We live by concepts

[Apech]

We live by concepts

 

There's a fallacy that because the absolute (Dao/Dharmakaya) is non-conceptual we have to throw concepts out in order to realise the true nature of things. Somehow that wiping our minds clean of thoughts or ideas will give us the result (of being enlightened or however you chose to frame it). It is also very noticable that those that speak of the non-conceptual use a lot of concepts to talk about it, when superficial understanding might make us think they should just sit in silence.

 

Concept means something like 'hold together' and they are so called because they are the big ideas which hold our thoughts in a coherent way. As well as thoughts you could add in perceptions and emotions. You might object to emotions being included but then we call certain energy movements 'anger' and so on, and anger is a concept. It's a word we use to group a large number of similar feeling states arising from a variety of causes.

 

Concepts do not arise or belong in the objective world. They are applied to it but they don't arise from it. For instance, imagine that you walk along a pebble beach and choose to gather the most spherical stones you can find. You end up with a collection of more or less round pebbles which you can arrange in order by the closest to a true sphere to the least. What you will not find, and cannot find, is a perfect sphere. Because just like a perfect straight line, triangle or square – none of these things exist or can exist in the objective world. Even artificially produced ones will have tiny flaws and perturbations induced by the complex interaction of forces like gravity and so on in the universe. Despite this, the idea of a sphere where all the points on its surface are equidistant to the centre makes sense to us. We can easily conceive it and also see how actual objects approximate to it – even though no such thing exists. Even more than that we can through geometry use the relationships of lines, right angles, triangles and so on to measure the world and also construct things – sky scrapers, cars, washing machines – all formed through the application of geometric concepts.

 

We use concepts to make sense and order – and also to shape our environment. We use concepts to understand – including understanding ourselves. In Sanskrit the mind that does this is called 'buddhi':

 

Buddhi (Sanskrit: बुद्धि) refers to the intellectual faculty and the power to "form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand".

 

The one who goes beyond this intellect is called Buddha or Tathagata – the 'thus gone one'. He (or She) has gone beyond conceptual understanding to realise the true nature, buddha-nature or the Dharmakaya. The wisdom of the Buddha, prajna, means exactly this – beyond knowing. Where knowing is to correctly assign a category to something.

 

So then – to gain wisdom we should reject concepts and the intellect? No. If that were so the path would be simply an attempt to extinguish all we had learned, experienced and understood. There would be no significance to our thoughts and emotions. No point to love or compassion for instance.

 

What then? On realising the true nature, the absolute nature, the true concepts cohere around it, like the facets of a diamond where the buddha-nature is its core. They cohere when they are coherent, that is they stand together in mutual confirmation.

 

It is a modern attitude to give preference to the material world such that concepts are thought to be 'not real'. But actually in the dynamic between consciousness and substance ideas are active agents. They move people. Sometimes a person will give their life for an idea (a perfect one called an ideal) – so moved are they by the power of this idea to improve life for others. Indeed an 'idea' could best be thought of as a package of formed energy. Some ideas appear in contradiction to other ideas – and if held together in the wrong way will generate an irritant emotional field leading to possible illness and breakdown. If people see you in this kind of state they might say 'you need to get your head together' – meaning that, as the head is considered the centre for thought, that you need to bring together coherent ideas about your experience rather than allowing the ideas to battle on. The battle may tear you to pieces mentally or physically if not worked on.

 

By work here I mean applying oneself to examine what is happening and also enough energy to face into the painful parts of the records of experience you carry. But I think making the disharmony and pain the sole focus could lead to deepen identification with the painful memory. So it is important while engaged in this kind of process first a clear view of the nature of things and with time a growing confidence in the eternal soul/self/nature which is the ultimate goal. If we can clearly say to ourselves the correct relationship between these things then we have a chance of coming to understanding. Through understanding the ideas we have gained through life will then cohere around our true nature as a kind of body of wisdom.

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

So then – to gain wisdom we should reject concepts and the intellect? No. If that were so the path would be simply an attempt to extinguish all we had learned, experienced and understood. There would be no significance to our thoughts and emotions. No point to love or compassion for instance.

a fine piece you wrote. despite this gorilla of a fallacy, still pleasant reading. thanks;)

[old3bob]

no need to sink a raft while it is still in use or needed....in looking from the outside in we put a lot of stock in concepts and if such are dharmic why not, on the other hand looking from the inside out concepts are then seen for the constructs that they are yet are still useful as pointers. 

[Bindi]

18 hours ago, Apech said:

We live by concepts

 

There's a fallacy that because the absolute (Dao/Dharmakaya) is non-conceptual we have to throw concepts out in order to realise the true nature of things. Somehow that wiping our minds clean of thoughts or ideas will give us the result (of being enlightened or however you chose to frame it). It is also very noticable that those that speak of the non-conceptual use a lot of concepts to talk about it, when superficial understanding might make us think they should just sit in silence.

 

Concept means something like 'hold together' and they are so called because they are the big ideas which hold our thoughts in a coherent way. As well as thoughts you could add in perceptions and emotions. You might object to emotions being included but then we call certain energy movements 'anger' and so on, and anger is a concept. It's a word we use to group a large number of similar feeling states arising from a variety of causes.

 

Concepts do not arise or belong in the objective world. They are applied to it but they don't arise from it. For instance, imagine that you walk along a pebble beach and choose to gather the most spherical stones you can find. You end up with a collection of more or less round pebbles which you can arrange in order by the closest to a true sphere to the least. What you will not find, and cannot find, is a perfect sphere. Because just like a perfect straight line, triangle or square – none of these things exist or can exist in the objective world. Even artificially produced ones will have tiny flaws and perturbations induced by the complex interaction of forces like gravity and so on in the universe. Despite this, the idea of a sphere where all the points on its surface are equidistant to the centre makes sense to us. We can easily conceive it and also see how actual objects approximate to it – even though no such thing exists. Even more than that we can through geometry use the relationships of lines, right angles, triangles and so on to measure the world and also construct things – sky scrapers, cars, washing machines – all formed through the application of geometric concepts.

 

We use concepts to make sense and order – and also to shape our environment. We use concepts to understand – including understanding ourselves. In Sanskrit the mind that does this is called 'buddhi':

 

Buddhi (Sanskrit: बुद्धि) refers to the intellectual faculty and the power to "form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand".

 

The one who goes beyond this intellect is called Buddha or Tathagata – the 'thus gone one'. He (or She) has gone beyond conceptual understanding to realise the true nature, buddha-nature or the Dharmakaya. The wisdom of the Buddha, prajna, means exactly this – beyond knowing. Where knowing is to correctly assign a category to something.

 

So then – to gain wisdom we should reject concepts and the intellect? No. If that were so the path would be simply an attempt to extinguish all we had learned, experienced and understood. There would be no significance to our thoughts and emotions. No point to love or compassion for instance.

 

What then? On realising the true nature, the absolute nature, the true concepts cohere around it, like the facets of a diamond where the buddha-nature is its core. They cohere when they are coherent, that is they stand together in mutual confirmation.

Believing someone’s concept of “true nature” (Buddha’s, Jesus’s, Muhammad’s etc) or some philosophy is to gamble that their ultimate concept is the correct one, and that their conceptual path to that ultimate true nature is also correct. Many of us have taken that gamble and pursue our accepted concepts of both end point and path, but I don’t think there’s any way of knowing whether we have followed the right concepts or not. A majority voice doesn’t prove a chosen path is correct, nor does a venerated voice. We’re mostly in the dark, and somewhat madly mostly assured that our concepts are correct, and that others concepts are wrong. I guess in this sense having the correct concepts is vital, because they direct the steps to be taken. Incorrect concepts lead to nowhere, the correct concepts lead to what we all (in a general sense) aspire to.

 

18 hours ago, Apech said:

 

It is a modern attitude to give preference to the material world such that concepts are thought to be 'not real'. But actually in the dynamic between consciousness and substance ideas are active agents. They move people. Sometimes a person will give their life for an idea (a perfect one called an ideal) – so moved are they by the power of this idea to improve life for others. Indeed an 'idea' could best be thought of as a package of formed energy. Some ideas appear in contradiction to other ideas – and if held together in the wrong way will generate an irritant emotional field leading to possible illness and breakdown. If people see you in this kind of state they might say 'you need to get your head together' – meaning that, as the head is considered the centre for thought, that you need to bring together coherent ideas about your experience rather than allowing the ideas to battle on. The battle may tear you to pieces mentally or physically if not worked on.

 

By work here I mean applying oneself to examine what is happening and also enough energy to face into the painful parts of the records of experience you carry. But I think making the disharmony and pain the sole focus could lead to deepen identification with the painful memory. So it is important while engaged in this kind of process first a clear view of the nature of things and with time a growing confidence in the eternal soul/self/nature which is the ultimate goal. If we can clearly say to ourselves the correct relationship between these things then we have a chance of coming to understanding. Through understanding the ideas we have gained through life will then cohere around our true nature as a kind of body of wisdom.

 

 

 

[Lairg]

19 hours ago, Apech said:

We live by concepts

 

Women often prefer the heart to the mind.

 

The heart can be used for direct perception - not using conceptual filters

 

This becomes operational as the human nears first stage enlightenment

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Lairg

[Apech]

21 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

a fine piece you wrote. despite this gorilla of a fallacy, still pleasant reading. thanks;)

 

 

huh?

[Apech]

21 hours ago, old3bob said:

no need to sink a raft while it is still in use or needed....in looking from the outside in we put a lot of stock in concepts and if such are dharmic why not, on the other hand looking from the inside out concepts are then seen for the constructs that they are yet are still useful as pointers. 

 

that to me is more a metaphor for the path or method - a raft to cross the river - not of concepts as such.

[C T]

We can acknowledge the need for the moon-pointing finger, but there's very little benefit in being mesmerised by both the finger and/or the moon, as is often the case. 

 

Buddhism talks about absolute and relative truth, asserting their inseparable nature. Relative truths are all about conceptual reflections. They constantly reflect the absolute. And this is how, imo, they should be seen, and applied. 

 

There's no necessity to dwell incessantly in analysing what to adopt (the seemingly good concepts) and what to discard when it becomes clear, concepts, as with all pithy instructions and methods and doors that open and shed light on the way, are nothing but mere expedients, each with its own shelf life. 

 

Buddhism places equal emphasis on that which we should adopt, and that which needs to be discarded when it's time is due. Wisdom is, in a greater sense, knowing the timing with some conviction. Then we will likely be in good stead maintaining a disposition of treading lightly as we traverse our individual paths. Best to leave no footprints, just like birds flying south but leaving no traces. 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

huh?

i was making an analogy. the main fallacy in your essay is like the gorilla in the experiment

http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html

the readers do not see the fallacy because it is too big to register on them. just like the gorilla.

[C T]

Gorrilers generally aren't very clever at playing peek a boo 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

i was making an analogy

 

A gorilla of an error.  I misread the above, thought it said: I was making an apology.

 

Imagine my world turned topsy-turvy.  Who was this new Taoist Texts, so different from the Bum I thought I knew?

 

My shock and confusion was like a smack of the Zen abbot's staff, waking me from the daze of conceptual thought.

 

Momentarily enlightened, I smiled the smug knowing Mona-Lisa smile of restrained jubilation.

 

Then I reread and mundanity came pouring back.

 

Another morning on the forum.

Edited June 3, 2023 by liminal_luke

[silent thunder]

We stink of zen liminal... you and i both. 

Love ya!  In concept, projection and reality.

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

Believing someone’s concept of “true nature” (Buddha’s, Jesus’s, Muhammad’s etc) or some philosophy is to gamble that their ultimate concept is the correct one, and that their conceptual path to that ultimate true nature is also correct. Many of us have taken that gamble and pursue our accepted concepts of both end point and path, but I don’t think there’s any way of knowing whether we have followed the right concepts or not. A majority voice doesn’t prove a chosen path is correct, nor does a venerated voice. We’re mostly in the dark, and somewhat madly mostly assured that our concepts are correct, and that others concepts are wrong. I guess in this sense having the correct concepts is vital, because they direct the steps to be taken. Incorrect concepts lead to nowhere, the correct concepts lead to what we all (in a general sense) aspire to.

 

 

 

That is all valid of course but it's not really what I was trying to say.  I'm saying that 'the work' - the subtle body work involves concepts which are the way in which energy coheres or forms a body.  A light body if you like.

 

We (collectively all of us) have been sold a 'beyond concept' model which tends to make us denigrate concepts as something to be discarded once the true nature has been realised.  Of course the correct point that the true nature is not something you can think into being or imagine in the ordinary sense still stands.  

 

 

[steve]

In my experience, concepts are ubiquitous and never-ending. I tend to be overly analytical and dominated by the thinking mind.

For this reason, I do tend to emphasize the non-conceptual over the conceptual when discussing and practicing matters of the spirit.

Not because I necessarily feel the non-conceptual approach or destination is more effective or even more important.

Simply because it is so foreign and unfamiliar that it doesn't stand a chance in my own experience if not over-emphasized. 

[C T]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

That is all valid of course but it's not really what I was trying to say.  I'm saying that 'the work' - the subtle body work involves concepts which are the way in which energy coheres or forms a body.  A light body if you like.

 

We (collectively all of us) have been sold a 'beyond concept' model which tends to make us denigrate concepts as something to be discarded once the true nature has been realised.  Of course the correct point that the true nature is not something you can think into being or imagine in the ordinary sense still stands.  

 

 

 

I'm not following this assertion at all - that subtle energy work, and how it all coheres to form a body, involves concepts. Perhaps the structural aspect of a particular work may have to rely on a conceptual framework for it to make sense, but the actual work itself? I think it's not possible. 

 

Togal practice is totally non-conceptual. It's very meaning points to the severance of concepts. For the simple reason concepts are bound within dualism. 

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

... I'm saying that 'the work' - the subtle body work involves concepts which are the way in which energy coheres or forms a body.  A light body if you like.

 

We (collectively all of us) have been sold a 'beyond concept' model which tends to make us denigrate concepts as something to be discarded once the true nature has been realised.  Of course the correct point that the true nature is not something you can think into being or imagine in the ordinary sense still stands.  

 

 

Even so... is the Parable of the Raft dhamma taught by me for crossing over, not for retaining.  You, ... by understanding the Parable of the Raft, should get rid even of (right) mental objects, all the more of wrong ones.

(Alagaddupama Sutta MN I 135; Pali Text Society MN Vol I p 173-4)

 

 

In that sermon, Gautama makes the point that a Tathagatha is untraceable. 

At the same time, Gautama taught "the intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing" as his way of living, both before and after his enlightenment, and "the intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing" consisted of sixteen thoughts to be applied and sustained, each in the course of inhalation and exhalation.
 

Quote

 

(Bindi)

I guess in this sense having the correct concepts is vital, because they direct the steps to be taken. Incorrect concepts lead to nowhere, the correct concepts lead to what we all (in a general sense) aspire to.
 

Just before he died, Gautama emphasized that an individual should be a light onto themselves, hold fast to the truth and not to anyone else.  That gets quoted a lot, but the next paragraph, where he describes the way to be a light onto oneself, the way to hold fast to the truth, not so much:

 

Herein, … (one) continues, as to the body, so to look upon the body that (one) remains strenuous, self-possessed, and mindful, having overcome both the hankering and the dejection common in the world (similarly for the feelings, the mind, and the mental states).

(Digha Nikaya ii 100, Pali Text Society DN Vol. II pg 108)
 

 

In short, the four arisings of mindfulness, which in Gautama's way of living became the sixteen elements of "the intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing".

The lynch-pin of the sixteen is:  "Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out."  That's the cessation of "determinate thought" in action of speech, action of body, or action of mind.

Gautama spoke of "the fifth limb" of concentration, the "survey-sign" of the concentration, to be arrived at after the cessation of (determinate thought in) action of the body (action of inhalation and exhalation).  I take that to mean that for the most part, the cessation that was a part of the sixteen elements of his mindfulness was "the cessation of inhalation and exhalation".

How to arrive at the conscious experience of automatic activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation, that is the subject of a thousand meditation manuals.  Gautama emphasizes "one-pointedness" as common to all the states of concentration, and in the fourth concentration, automatic activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows from "one-pointedness" that moves as though in open space.  The effortlessness of the generation of automatic activity, even if the activity is strenuous, is a natural draw.  

Many rivers to cross, apparently.  The raft reassembling itself daily, and then at a moment's notice, apparently.  Relaxation of the activity of breath, calming of the mental factors, detachment of the mind, and the contemplation of cessation as a way of living, apparently.

Hard to make sense of, but own nature has a natural draw!

Edited June 3, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

I'm not following this assertion at all - that subtle energy work, and how it all coheres to form a body, involves concepts. Perhaps the structural aspect of a particular work may have to rely on a conceptual framework for it to make sense, but the actual work itself? I think it's not possible. 

 

Togal practice is totally non-conceptual. It's very meaning points to the severance of concepts. For the simple reason concepts are bound within dualism. 

 

We have been urged in various ways to regard concepts as abstract and immaterial (in the sense of having no effect).  But this is not so.  As I said above the realisation is beyond concepts - ineffable and so on - but the effect of this is to cohere conceptual essences.

 

 

[steve]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

I'm not following this assertion at all - that subtle energy work, and how it all coheres to form a body, involves concepts. Perhaps the structural aspect of a particular work may have to rely on a conceptual framework for it to make sense, but the actual work itself? I think it's not possible. 

 

Togal practice is totally non-conceptual. It's very meaning points to the severance of concepts. For the simple reason concepts are bound within dualism. 

 

For discussion’s sake -

I do consider there to be some conceptual framework in action during energy work, subtle or otherwise, but I don’t consider togal practice to be subtle energy work at all. 

[old3bob]

on a side note it is interesting (or something?) to me that after enlightenment the historic Buddha had to be nudged into carrying on with teaching by a celestial being/god instead of him considering the idea of just disappearing into the forest. 

 

(which doesn't exactly jive with the saying of, "be a light unto yourself")

Edited June 4, 2023 by old3bob

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, C T said:

Gorrilers generally aren't very clever at playing peek a boo 

 

 

 

 

Down here, 'peek-a-boo' is a game played with children where you  hide badly  ( say behind a nappy or a towel ) and then reveal yourself .

 

So, I agree, cant ever say I seen a gorilla do that .

 

So this means Apech is wrong .

 

'Cause no gorilla be playin peek-a-bo .

 

Glad we cleared that one up !

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

A gorilla of an error.  I misread the above, thought it said: I was making an apology.

 

Imagine my world turned topsy-turvy.  Who was this new Taoist Texts, so different from the Bum I thought I knew?

 

My shock and confusion was like a smack of the Zen abbot's staff, waking me from the daze of conceptual thought.

 

Momentarily enlightened, I smiled the smug knowing Mona-Lisa smile of restrained jubilation.

 

Then I reread and mundanity came pouring back.

 

Another morning on the forum.

 

 

Wow Luke ......   you are a budding  Miles Barlow ;

 

" Leading a cult was like mountaineering without oxygen ; an exhilarating head rush of insanity as the sherpas of common sense abandon  you to your fate . But while ascending the summit of self proclaimed omnipotence I became distracted by the glacier of promiscuity , scrambling across it with reckless abandon , stranding my helpless flock of disciples in the middle of judgement mountain ."

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

on a side note it is interesting (or something?) to me that after enlightenment the historic Buddha had to be nudged into carrying on with teaching by a celestial being/god instead of him considering the idea of just disappearing into the forest. 

 

(which doesn't exactly jive with the saying of, "be a light unto yourself")
 

He did say he could be happy for seven days and seven nights without moving. 

And that he liked walking on the highway with no one in front or behind him, and he liked that more than answering the calls of nature, sometimes (the elders who composed the Pali Canon immediately added a second sermon, where Gautama says he liked answering the calls of nature better than walking on the highway--god knows what kind of problems the monks would have had, trying to imitate Gautama).

 

And he did have problems, convincing the five ascetics who were his initial audience to trust that he had something to teach.  They knew him very well, since he had been the foremost ascetic among them for years, but he had given up the ascetic path.

The first person Gautama encountered after his enlightenment was a wandering ascetic.  Gautama said something like, "I am the world-turner", and the ascetic said essentially "good luck" and walked on.

 

I've said before, my approach to being a light onto myself now goes something like this:

 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought.  For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind.  I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep.

The Tai Chi classics talk about "t’ing chin, listening to or feeling strength” and “comprehension of chin”, where “chin comes from the ligaments”.  

Gautama said that after he spoke, he returned to that first characteristic of concentration in which he constantly abided.  He had a happiness in concentration, but he gave that up, constantly, to teach.  Nevertheless, his way of living, primarily thought applied and sustained after "laying hold" of "one-pointedness", was him being a light onto himself.

[Bindi]

14 hours ago, Apech said:

 

That is all valid of course but it's not really what I was trying to say.  I'm saying that 'the work' - the subtle body work involves concepts which are the way in which energy coheres or forms a body.  A light body if you like.

 

 

Say I believe that a subtle body is made of nadi’s/channels in flow and their points of interaction, are you saying these are just concepts? I’m still not quite clear on what you’re saying. 

 

Quote

 

We (collectively all of us) have been sold a 'beyond concept' model which tends to make us denigrate concepts as something to be discarded once the true nature has been realised.  Of course the correct point that the true nature is not something you can think into being or imagine in the ordinary sense still stands.  

 

 

Do you consider the neidan ‘foetus’ or immortal body or golden body etc to be a beyond concept model, or is this an exception? 
 

edit to add:
Do “concepts” equal “mentation” or mental activity? 
 

How can you know what the subtle body is comprised of if you haven’t actualised it, unless you have? 

Edited June 4, 2023 by Bindi

[C T]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

For discussion’s sake -

I do consider there to be some conceptual framework in action during energy work, subtle or otherwise, but I don’t consider togal practice to be subtle energy work at all. 

"The tögal practitioner works directly with the clear light that dwells inherently, “spontaneously present,” within all phenomena, using specific and exceptionally powerful exercises to reveal it within himself or herself.Tögal has a quality of instantaneousness, of immediate realization." (Rigpa wiki) 

 

 

 

Perhaps we differ in our understanding of energy work. 

[old3bob]

9 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

He did say he could be happy for seven days and seven nights without moving. 

And that he liked walking on the highway with no one in front or behind him, and he liked that more than answering the calls of nature, sometimes (the elders who composed the Pali Canon immediately added a second sermon, where Gautama says he liked answering the calls of nature better than walking on the highway--god knows what kind of problems the monks would have had, trying to imitate Gautama).

 

And he did have problems, convincing the five ascetics who were his initial audience to trust that he had something to teach.  They knew him very well, since he had been the foremost ascetic among them for years, but he had given up the ascetic path.

The first person Gautama encountered after his enlightenment was a wandering ascetic.  Gautama said something like, "I am the world-turner", and the ascetic said essentially "good luck" and walked on.

 

I've said before, my approach to being a light onto myself now goes something like this:

 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought.  For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind.  I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep.

The Tai Chi classics talk about "t’ing chin, listening to or feeling strength” and “comprehension of chin”, where “chin comes from the ligaments”.  

Gautama said that after he spoke, he returned to that first characteristic of concentration in which he constantly abided.  He had a happiness in concentration, but he gave that up, constantly, to teach.  Nevertheless, his way of living, primarily thought applied and sustained after "laying hold" of "one-pointedness", was him being a light onto himself.

 

those tangents are interesting but not what I was trying to get at... what I meant was that "being a light unto oneself" can be equated with being of self guidance to one's self but since he took some key and important guidance from a celestial being such does not jive with his statement of implied reliance only upon himself for guidance/light,   (I don't have the related scripture at the moment)