trevor wrote:Reading the Vajra Cutter Sutra, my understanding so far is that the illusion of a thing is created by naming it - if the thing really existed, there would be no need to give it a label, because it would be evident even without name. It is named "thing", because it is not a thing. If it really were, there would be no need to make it evident by naming it at all. But that does not mean that we should try to somehow stop labeling or discriminating things, because the labeling itself does not exist (and is named labeling because it is not labeling). So I think that there is nothing to do or not do, one can just relax and the habit of believing in thingness will eventually die off, as it is seen through...
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, guys.
asunthatneversets wrote:but if as you said "it is named thing, because it is not a thing" then what is "it"?
trevor wrote:asunthatneversets wrote:but if as you said "it is named thing, because it is not a thing" then what is "it"?
It's just a way of saying, there is no need to say anything more about "it". The point is that the thing is nonexistent. What blows my mind is that not only does this understanding completely stop all conceptualizing, it even burns the bridge, because discrimination itself is treated like that. There's no way back. I just can't wrap my head around it. It's so simple that it sounds like a cheat code to me.
trevor wrote:In seeing that conceptualizing or thinking doesn't alter my state, I don't feel the need to for it and I don't expect it to make me feel better or expect a solution.
Strangely, I had a few moments of insight where thoughts were just recognized without giving them meaning. Without going into the content, I noticed that every thought plays out automatically, there's no need to do anything with them. I became confident that the thought will play out the moment I first saw it. The moments of noticing the beginnings of thoughts became just a series of uniform meaningless arisings. I was quite surprised at how fast these can occur. I started to notice moments (of clarity?) between arisings and then I found that I don't know how to tell the difference between the moment of clarity and the arising, because the recognition itself is just another meaningless arising. Then I somehow got overly excited about it and it was over Anyway, I wonder if that was the glimpse of nonduality.
Users browsing this forum: vinodh and 5 guests