to attain.

In short, both versions of Hui Neng's poem directly contradict your conception of the spiritual path. Hui Neng laughed at the monk who tried to wipe away his thoughts and achieve a state of no-thought, and now he is laughing at you.

-

[David Quinn]

Iolaus wrote:

Kow says nonduality is the absence of thought. Perhaps he means to say that a human being experiences nonduality only when they achieve a time period of no thought.

This causes David to say that "such a belief destroys the very identity of non-duality by turning it into a duality. "

David thinks Kow doesn't understand that nonduality is the real state of affairs at all times and situations.

It's hard to know what Kow thinks, since his comments are usually so glib and evasive. I don't think even he know what he thinks. But luckily, we don't need him to work out what is true in life.

Let's go back to basics:

Non-duality can only ever be one thing - namely, the Totality. Only the Totality is "one without a second". Everything else - i.e. everything within the Totality - is a dualistic phenomenon.

It should be obvious that the Totality can never come into being or disappear. It cannot be made manifest or be destroyed. It is permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, beyond causality.

Moreover, the Totality can never assume the form of a finite, distinguishable, dualistic phenomenon. It can certainly manifest dualistic phenomena within itself, but it can never assume a dualistic form itself.

So already, it is easy to see that the idea of non-duality manifesting in some way - either as a causally created dualistic phenomenon, or as a hidden reality being exposed in some manner - is irrational. It's a case of chasing mirages.

Iolaus: David continues,

I asked if you believed thought was a part of non-duality or separate from it.
Within the totality, which is nondual, there are thoughts. But for the individual person, while he is experiencing thought, he is not experiencing the unconditioned state.

When thought is absent, you say, non-duality is there. They are two separate, distinct things in your mind.


I wonder if that is really what Kow is saying. Probably he is speaking to the inner experience of an individual. What we perceive at a given moent. It seems to me this goes to my own suppsitions about the difference between intellectual understanding, and the experiential. They can overlap. A really fine intellectual insight can bring experience with it. But there are gaps in nature, a jump from one state or position to another, and I think there is such a gap between experience and thought.

There is only such a gap if one's thoughts and experiences are limited, and thus artificially curtailed. The thoughts of the perfectly-enlightened individual are perfectly integrated with his experience. Every thought he has emanates out of a consciousness which is fully aware of the nature of Reality. He doesn't have to cast his thought aside in order to experience "pure being". He is able to experience "pure being" in every single one of his thoughts.

This is a major problem with Kow's idea that enlightenment is essentially a state of no-thought. He will always lose his enlightenment the moment he has a thought. It is a fragile, limited attainment.

What most people seem to be talking about re enlightenment, is reaching a state of pure being. That is not thought, cannot be thought. Thought is a derivitive of pure being. It takes a being to think thoughts. Thoughts exist within being. Ultimate truth is not words or thoughts, because those are a division. About ultimate truth no words can be spoken, because any word is inferior.

Already you are defeating yourself here, because the very division you make between "pure being" and "thought" is itself a product of thought. It is a dualistic illusion created by the conceptualizing mind, and can never be anything more than that. So the very thing you are chasing (pure being) is part of the very thing are trying to get rid of (thought). It's yet another mirage.

That's one of the many benefits of exercising the intellect. It can stop you from wasting your life pursuing mirages. Of course, if you don't really care whether you are chasing mirages or not, then you won't need the intellect. You will only value the intellect to the degree that you value truth.

I have a very active mind myself, highly bound up with my ego. I have figured out that my ego, a very dutiful sentinel, is afraid that if it lets go for any moment, it will die, and will cause me, whom it protects vigilantly, to die.

It is entirely possible to hold thought, rationality and logic in very high regard and yet also see the great utility in laying it aside for a brief time. So as to experience pure being, after which the ability to think will not only be quite undamaged, but even refreshed.

Again, what you are talking about here is the mystical experience/altered state, which is an immeasurably lesser attainment than true enlightenment. These mystical experiences can create the illusion that no thought is taking place (at least to the more gullible, dim-witted types), but that is all that it ever is - an illusion. In truth, thought is always happening whenever we are conscious. Indeed, having thoughts is consciousness.

This disparagement of what you call mystical or altered states is confusing to me. Lack of access to altered states is a source of psychic pain to humans. Altered states indicate a bigger piece of the reality pie. Why be stuck in default survival brain? What could possibly bring on the cleansing of the intellectual understanding but the breakthrough into a different way of perception?

Or, we could live in a valley and make an immense amount of study of exactly what the scenery would look like atop yonder mountain, and make some pretty great guesses, but if you get up there and have a look, none of the many mathematical calculations and insights of those below will be needed. You've got the view from the heights, everything looks different now, and your thoughts will follow until they are in accord with what you see.

I agree that altered states can be helpful in expanding one's mental horizons, but it is really only a phenomenon which occurs at the beginning stages of one's spiritual journey, when one is just beginning to wake up.

The average person is like a little chick living in an egg, knowing nothing of the outside world. Occasionally, a little shard of light from the outside might accidently shine into the egg through a little crack, before quickly disappearing again - that is the equivalent to the altered state, or at least to certain kinds of altered states experienced by superior, more intelligent beginners. By contrast, enlightenment is breaking the shell wide open and flying off into the sky in perfect freedom. What could the experience of an altered state possibly mean to such a free being? He is beyond all that.

DQ: Thoughts have always been fundamentally non-existent since the very beginning.

Iolaus: A good argument for going deeper into reality than thought.

Whatever you care to posit as being "deeper than thought" will be just as non-existent as thought is - and for exactly the same reasons. It is important to see that all things, without exception, lack inherent existence. It's not just thoughts.

-

[Bo]

Dear Diebert

Your assumptions do not follow. There is no inference the intellect is relegated or non-useful. Of course it is. But its function becomes clearer. Regardless - and briefly - of course the intellect is not separate from the Mind but Mind is not only the intellect. Thinking it is may not be uncommon but also limitting. Can you explain life? Can you explain death? Can you explain laughter or your tears? Sure you can you can come up with various theories, smart opinions (which will naturally conflict with someone else's) but regardless, it's still limitting, you still don't really know. But there is that which is not limitting.
When one has worked on a koan then one comprehends this and realises the function/place of the intellect. As they say the proof is in the pudding. Any intellectual answer is still not it. This does not mean that the intellect is not used to answer. Comprende? Maybe not. And I'm not concerned - and respect the way you see things, based on your own experience to date, and your very good intellect.
Finally, one of the silliest things is to take a koan and give yourself the answer and mark yourself. They'd do that for their university degree if they could get away with it. But its absurdity is actually blatantly clear.

Take care.

[David Quinn]

Bo wrote:

Anyone who has actually worked with koans know that it is an exercise which the intellect is unable to solve.

Working on a koan is a teaching between student and Roshi in any case.

This is the sort of false teaching which is very much in the interests of Roshis, and gurus generally, to promote. The last thing they want are intelligent people developing their intellects to the full and questioning everything deeply. That would only bring their own position and authority into peril.

Far better to encourage people to switch their minds off. Give them some cock-and-bull story about how the key to experiencing nirvana is disabling the mind and what you quickly end up with is a nice collection of submissive, worshipful followers who come to rely on your every word. The guru benefits from having a flock of adoring fans around him, and the students benefit by having spiritual blessings showered upon their animalistic desires to be as thoughtless as possible. It's a win-win situation for all concerned, and the main reason why religion is always popular.

Any teaching that seeks to disable the mind is an evil teaching, and has nothing to do with the path to enlightenment.

DQ: The reason why all is empty is because, fundamentally, not one thing exists.

Bo: Except apparently the enlightened David Quinn.

Even the enlightened David Quinn is empty. Buddhas and ordinary people are all equally empty. Everything is empty.


-

Diebert wrote:

The koan is not supposed to be 'solved' (duh!) but the koan tradition is without doubt a heavy intellectual tool, unusual perhaps but not attempting to shut down anything.

Koans are meant to be solved. Koans are only incomprehensible from the ignorant perspective. They are perfectly understandable by the enlightened mind.

In essence, a koan addresses the ignorant mind's instinctive attempt to grasp at things as though they were objectively real. The contradictions and paradoxes it seems to embody are literally created by this ignorant grasping. They are not really there in the koan itself. Thus, when the student is finally able to put an end to this grasping process inside him (which he does by intellectually understanding the nature of Reality itself), the contradictions and paradoxes of the koan fall away and everything is resolved.

This is the "conceptual-sickness" which koans address. The sickness is not the existence of concepts themselves, but rather the poor-quality conceptual understanding which causes the mind to grasp.

Here is some more Hakuin:

You often run up against obstructive demons of yet another type, ones who teach their followers:

"If you want to attain mastery of the Buddha's Way you must, to begin with, empty your mind of birth and death, of arising and subsiding thoughts. Birth and death exists, nirvana exists, heaven and hell exist, because the mind gives rise to them. None of them ever arises unless the mind causes them to. There is thus one and only one thing for you to do: make your minds completely empty."

Falling right into step, the students set out to empty their minds. The trouble is, though they try everything they know, emptying this way, emptying that way, working away at it for months, even years, they find it is like trying to sweep mist away by flailing at it with a pole, or trying to halt a river by blocking it with outstretched arms -- they only cause greater confusion.

Suppose a wealthy man mistakenly hired a master thief of the greatest skill and cunning to guard his house and, after seeing his granaries, treasures, and the rest of his fortune dwindle by the day, had several suspicious servants seized, and ordered the thief to interrogate them around the clock until they confessed. The family would be worried sick, the household on the brink of bankruptcy, yet the fortune would go on shrinking as before. All because of the man's original mistake in employing and placing his trust in a thief.

What you must learn from this is that all attempts to empty the mind are in themselves a sure sign that birth-and-death is in progress.

This passage is explained in a commentary on the Shurangama Sutra:

"The word 'thief' is used to describe the way in which you have been deprived of the virtues and merits of the Dharma's priceless resources. Having been deluded and thus unaware of this situation, you have mistaken this `thief' for something changeless and true, believing it to be your legitimate heir to whom your most valuable possessions can be entrusted. Instead, you have brought on your own downfall, reduced yourself to endless kalpas of wretchedness and poverty, all because you have been separated from the Dharma treasure."

If you really want to empty your mind of birth and death, what you should do is to tackle one of the totally impregnable, hard-to-pass koan. When you suddenly merge with the basic root of life and everything ceases to exist, you will know for the first time the profound meaning contained in Yoka Daishi's words "do not brush illusions away, do not seek the truth of enlightenment."

And.....

Those Dharma patricians who explore the secret depths are like this too. They go straight forward, boring into their own minds with unbroken effort, never letting up or retreating. Then the breakthrough suddenly comes, and with that they penetrate their own nature, the natures of others, the nature of sentient beings, the nature of the evil passions and of enlightenment, the nature of the Buddha nature, the god nature, the Bodhisattva nature, the sentient being nature, the non-sentient being nature, the craving ghost nature, the contentious spirit nature, the beast nature - they are all of them seen in a single instant of thought. The great matter of their religious quest is thus completely and utterly resolved. There is nothing left. They are free of birth and death. What a thrilling moment it is!

As Hakuin points out, the student shouldn't even think about trying to empty his mind. It is completely the wrong way to go about it. Rather, he should gather together every fibre of his intellectual powers and apply them as hard as he can towards resolving the core riddle of existence. Only then, when he has finally broken through into enlightenment, will he be able to understand what it means to be without concepts.

-

[David Quinn]

Bo wrote:

... the intellect is not separate from the Mind but Mind is not only the intellect. Thinking it is may not be uncommon but also limitting. Can you explain life? Can you explain death? Can you explain laughter or your tears? Sure you can you can come up with various theories, smart opinions (which will naturally conflict with someone else's) but regardless, it's still limitting, you still don't really know.

Wise thinking can easily explain all these things, with great accuracy and depth. Not a problem.

It is your own particular conception of thinking which is limited, not thinking itself - probably the result of being encouraged by a guru to dismiss thinking prematurely before you had a chance to develop it properly.

From the Zen tradition:

Student: Is there anything in the world more marvelous than the forces of Nature?

Master: There is - the power of comprehending those natural forces.

But there is that which is not limitting.

Indeed, people's irrationality. Now that is limitless.

When one has worked on a koan then one comprehends this and realises the function/place of the intellect. As they say the proof is in the pudding. Any intellectual answer is still not it.

You have already given it an intellectual answer by saying that it has no answer.

Finally, one of the silliest things is to take a koan and give yourself the answer and mark yourself. They'd do that for their university degree if they could get away with it. But its absurdity is actually blatantly clear.

There is only one absurdity in all of this, and that's the idea of telling people that koans don't have answers. I doubt that I can think of a more ignorant answer than this. Not only is it wrong, but it undermines whatever motivation a person might have for focusing his mind on a koan.

If a person already thinks that he knows the answer to begin with (e.g. that it has no answer), then he is not going to give it any more attention. All the koan's power is suddenly stripped way, rendering it useless.

God spare us the infestations of mindless Buddhists.

-

[Bo]

Any teaching that seeks to disable the mind is an evil teaching, and has nothing to do with the path to enlightenment.

Dear David

What was said does not mean it disables the mind, it does not disable the intellect, it does not switch the mind off.

etc.

It just shows that again you don't actually know (very obviously) and have no experience further than what you've been playing around with in your head. For one who has had no exposure or claims to knowing this would be understandable. If it were easily known, it would not be known as the subtle teachings. Yet for one who claims that they are (insert claims which I gloss over) then it becomes like a parody.

You still haven't figured out the one about anatta yet, right? You are not your thoughts? Yet that's all you are right now? Who is it that claims to enlightened? The basics of Buddhism?

Perhaps one day you will choose a different way, but for now, what you say - and what you represent - is all too transparent and fundamentally off-base to be even worthwhile to engage in. The Maths example is still apt.

Wish you well,
Bo

[Bo]

If a person already thinks that he knows the answer to begin with (e.g. that it has no answer), then he is not going to give it any more attention. All the koan's power is suddenly stripped way, rendering it useless.

God spare us the infestations of mindless Buddhists.

-

Dear David - some reading comprehension skills would be helpful here.

It is not said there is no answer - nor that one knows the answer beforehand. Of course it is an inquiry, a deep inquiry, but not in the way you think.

Anyway it is clear you have no experience and only a shallow, and even then misguided understanding of the teachings - that is not in doubt.

The Maths example is clear as to why there is no point in furthering discussions.

Good travels,
Bo

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bo, I'm convinced by this point that you aren't engaging David not because of a choice, but because you can't. By no means does this suggest that I think David is correct, but you keep posting the same shit over and over again: "you haven't heard of this? you're too stupid to talk to!" How many times have you threatened to leave and not had the willpower to follow through?

(There's a term for the fallacy you've trapped yourself with: argumentum ad nauseum... the same one that people use when they say "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong &c")

If you honestly had chosen not to engage David, you would have left this thread days ago, without even so much as a good-bye. Nobody is keeping you here. I think you actually want to argue, but you are such a poor arguer, and your ideas are so poor, that you simply cannot think of a coherent defense. You're stalling.

I suggest either you say something of substance, or you shut your bec.

[Bo]

If you honestly had chosen not to engage David, you would have left this thread days ago, without even so much as a good-bye. Nobody is keeping you here. I think you actually want to argue, but you are such a poor arguer, and your ideas are so poor, that you simply cannot think of a coherent defense. You're stalling.

Dear Trevor - You are mistaken on all accounts:

1. This thread is not read for David - that is certain. Therefore presence on this thread has nothing to do with David, and many of his posts not read for lack of interest.
2. I have not threatened to leave this thread, only remarked that there is no point in talking to one like David. That is clear and you can check again. So your point that if I did not want to engage David I would leave the forum again does not follow. You can see the points of engagement and sometimes, some points were responded to for points of wider clarification.
3. My intention is not to argue here as I see little point, although I recognise this is the intention of this forum so that may be an expectation of those whom post. So understand why you think this.
4. As to stalling, that is also not the case. There is no need nor anything to be stalled for.

Bo

[kowtaaia]

This is a major problem with Kow's idea that enlightenment is essentially a state of no-thought. He will always lose his enlightenment the moment he has a thought. It is a fragile, limited attainment.

To bad he never said or implied that!

David is confusing (the manifestation of) the non-dual with enlightenment. Although there is no enlightenment without that manifestation, the manifestation ends when thought again arises. Enlightenment doesn't mean an ongoing state of non-duality.

Kinda makes it look like you either have poor memory, or poor reading comprehension, or you're just twisting things in order to be right.



.edit: additional bold and brackets.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bo, I distrust lists, but you get a reply in one anyway.

1. I've seen you reply to enough of David's posts to know you're reading most of what he says. If you somehow aren't, then you have no business replying to him at all. It's deceptive, and makes it look like you actually have a real argument brewing in your head.
2. You aren't that interesting that I'm going to cross-check each and every time you replied to David. Sorry, though: I did misinterpret the "no point in furthering discussions" to mean you were sick of discussing altogether.
3. The fact is, you are arguing. Or more, pseudo-arguing. You keep saying "I'm not arguing", but I see you constantly using argumentative posturings and logical fallacies in things you say. Being a poor arguer does not mean you aren't arguing: it just means you can't recognize it when you are. The first step to improvement is realizing that you have a problem!
4. You're stalling until he leaves you alone and stops trying to make you think about things that you don't want to think about. But sorry man, you're on a philosophy forum. A brain is required.

Question: was this list not itself an argument?