Yes-But-Mind vs. Don't-Know-Mind

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

Brilliant quotes but is there any evidence?

 

 

 

If you're referring to the quotations I cited above--evidence of what?

 

 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I'm lost, honestly, but I'm happy to leave it here.

 

The potential and or actual dangers of spiritual paths (including forms of Buddhism) gone wrong have  been spelled out here before.... (with many examples being shared  by many members over the years)  Btw. I don't see non-acknowledgement of that as being honest for anyone that has been at this site for awhile, etc.

[Forestgreen]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

Brilliant quotes but is there any evidence?

 

 

This is why I avoid zen/ chan texts. Too cognitive.

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

Suzuki Roshi's text on the top isn't his clearest work, though I think he is pointing to the fact that stlilness is a quality of all "things" because they are only separate where they are contrived as separate things by the mind.

 

Brings to mind good old Case 29:
 

  Quote

 

“Not the Wind; Not the Flag”

 

The Case:

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. 

One said, “The flag moves.” 

The other said, “The wind moves.” 

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, “Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves.” 

The two monks were struck with awe.

- Case 29,  Hui-neng

 

 

 

Even a mind in thought, a full concert venue, a rush hour freeway, or a hill of ants on a hot day can be seen to be still. To learn what to look for generally requires pointing by a realized teacher. 
 

 

 

"Case 29", from "The Gateless Gate", by Ekai (called Mu-mon). Yes.

 

I would say the mind is only really still when it is without will, intent, or deliberation, and the activity of the body can occur solely by virtue of the location of the mind.

 

Mumon's commentary, according to Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps:

 

The sixth patriarch said: “The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving. Mind is moving.” What did he mean? If you understand this intimately, you will see the two monks there trying to buy iron and gaining gold. The sixth patriarch could not bear to see those two dull heads, so he made such a bargain.
 

Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.

 

(tr. Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps [1934], at sacred-texts.com)

 

 

Wikipedia on  Senzaki:  "a Rinzai Zen monk who was one of the 20th century's leading proponents of Zen Buddhism in the United States." I trust this translation of the commentary, some are not so good! 

 

Makes me think of Gautama's declaration that speech ceases as "one-pointedness" is laid hold of--more correctly, "determinate thought" that gives rise to speech ceases. When the mouth opens, when "determinate thought" that gives rise to speech commences, no "one-pointedness.

 

I disagree, that the teachings of the sermons in the Pali Canon that form the basis of Theravadin practice are different from the teachings that form the basis of Zen practice, except as regards the transmission of the teaching. With regard to transmission, Gautama, refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107). I understand why the Zen tradition felt it necessary to claim otherwise, but honesty is a virtue, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 06:08 PM by Mark Foote

[Keith108]

2 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

This is why I avoid zen/ chan texts. Too cognitive.

I actually looked up cognitive to make sure I was reading this correctly. Usually, people complain about it being too obtuse. 

[stirling]

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I would say the mind is only really still when it is without will, intent, or deliberation, and the activity of the body can occur solely by virtue of the location of the mind.

 

In this case I am really pointing toward stillness or emptiness rather than a stillness of the mind. The mind is what moves and is therefore only ever temporarily still. Enlightened mind sees emptiness even as the mind has thoughts, or bodily activity. Like all things thoughts or bodily activity arise naturally and pass, and have never belonged to a "self". My original quote, for reference:

 

Quote

Even a mind in thought, a full concert venue, a rush hour freeway, or a hill of ants on a hot day can be seen to be still. To learn what to look for generally requires pointing by a realized teacher. - Stirling

 

Note - no traditional Theravada teacher would be pointing this out, only a Mahayana or Vajrayana teacher, and yet it is plain as day once you know what you are looking for. Learning to see it is the first major step to liberation.

 

-

 

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I disagree, that the teachings of the sermons in the Pali Canon that form the basis of Theravadin practice are different from the teachings that form the basis of Zen practice, except as regards the transmission of the teaching. With regard to transmission, Gautama, refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107).

 

The entire world view is different, Mark, and that colors what practices are done and emphasized.

 

Try a simple google search and do some reading:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=differences+between+mahayana+and+theravada+buddhism&oq=differences+between+mahayana+a&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Zen students do obviously read the suttas, and sometimes do SOME of the Theravada practices (jhanas for example), but that is the exception, and they aren't done from the same beginning perspective. Theravada students are intent on enlightening themselves, but not in this lifetime. A Zen student knows that they are already enlightened, as is everything else, and that almost anything could precipitate that realization. A Theravada student aims for liberation for himself, a Zen student intends to save all beings from suffering. Theravadins seek anatta, or "no-self". A Zen students seeks emptiness or the realization of the "no-self" of ALL seemingly separate appearances in consciousness. The practices reflect these differences. There is too much to capture here, but it takes more than a cursory examination of the two to understand. 

 

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I understand why the Zen tradition felt it necessary to claim otherwise, but honesty is a virtue, no?

 

Not that it really matters, but this is a perfect example of why you don't get the difference we are talking about here. Where there is enlightenment, there is truly no difference between Buddhas. The lineage is a recognition of that. The text of ordinations, lay entrustments, and transmission make this clear. 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, Keith108 said:

I actually looked up cognitive to make sure I was reading this correctly. Usually, people complain about it being too obtuse. 

 

Funny... I always think about it as simple and clean - unless we are enjoying the poetic presentation of Dogen.  

[Forestgreen]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 Theravadins seek anatta, or "no-self". A Zen students seeks emptiness or the realization of the "no-self" of ALL seemingly separate appearances in consciousness.  

This differentiation is most likely done by non- theravadins. 

I base my practice mostly on theravada texts, and no- self relates to reality, not to me as an isolated practitioner, since the idea of an isolated practitioner is conventional truth, not absolute truth. 

 

If the practice doesn't reflect that, it is inheritantly flawed. 

 

I still feel that mahayana rethoric is based on an hair-splitting attempt to prove spiritual superiority, while causing a split in the sangha.

 

And intending to save all beings before one has realized reality and cleared the storehouse mind, isn't that just a bit arrogant? 

[Forestgreen]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Theravada students are intent on enlightening themselves, but not in this lifetime. A Zen student knows that they are already enlightened,

What is the difference between trying to get enlightened and being enlightened and trying to realize that enlightenment? 

[Lairg]

 There are technical preconditions before Light flows easily through the human format. That easy flow is the essence of enlightenment.   

 

And after those preconditions are met, the candidate needs to be accepted by the community of enlightened beings

 

A cluster of preconditions concerns bringing the human persona/mask under direct control

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Lairg

[SodaChanh]

From Namkhai Norbu, dzogchen master

 

Quote

Any Dzogchen practice should always be done in a state of 
maximum relaxation, observing whether there is any tension or 
effort. If there is any effort you need to relax. This is very im-
portant. In Buddhist Sutra, for instance, knowledge of energy is 
somewhat lacking. We discover this when we learn about Tantra. 
If sensations are blocked, the energy explodes, and then a vari-
ety of things can happen. To avoid blocking it, Tantra emphasizes the knowledge of energy. But when we come to the Dzogchen 
teaching, we discover that Tantra is a bit lacking in the area of 
relaxation. Tregchö is a teaching that specifically addresses this 
point. In fact, sometimes when we are doing visualization we get so charged up that we become tense. In Dzogchen teaching you can have any kind of experience, but in a relaxed manner.

 

There are the turnings of the wheel in Buddhism. 

 

As for any split, I don't see any, it is a matter of Destiny / affinity. 

[stirling]

9 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

This differentiation is most likely done by non- theravadins.

 

Well... yes. That's me.  These approaches ARE different and the stated intent is different. It IS possible to become an enlightened "self" (I have seen this called non-dual "one") rather than realize the entire field of reality is enlightened (non-dual "two"). Non-dual "one" still retains a subject/object relationship, and there are some I have met that do not get past that experientially.

 

For a discussion on this that I like to come back to for reference check out:

 

https://deconstructingyourself.com/transcript-of-a-few-stray-points-about-nonduality-with-jake-orthwein.html

 

 

9 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

I base my practice mostly on theravada texts, and no- self relates to reality, not to me as an isolated practitioner, since the idea of an isolated practitioner is conventional truth, not absolute truth. 

 

If the practice doesn't reflect that, it is inheritantly flawed. 

 

See above.

 

9 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

I still feel that mahayana rethoric is based on an hair-splitting attempt to prove spiritual superiority, while causing a split in the sangha.

 

That might be the case in some places, but that isn't my bias. We have a Thai Forest group in our town with actual monastics, and we are all friends. We (Zen priests) helped them build some bookshelves earlier this year for their monastery. Different traditions and practices suit different people. My dharma brothers are all intent on reducing suffering.

 

9 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

And intending to save all beings before one has realized reality and cleared the storehouse mind, isn't that just a bit arrogant? 

 

The alaya vijnana isn't really a player in Mahayana, so much. The bodhisattva vow mostly comes from the Diamond Sutra, the relevant quote is:

 

Quote

The Buddha replied, "Someone who has set out on the bodhisattva path should cherish one  thought only: 'When I attain perfect wisdom, I will liberate all sentient beings in every realm of the universe, whether they be egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, miraculously born; those with form, those without form, those with perception, those without perception, and those with neither perception nor non-perception so long as any form of being is conceived, I must allow it to pass into the eternal peace of nirvana, into that realm of nirvana that leaves nothing behind, and to attain final awakening.

 

''And yet, although immeasurable, innumerable, and unlimited beings have been liberated, truly no being has been liberated. Why, Subhuti? Because if a bodhisattva entertains such thoughts as a self, a person, a being, or a living soul, he is not a true bodhisattva. - Diamond Sutra, Buddha

 

I think this intent is born out of the deepest love and compassion for all beings, a large feature of practice in the Mahayana.

[stirling]

9 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

What is the difference between trying to get enlightened and being enlightened and trying to realize that enlightenment? 

 

On the front end, not much - on the back end, quite a bit.

 

If you are already enlightened and just need to realize it, it is much more possible in this lifetime. A good teacher can actually point out enlightened mind so that the student can learn to practice in it.

 

Unless you know what enlightenment is, how could you actually codify it into a goal?

 

Ultimately no person becomes enlightened. 

 

Quote

"There are, strictly speaking, no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity." - Shunryu Suzuki

 

 

[steve]

10 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

What is the difference between trying to get enlightened and being enlightened and trying to realize that enlightenment? 

 

One very important, though subtle, difference is the presence of the one who is trying to get something, trying to realize something.

The trying is effortful, it betrays a deep belief that we are not enough as we are and that something must be changed in us..

That sense of inadequacy is a formidable obstacle to the meaning and manifestation of enlightenment, in the dzogchen sense. 

The view of dzogchen, similar to that of Zen, is that enlightenment needs nothing to be added or taken away. 

This is also reflected in the practice, behavior, and ultimate fruition.

The view is that we have everything we need already, we simply need to relax into the fullness. openness, and infinite potential that always is right here and right now. 

The Bönpos refer to the source of enlightenment as Kuntuzangpo which literally means all good, as in cannot be improved upon in any way. 

 

[liminal_luke]

I´m reminded of the Breema Bodywork principle of No Extra.

 

To manifest Breema, no extra is needed. What is extra? Anything that's not needed in this moment. Breema is not a technique, not something you learn. It's something you are. You have to learn a lot to let go of what you think you are and be what you are.

Jon Schreiber
"Waking Up to This Moment"
 

[Apech]

On 04/11/2025 at 6:47 PM, SodaChanh said:

I like this video on the Don't Know Mind

 

 

I disliked this video very much.  For two reasons. 
 

The people listening to her laughed on cue to stories which were not understood even by her.

 

Tofu is not good for cats - there’s no way a cat was stealing it night after night.  

 

I did enjoy your subsequent discussion even tho I disagree with most of you.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

 

I still feel that mahayana rhetoric is based on an hair-splitting attempt to prove spiritual superiority, while causing a split in the sangha.

 

 

 

"... there is in fact an account of the First Schism which gives just such a date, namely the tradition of the Sammitya school recorded by Bhavya (Bhavaviveka) and the Tibetan historians (probably following him).   This account places the event in B.C. 349.... On this occasion a monk, about whose name there are disagreements..., put forward five grounds, of which four concern the question of the nature of an arhant... and none have any direct bearing on the discipline.  An assembly took place... and the majority, it would appear, voted in favour of these grounds.  This majority constituted itself into the Mahasamgha.... The minority which rejected the grounds, and which apparently included a number of the most senior monks, refused to submit to this decision and constituted themselves into the School of the Elders, the Sthaviravada.

 

... We seem led to the conclusion that the two parties were less far apart than at first sight they appear to be, except on the first ground [that an arhant can be seduced by another person].  The Sthaviravada were categorical that an arhant was by nature beyond the reach of any possible seduction; the Mahasamgha allowed an arhant to be seduced in a dream.  Between these opinions no compromise could be found....

 

No compromise having been reached, the two parties separated and became two schools of Buddhism.  Afterwards they gradually came to disagree on several more grounds, partly through working out the implications of their positions.  In particular the nature of the Buddha was reconsidered.  In the Tripitaka he is not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided whilst the others were helped by his guidance.  The Sthaviravada remained closer to this conception, though gradually they attributed a higher status to the Buddha, eventually complete 'omniscience', especially in the more popular propaganda.  The Mahasamgha, on the other hand, having relaxed or at least not made more stringent the conditions for an arhant, found it desirable to make a clear distinction in the case of the Buddha; he was a being of quite a different nature, far above other human beings or perhaps not really a human being at all.  They thus began that transformation of the Buddha, and his doctrine, which led step by step to the Mahayana...."

 

("Indian Buddhism", A. K. Warder, Motilal Banarsidass 2nd ed p 217-218)

 

At least as far as Warder could discover, the original Mahayanists split from the rest of the tradition because they believed an arahant could have a wet dream.

 

I personally like the Bodhisattva vow in Mahayana Buddhism, the commitment to hold off personal enlightenment until all enter at once.  The idea, as I understand it, is that the Bodhisattva will continue to suffer the consequences of desire for sensual pleasure, desire for becoming, and desire for not-becoming (ignorance) until all can be freed from these three cankers altogether.

 

That allows for wet dreams and more, and justifies it as a great sacrifice on the part of the Bodhisattva. Yes, it's laughable, and yet I do better in an environment that encourages some freedom from the rules.  

I myself am only looking to realize Gautama's way of living more often, the mindfulness that he said was primarily his way of living in the rainy season (when presumably he did a lot of sitting)--the way of living that he described as "perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of living too" (SN 54.9, tr. Pali Text Society vol V p 285).

 

As I wrote in my book (yes, I have a book!--should be in print again soon):

 

Many people in the Buddhist community take enlightenment to be the goal of Buddhist practice. I would say that when a person consciously experiences automatic movement in the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation, finding a way of life that allows for such experience in the natural course of things becomes the more pressing concern. Gautama taught such a way of living, although I don’t believe that such a way of living is unique to Buddhism.

(Appendix--A Way of Living)

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Mark Foote

[Lairg]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

four concern the question of the nature of an arhant... and none have any direct bearing on the discipline.  An assembly took place... and the majority, it would appear, voted in favour of these grounds. 

 

Since when did voting establish reality?

 

Did they not know about metaphysical experiments?