Shikantaza & Visions

Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:15 pm

The background of this posting is "dzogchen", but I'm no sectarian and have a special question in the context of "shikantaza". Before I can ask this question,I must go even further, sorry...

One possible task: Don't focus anything. Now. But now you focus "non-focusing". Therefore you practice "non-focusing" and remain in that. Why? Because you make a concept and thing out of "don't focus anything". Why? Because there's an expectation, who want's something from "don't focus anything". This is "grasping". Grasping is artificial conceptualisation, artificial conceptualisation is reification, and if there's grasping, there's "something" like "non-focusing'nes". It's like anything "behind", it's like an "entity" which "monitors all". It's like a "big brother", reified identified with "non-focusing".

If you focus on "non-focusing", this artificial conceptualisation tend's to a reified "state" of consciousness. Every "state" of consciousness is impermanent, therefore it carries the germ of suffering in itself. What do to? Stop "non-focusing", ergo stop "non-focusing'nes". Cry: Stop! Interrupt this artificial practice. You can't stop, because you are afraid, you can't "see something", what you expect from doing "don'focus anything"? That's grasping, that's the "big brother", that's ignorance. Great, you detect it once again.

At some point one has enough. Neither "practice" nor "non-practice", so what will be left? Naturally loosed, neither distracted yet focused. Not as "practice" or reified "non-practise", but as a self-obvious non-constructed fact, not "made" by anything or anyone. Now, transparency/knowledge is self-obvious.

"Self-obvious" doesn't mean "automatic". It's just without any need for an extra artificial knowledge-focus like this: "transparency is self-obvious". You can't tell "from where" immediate knowledge comes from, because it doesn't matter from itself from where it comes from. The fact that "it doesn't matter" is immediate "knowledge", not to distinct from what appears, therefore everything is obviously transparent and insubstantial, primordially without any need for a base.

It's not about doing or practicing "to be naturaly loosed". It's not about "to remain" naturaly loosed. But some people do that in perfection. Therefore they believe, they are "naturaly loosed" and that's the big goal. Such a "reified non-practice" tends to a special "state" of consciousness. Now the disciple maybe think: "It's really the big goal, because of my true "natural relaxation", there's some-"thing" like "clarity" or "bliss" or "openness" or "nothingness" or whatever. But his "clarity", "bliss" or "openness" or "nothingness" or whatever are only reified concepts, based on grasping/ignorance. All of this is really different from the terms "naturally relaxed" or "naturally loosed" in our context. What sounds the same, may also be different.

Now to shikantaza: Instead of "don't focus anything", one can "just sit". Like in the example of "don't focus anything", one can practice "just sitting" or one can "non-practice" "just sitting" or one can just sit, therefore neither distracted nor focused, therefore transparency/knowledge is immeditate obvious.

But in "dzogchen", this is not the end of the story, because there is "thögal", which goes hand in hand with obvious transparency/knowledge. What is "thögal"? Even if immediate transparency/knowledge is obvious, for the senses it does not appear in that way. Metaphor to understand: If you put a straw in a glas of water, the straw appears broken, even if you know, that the straw isn't broken. With "thögal", "the straw appears the senses in the exact way". That's important, because if "the straw is out of the water and appears in the exact way", there's no chance for the "big brother-concept" to conceal transparency/knowledge. How "the straw appears in the exact way"?

For example, if transparency/knowledge is obvious and you looking at the sky like you looking at the sky, therefore neither distracted nor focused, "visions" appear. They also appear, when transparency/knowledge is - because of an artificial focus - "hidden", but in our case, the visions are not to distinct from knowledge/transparency. They are the "expression" of knowledge/transparency and appear the senses in exact that way; neither reified-"inside" nor reified -"outside" nor anything else, unlike to the "artificial focus". Such artificial "vectors" doesn't matter from itself, therefore it's not something very special. If knowledge/transparency is "stabilised" while you looking at the sky like you looking at the sky, vision-"developments" appear, because there's neither grasping nor a "big brother". Artificial conceptualisations interrupts such visionary developments.

At some point, they develop to big scenarios, naturaly without any need for a base. In the (not really) "end", the visions are mixed up with the "solid"-environment, therefore "ignorance" has no more chance to conceal transparency/knowledge. The "straw appears really out of the (karmic) water".

Question: If you just sit - really just sit - in front of a open sky (or in full darkness), such "visions" appear after a while or not? And if they appear, are they the expression of knowledge/transparency? And if so, are there "developments" of these visions?


[Sorry for my bad spoken english]
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Matt J » Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:53 pm

Visions may appear in shikantaza, but they are considered makyo, or illusions. Zen, as I've been taught, is more about tuning into the ever present changing moment.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/
User avatar
Matt J
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:51 pm

Matt J wrote:Visions may appear in shikantaza, but they are considered makyo, or illusions. Zen, as I've been taught, is more about tuning into the ever present changing moment.


Thx. Do you have these "visions", while you "just-sitting" in front of the sky or in darkness? That's the base for my questions. How "do you know" that these visions are "like illusions", while you are 'just-sit' (naturally, not as "practice" or "refied non-pratice") '? Is there any self-originated development of these "illusionary visions"? And how these "visions" differ from the rest of what appears? The second question ("how do you know") is the important one for me.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Daniel » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:22 am

thigle wrote:
Matt J wrote:Visions may appear in shikantaza, but they are considered makyo, or illusions. Zen, as I've been taught, is more about tuning into the ever present changing moment.


Thx. Do you have these "visions", while you "just-sitting" in front of the sky or in darkness? That's the base for my questions. How "do you know" that these visions are "like illusions", while you are 'just-sit' (naturally, not as "practice" or "refied non-pratice") '? Is there any self-originated development of these "illusionary visions"? And how these "visions" differ from the rest of what appears? The second question ("how do you know") is the important one for me.



Hi thigle.

I'll give your questions a go as best I can, if that's alright. I've experienced visions, Kensho and lots of other strange things as a result of my practice (Soto Zen, Dogen, Suzuki Roshi, SFZC lineage). Though, years prior to 2012, my practice wasn't lineage or branch specific and I cannot make a claim to have attained any particular realization nor to hold any special rank of any sort. I'm dumb as a rock of the hardest sort! :namaste: That being said, I'd like a little clarification of your questions..

How "do you know" that these visions are "like illusions", while you are 'just-sit' (naturally, not as "practice" or "refied non-pratice") '?


When you say "just sit" and "not as 'practice'", do you mean Shikantaza or zazen-esque non-doing or literally not meditation of any sort?

What is the meaning of emphasizing "how do you know"?

What is meant by "self-originated development"?

What is your experience with practice and what does is consist of?

Thanks!
"When you know how to live correctly on this
shore, you are already on the other shore. There
really is no place to go."
Daniel
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Matt J » Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:34 am

In the places I have practiced, shikantaza is not practiced in the darkness or in front of the sky. I have had visions, but they are not the goal of practice. How do I know they are visions? They have more impermanence than usual day to day objects.

I can tell you this: your mind will bring to you what you want. If you want visions, you'll get visions. But, again, for me, Zen practice isn't about getting anything. It's about tuning in and seeing what is here right now, whether it is a vision or you face in the mirror brushing your teeth.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/
User avatar
Matt J
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:49 am

Hi Daniel,

Daniel wrote:
thigle wrote:
Matt J wrote:Visions may appear in shikantaza, but they are considered makyo, or illusions. Zen, as I've been taught, is more about tuning into the ever present changing moment.


Thx. Do you have these "visions", while you "just-sitting" in front of the sky or in darkness? That's the base for my questions. How "do you know" that these visions are "like illusions", while you are 'just-sit' (naturally, not as "practice" or "refied non-pratice") '? Is there any self-originated development of these "illusionary visions"? And how these "visions" differ from the rest of what appears? The second question ("how do you know") is the important one for me.



Hi thigle.

I'll give your questions a go as best I can, if that's alright. I've experienced visions, Kensho and lots of other strange things as a result of my practice (Soto Zen, Dogen, Suzuki Roshi, SFZC lineage). Though, years prior to 2012, my practice wasn't lineage or branch specific and I cannot make a claim to have attained any particular realization nor to hold any special rank of any sort. I'm dumb as a rock of the hardest sort! :namaste: That being said, I'd like a little clarification of your questions..


Great ;)

Daniel wrote:
How "do you know" that these visions are "like illusions", while you are 'just-sit' (naturally, not as "practice" or "refied non-pratice") '?


When you say "just sit" and "not as 'practice'", do you mean Shikantaza or zazen-esque non-doing or literally not meditation of any sort?


Shikantaza or zazen-esque non-doing, but this is neither "meditation" nor "non-meditation", if it's "Shikantaza", like I expect. It's like the example with "don't grasp anything" in the first post. It's not about "meditation" or "non-meditation", which is "meditation" because one makes always a "thing" like "a non-meditation" of non meditation). It's only about just sitting. Therfore it's about naturalness, not "made" by anything or anyone, because that's not natural but artificial.

Daniel wrote:What is the meaning of emphasizing "how do you know"?


Because there can be a non-constructed immediate knowledge, not to distinct from what appears, or only a artificial knowledge-focus based on ignorance.

Daniel wrote:What is meant by "self-originated development"?


There's primordially no need for a "force" or "base" for the natural development of these visions.

Daniel wrote:What is your experience with practice and what does is consist of?


My experience with "practice" have resulted in reified "states" of consciousness.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:30 am

Matt J wrote:In the places I have practiced, shikantaza is not practiced in the darkness or in front of the sky. I have had visions, but they are not the goal of practice. How do I know they are visions? They have more impermanence than usual day to day objects.

I can tell you this: your mind will bring to you what you want. If you want visions, you'll get visions. But, again, for me, Zen practice isn't about getting anything. It's about tuning in and seeing what is here right now, whether it is a vision or you face in the mirror brushing your teeth.


Thx Matt J. Yes, I know that these visions are not the goal of your practice. Like in my context; they are not "a goal". If one want visions, one get visions, that's also true. But I do not speak about visions, comming out of such an "state of consciousness", therefore comming out of grasping/the "big brother", therefore comming out of ignorance. I speak about a different context for such visions, which is immeditate knowledge/transparency. When you say, they are like "illusions", because they have more "impermanence" like usual "solid" day to day objects, you speak about such visions comming out of such a reified state of consciousness.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Astus » Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:17 pm

Whatever occurs inevitably disintegrates and dissolves. The teaching of impermanence is at the heart of the Buddha's doctrine, and it is a straightforward guide to liberation. Zazen is about being buddha, and buddha is non-attachment. Zen is not being affected by the six kinds of appearances, so even if buddhas appear in one's meditation, that's only the work of the devil. At the same time, Dogen creatively combines the two truths in his Muchu Setsumu, stating that the realm of visions/dreams is the realm of buddhas, in other terms, there is no difference between ordinary and enlightened experience. Consequently, nice visions, bad visions, neutral visions and no visions are equal.

Your mind may feel as though it is sinking or floating, dull or sharp, or as though you can see outside the room, inside your body, or the body of buddhas or bodhisattvas. ... These unusual and strange conditions are all sicknesses that occur when the mind and breath are not in harmony.
(Zazen-Yōjinki)

Someone who tries to discern me in form
Or seek me in sound
Is practicing non-Buddhist methods
And will not discern the Tathāgata

(Diamond Sutra, ch 26)

If one wishes to see the Buddha then one sees him. If one sees him then one asks questions. If one asks then one is answered, one hears the sutras and rejoices greatly. One reflects thus: 'Where did the Buddha come from? Where did I go to?' and one thinks to oneself: 'The Buddha came from nowhere, and I also went nowhere.' One thinks to oneself: The Three Realms—the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of the Formless—these Three Realms are simply made by thought. Whatever I think, that I see. The mind creates the Buddha. The mind itself sees him. The mind is the Buddha. The mind is the Tathagata. The mind is my body, the mind sees the Buddha. The mind does not itself know the mind, the mind does not itself see mind. A mind with conceptions is stupidity, a mind without conceptions is nirvana. There is nothing in these dharmas which can be enjoyed; they are all made by thinking. If thinking is nothing but empty, then anything which is thought is also utterly nonexistent.'
(Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, ch 2, tr P. Harrison, p 21-22)
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Daniel » Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:29 pm

My practice is one of simplicity and refinement. I'm sensing complexity that I'd rather not traverse.

Respectfully bowing out. :namaste:
"When you know how to live correctly on this
shore, you are already on the other shore. There
really is no place to go."
Daniel
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:05 am

Daniel wrote:My practice is one of simplicity and refinement.


Do you practice "just sitting" instead of just sitting?
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am

Astus wrote:Zen is not being affected by the six kinds of appearances, so even if buddhas appear in one's meditation, that's only the work of the devil.


I was inter alia a "dogen-follower" for some years. Even if superman appear in one's "meditation", that's only a artificial state of consciousness, therefore the output of grasping and ignorance. There's no immediate knowledge about the nature of these visions, only a artificial knowledge-focus, like I suspect for "tantric-sky-gazing" to. I do not talking about such "visions" and I do not talk about such "meditation". I talk about shikantaza, which is just sitting. The experimental context for my question to the dogen-followers is: Sitting in front of the sky or in darkness, just the way like one is sitting in front of the sky or in darkness. But it seems, everybody misunderstand the mentioned alternative to "grasping" as "rejection", because they "meditate" instead of just sitting. Such a "rejection" is practiced "non-grasping", therfore grasping and a highly dissociated state of consciousness.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:03 pm

Finally another example. Instead of just sitting, look at the screen for a while. But now you practice "looking at the screen for a while". Why? Because there's something, which want to have something from "don't focus anything", "don't grasp anything", "don't do anything" or "looking at the screen" or "just sit". There's a form of expectation. This is "grasping". Why? Because there's "something". It's like a "looking at the screen'nes", "don't do anything'nes", "don't grasp anything'nes", "dont focus anything'nes" or "just sitting'nes". It's like anything "behind", it's like anything that "monitors all". It's like a "big brother", reified identified.

What is "grasping" in it's true meaning? Artificial conceptualisation. Artificial conceptualisation is reification. For example, if I tell you: "I have no name" and you answer: "Hello no-name", you make a "thing" out of the fact that I have no name. It's like this. You grasp only a concept. In our context, you make a "thing" out of the fact of "looking at the screen" or "don't do anything" or "don't grasp anything" or "don't focus anything" or "just sitting", therefore it seems there's a "looking at the screen'nes", "don't do anything'nes", "don't grasp anything'nes", "don't focus anything'nes" or "just sitting'nes". Something which "monitors all". Like a "big brother" behind, therefore ignorance. But I'm not talking about "visions", which comes out of "ignorance", therefore I'm not talking about "visions" which comes out of any "state of consciousness".


[Sry for my bad english]
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Astus » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:03 pm

thigle wrote:The experimental context for my question to the dogen-followers is: Sitting in front of the sky or in darkness, just the way like one is sitting in front of the sky or in darkness.


One can see strange things in front of oneself even by staring at the wall or the floor, if one stares long enough, and that's more about mental distraction than being aware and free. It doesn't really matter what kind of sensory experience one has during zazen, as that's not the point. I don't see how total darkness or open sky could make a difference in that, black or blue are both fine.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:25 pm

Astus wrote:One can see strange things in front of oneself even by staring at the wall or the floor, if one stares long enough, and that's more about mental distraction than being aware and free. It doesn't really matter what kind of sensory experience one has during zazen, as that's not the point. I don't see how total darkness or open sky could make a difference in that, black or blue are both fine.


"Solid visions" are not something special. Look at the screen for example. "Pure visions" are not something special. Press on your eyes for some seconds. Then suddenly open your eyes and pure visions appear temporarily. But I'm not talking about visions/appearances in the context of ignorance.

If knowledge/transparency is immediate self-obvious and stabilised, pure visions like rays and lights appear absolutely natural as expression of knowledge/transparency, therefore primordially without any need for a base, just like that. This goes hand in hand, because of the "capacity" of knowledge/transparency. Therefore it's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of knowledge/transparency which is "unfolding". What is called "primordially without any need for a base" or "primordially just like that", is the immediate self-obvious "knowledge", not been "made" by anything. The best word I found to describe immediate self-obvious "knowledge" is "transparency"(-like). It's impossible to distinct knowledge/transparency from what appears, therefore it's impossible to distinct knowledge/transparency from "solid visions" like the day-to-day environment, or from "pure visions" like rays and lights. If transparency/knowledge is hidden because of artificial grasping, what is complementary to the conceptual "big brother", which is reified identified with everything, "solid vision" like "pure vision" seems to be completely lack of knowledge/transparency. Therefore they appear as an expression of "consciousness", which is an impermanent reified "state", based on grasping and the big brother. That's the reason, why pure visions based on ignorance can't unfold in that way like pure visions which are the inseparable expression of knowledge/transparency.

The experimental content in this topic is quite simple: If knowledge/transparency is obvious and relative stable, pure visions like rays and lights appear as expression of "knowledge/transparency", even with shikantaza, if shikantaza is really primordially natural just sitting. If "just sitting" is a practice or reifeid "non-practice", I do not call it "shikantaza". Note: I'm talking about "visions as inseparable expression of knowledge". I'm not talking about "visions as expression of "consciousness" or "ignorance". Now I wanna know from some soto brothers and sisters: "How is it for you, if you (primordially natural) just sit ... in darkness or in front of the sky ... because these are good "starting points" for pure visions, like to press on the eyes for some seconds, as I explained in the beginning. But maybe they are to religious/artificial and wanna sit only before a wall.

Finally:
The natural capacity and development of knowledge/transparency, closes a important "gap". Even if immediate transparency/knowledge is obvious, "solid visions" do not appear in that way for the senses. Metaphor: If you put a straw in a glas of water, he appears broken, even if you know, that the straw isn't broken. In our case: Immediate "knowledge/transparency" is self-obvious, but for the senses "solid visions" seems to be "solid". I use the word "solid" as the counterpart of transparency/knowledge, not in a colloquial or reified way. How "the straw appears in the exact way, out of the karmic water"? That's important, because if "the straw appears in the exact way, out of the karmic water", there's no more chance for a "big brother" which seems to conceal transparency/knowledge.

For example, if transparency/knowledge is obvious and you looking at the sky like you looking at the sky, therefore neither distracted nor focused, "pure visions" appear as sounds, rays and lights. They appear even if transparency/knowledge is "hidden" because of artificial grasping, which is complementary to a "big brother". But in our case, "pure visions" are not to distinct from knowledge/transparency. They are the "expression" of obvious knowledge/transparency and appear the senses 'in exact that way'; unlike to pure visions in the context of "artificial grasping".

If knowledge/transparency is "stabilised" while you looking at the sky like you looking at the sky, pure visions begin to develop, because there's neither grasping nor a "big brother". Artificial conceptualisations interrupts such visionary developments. Note: Visions appear and develop as the stability of "transparency/knowledge" develops; the two go together. At some point, they develop to big scenarios and in the (not really) "end", these "pure visions, which are the exact expression of obvious transparency/knowledge, are mixed up with the "solid vision"-environment, therefore "ignorance" has no more chance to conceal transparency/knowledge. The "straw appears really out of the "karmic" water".


[Sry for my bad english]
Last edited by thigle on Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Jikan » Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:35 pm

Daniel wrote:My practice is one of simplicity and refinement. I'm sensing complexity that I'd rather not traverse.

Respectfully bowing out. :namaste:


I rejoice in your practice.

What, in this thread, do you find unrefined?
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Astus » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:36 pm

Thigle,

If I can follow you, the difference between solid and pure visions are the presence or absence of duality (subject-object). The non-dual view, i.e. the middle way, is not defined by any visions, but whatever appears is either pure or impure depending on the view. Why should special rays and lights appear? I see no reason for that. But even if they appear, they cannot be but conditioned appearances, no different from any other. To use your example, the broken straw in the water is the pure vision itself, and there is no other vision (i.e. samsara=nirvana).
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:40 pm

Astus,

Astus wrote:If I can follow you, the difference between solid and pure visions are the presence or absence of duality (subject-object).


sorry no. Maybe you misunderstand the word "pure" in a "spiritual way". Look around. That's "solid vision". Press on your closed eyes for some seconds and suddenly open them. That's "pure vision". It's nothing special. "Solid vision" like "pure vision" can appear out of "ignorance", or as primordially-inseparable expression of immediate-obvious "knowledge/transparency", which is the end of "ignorance" - and that's the "modus" I'm talking about in the following.

If "pure visions" appear as primordially-inseparable expression of immediate-obvious "knowledge/transparency", they appear "in exact that way" as primordially-inseparable expression of immediate-obvious "knowledge/transparency".

If "solid visions" appear as primordially-inseparable expression of immediate-obvious "knowledge/transparency", they appear "not in exact that way" as primordially-inseparable expression of immediate-obvious "knowledge/transparency". (^1)

The described natural capacity and development of "knowledge/transparency" closes this important gap.

If the last three points are clear, it's better to understand why "pure visions" can be used as a "tool" at the beginning, why "pure visions" goes hand in hand with "transparency/knowledge and why "pure visions" closes a important gap on "the way" to the "grand finale". Finally to "non-dualism". I do not use this term, because if transparency/knowledge is immediate-obvious, reified concepts like "subject" or "object" doesn't matter naturaly from itself, because they are "reified conceptualisations". If reified conceptualisations like "subject" or "object" doesn't matter naturaly from itself, ideas like "dualism of.. subject/object" and ideas like "non-dualism of.. subject/object" doesn't matter.


(^1 straw-metaphor / rest of "karmic water")
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:06 pm

Very confusing. How can be Buddha here and now?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby Astus » Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:38 pm

Thigle,

Could you say it then in a less technical way? I don't think I understand what you mean.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Shikantaza & Visions

Postby thigle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:47 pm

Astus (&LL),

LastLegend wrote:Could you say it then in a less technical way? I don't think I understand what you mean.


that's the reason why I have introduced all the "technical terms" in the first post only in connection with the described "experimental approach", which one must compare step by step with one's own concrete experience, then the "technical terms" are no longer only "technical terms"; therefore it's "self-protected". Because there are so many traps and to avoid potential misunderstandings, it's important to use such technical terms, repeated over and over again. It's better one can't understand the content because of such "technical terms", then one misunderstand the content because of to less technical terms. I now make an exception and delete some words, because I've explained it before:

Maybe you misunderstand the word "pure" as something like "enlightened". But I do not use the word "pure" in that way. Look around. That's called "solid vision". Press on your closed eyes for some seconds and suddenly open them. Lights, rays, colours and other stuff may appear temporarily. That's called "pure vision". It's nothing special. "Solid vision" like "pure vision" can appear out of "ignorance", or as expression of knowledge, which is the end of "ignorance" - and that's the "modus" I'm talking about in the following.

1) If "pure visions" appear as expression of knowledge, they appear "in the exact way" as expression of knowledge.
2) If "solid visions" appear as expression of knowledge, they appear "not in the exact way" as expression of knowledge. (^1)
3) The described natural capacity and development of "knowledge" closes this important gap.

It's impossible to describe, what "in the exact way" or "not in the exact way" means, because that's really a "taste of sugar"-thing. Therefore I only have the explained straw-metaphor to describe what it means.

If the last three points are clear, it's better to understand why "pure visions" can be used as a "tool" at the beginning, why "pure visions" goes hand in hand with stabilised "knowledge" and why "pure visions" closes a important gap on "the way" to the "grand finale". Finally to "non-dualism". I do not use this term, because if "knowledge" is obvious, reified concepts like "subject" or "object" doesn't matter naturaly from itself, because they are "reified conceptualisations". If reified conceptualisations like "subject" or "object" doesn't matter naturaly from itself, ideas like "dualism of.. subject/object" and ideas like "non-dualism of.. subject/object" doesn't matter.

(^1 straw-metaphor / rest of "karmic water")


Note: We are talking about something that only plays a role, if "knowledge" is relative stable.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Next

Return to Soto

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

>