Dexing wrote:What does it mean to "see your nature"?
Dexing wrote:However, food can't cook itself, the eye can't see itself, the knife can't cut itself, the camera can't take a picture of itself..... and the mind can't know itself.
Everything the mind knows is the object of its cognition, not the mind itself.
Dexing wrote:So is it correct to say to "see your nature" means to realize that "all things appearing in the three realms come from mind", to see that is what is meant by to "see your mind", i.e. to see (to realize) the workings of your mind?
TMingyur wrote:Dexing wrote:What does it mean to "see your nature"?
To experience your emptiness which is what sentient beings only have the capacity to do.
Here the difference between sentient beings and their faculties (e.g. "mind") and inanimate phenomena becomes important.
It is not certain that every object (qua object known) the mind "knows" necessarily has to be different from "mind" itself. Also it is not advisable to conceptually separate "mind" and the "knowing" because this implies that there would be an entity "mind" that does the "knowing".
I do not think that it is valid to say "all things come from mind" simply because the process of manifestation (or the "arena of appearance") itself is called "mind" if "come from" is meant to refer to a cause/origin.
I am mostly familiar with the Chinese Weishi school and want to clear up the wordings of Chan/Zen schools.
In Weishi there is "唯能无所"... I don't know how to translate it.. "only that which is able to produce (mind), yet no production (delusion)". But "眼不能自见，心不能自识", "the eye can't see itself, and the mind can't know itself".
While in Chan/Zen there is "见性成佛", "See the nature, become Buddha" which sounds like a subject-object construct. Unless the correct understanding is as in Weishi, and "seeing your nature" means understanding "唯能无所", "三界唯心". "Three realms, only mind".
White Lotus wrote:when you see all forms, all arising, this is merely seeing your face, as it is now, in a mirror.
White Lotus wrote:the buddha is form,
White Lotus wrote:being form the buddha is also emptiness, since emptiness is form. though i think you find in the diamond sutras emphasis on basic emptiness that what is seen with the eye is not buddha, personally i disagree. i see all things as the buddha.
White Lotus wrote:the buddha nature is emptiness, therefore the buddha nature is form. every form of life and inanimate object expounds the dharma perfectly. whether crooked or straight... it is all "_________". so.
White Lotus wrote:to see your nature in the clearest way is fundamentally to see emptiness. seeing emptiness does not necessarily make one a buddha. i have seen my face in emptiness and in form, but i am not a buddha. i dont know what i am. there is no I to know.
White Lotus wrote:"why replace one metaphor with another?" am i right in thinking that you shun metaphor because it evades analysis?
White Lotus wrote:does it evade analysis? perhaps metaphor could be used to stimulate analysis in the artistic mind, but close it down in the practical analytical mind.
White Lotus wrote:once again Tmingyur, i must deeply apologise for not having the time nor dedication to address each of your analytical points directly, but hope that by addressing the point of uncertainty in my mind, to learn something helpful.
love White Lotus. xxx
White Lotus wrote:please remember Tmingyur, the dharma that plays with words is not the true dharma.
White Lotus wrote:its what the words point towards that matters. no words contain it, unless it is directly tasted by the mind.
Dexing wrote:What does it mean to "see your nature"?
Bodhidharma is always saying this, e.g.; "I only talk about seeing your nature", "you must see your nature", "if you don't see your nature...", "once you see your nature...", etc..
So is it correct to say to "see your nature" means to realize that "all things appearing in the three realms come from mind", to see that is what is meant by to "see your mind", i.e. to see (to realize) the workings of your mind?
"Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real Buddha."
So to "see your real Buddha/mind/nature" is to simply be aware of all the objects of cognition, but don't follow them because they are false. Just know that they come from mind.
"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen."
So what does it mean "to see" your nature?
White Lotus wrote:will try to limit the metaphor. chuckling at your use of lock and key.
Huifeng wrote:The difference is that in the first case, it is posited that there is mind (in the sense of the manas faculty, the sixth sense organ) and objects; in the second case, it it posited that in fact both that mind and objects are arisings from the alaya-vijnana. The alaya has both "sense / subject aspect" and "object aspect", but both are arisings from alaya. Cognition that this is alaya is correct cognition, whereas the original sub / obj distinction is in correct.
1. subject + object
2. subject, no object
3. no object, therefore no subject
4. alaya (= subject aspect + object aspect)
The first stages are the fully conceptualized nature (遍計所執 parikalpita) on what is really the alaya as basis (依他起 paratantra), and the last stage is knowing the alaya for what it really is, without the conceptualization (圓成實 parinispanna). The last stage is known as "real", so it cannot be said to be nihilism. It is empty too, but empty in the sense of the absence of full conceptualization.
So, careful to make the distinction between what is actually referred to by the term "mind" in each stage or point of practice.
Users browsing this forum: Caodemarte, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests