An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Discussion of meditation in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions.
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

The following quotes from a post on ‘Manipulating thoughts versus meditation’ got me thinking: Is there conscensus as to what the expression ‘to turn around’ means?
The supreme meditation method is not any technique of manipulating thoughts, being "mindful", or "staying in the moment," but rather to turn around and directly recognize the luminous*, boundless nature of one's own mind.
Meido Moore Roshi: The Rinzai Zen Way, p. 17
and
by jimmi » Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:30 am
There are not two distinct things. There is no benefit in excluding anything from the scope of meditation. Manipulating thoughts may not be the ‘supreme’ meditation but it has its time and place in the process of turning around and arriving at direct recognition.
Since I’m more on the Caodong side of the house I’ll add this early reference to turning around:
Shitou Xiqian (700-790): Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage
(from Taigen Dan Leighton with Yi Wu (2000) Cultivating the Empty Field. p. 72)

Who would proudly arrange seats, trying to entice guest?
Turn around the light to shine within, then just return.
The vast inconceivable source can't be faced or turned away from. …
Theory
I use to think that “to turn around” simply meant introspection: thinking about what I am like, thinking about what I was thinking about, thinking about what the big-self might be like, etc… I thought that of introspection could be used in meditation by noticing when I’m having a thought and then gently letting go of it (ungrasping it).

In his book Cultivating the Empty Field (p. 18) Taigen Dan Leighton says:
The backward step of turning the light to shine within, directing one's attention to observe closely one's own awareness, is a basic Zen meditation technique, called eko hensho in Japanese.
But, then later he went on (p. 20) to state:
This turning the light of attentive awareness within to see and feel the nature of one's own thinking process and the vast luminous space around and beneath these thought nodules (i.e. that which doesn't think) is a central technique of Hongzhi's meditation teaching.
I was very curious about what he meant by the second statement, but there were no references connecting it to other literature. I read his book Visions of Awakening Space and Time: Dōgen and the Lotus Sutra but found no further mention of these ideas there.

Then I read the following & it made me reevaluate what “to turn around” meant:

What’s Going On, Under the Hood?
Chan Master Sheng Yen (2006) Attaining the Way. pp. 157-158
Whichever method you use—counting the breath, huatou, shikantaza—point your attention inward; the light of awareness needs to reflect back to illuminate the mind. Therefore, while meditating you should know whether you are dull, scattered, or really on the method—this itself is cultivation.

In breath counting, for example, you will naturally be aware that you are counting your breaths. It is not a direct awareness but peripheral, indirect, unintentional. This awareness is illumination. It should be present no matter which method you use. I should make clear that illumination is not concentration. Concentration demands energy, but illumination is effortless. It rises of its own accord as a natural part of the method. It is like a mother who is busy while her child plays nearby. Although not watching the child directly, she is always aware of the child. After you have spent considerable time practicing a method, illumination will be so strong that you will no longer be aware of external stimuli. You will be close to that level beyond awareness of space and time, where thoughts are minimal and the body ceases to be a burden. This is effective practice indeed.
It’s tempting to use the term ‘conscious’ to describe our normal way of thinking, i.e., our direct awareness, & the term ‘unconscious’ for the peripheral, indirect, unintentional kind of awareness described above. The reference to the mother ‘unconsciously’ watching the child reinforces that association. But there are problems with using those terms: (1) If we are able to get a glimpse into the unconscious, it immediately becomes classified as conscious (so nothing appears to have changed). And (2) modern psychology can describe a variety of different kinds of unconscious, which would lead this discussion astray.

Finding Terms to better describe What’s Going On
Chan Master Sheng-yen & Dr John H. Crook (2002) Illuminating Silence. p. 23
The methods used are watching the breath, counting the breath, huatou practice and Silent Illumination. As will be discussed in the talks that follow, the purpose of watching and counting the breath is to focus the mind onto an intentional act so that wandering thoughts are reduced. With practice it becomes possible to shift the attention from the breath itself to the mental ‘space’ within which the experience of breathing happens. This process is sometimes described by the Chinese word t’san, which means, ‘to enter, to go into, to penetrate, to investigate’. In the current context, this means seeing the whole of a process rather than a part. It applies also to huatou practice. The huatou is a short phrase, often in the form of a question, which may be a crucial phrase from a gong’an or koan story. While an attempt to analyze the question ‘Who is dragging this old corpse along?’ may help to exhaust the mind of intellection and hence lead to a non-conceptual insight, the more direct approach is simply to witness the space in which this question moves. In Xuyun’s teaching it is the task of the trainee to shift his attention from that of a ‘guest’ to that of a ‘host’. The guest is a wandering thought, a breath or a huatou. It is the figure standing against a ground that is the host, within which the mind is gradually brought to settle.
Here’s a classical interpretation of the terms ‘guest’ and ‘host’ which have been widely used in this manner in Chinese Buddhism, and go back as far as the Surangama Sutra which was translated into Chinese no later than 730 CE.
from Shakya, J.D., Shakya, C.Y., & Cheung, U.R. (1996). Empty Cloud: The Teachings of Xu Yun. p. 34
In the Surangama Sutra, Arya Ajnatakaundinya asks [Buddha], "What is the difference between settled and transient?" He answers by giving the example of a traveler who stops at an inn. The traveler dines and sleeps and then continues on his way. He doesn’t stop and settle there at the inn, he just pays his bill and departs, resuming his journey. But what about the innkeeper? He doesn’t go anywhere. He continues to reside at the inn because that is where he lives. "I say, therefore, that the transient is the guest and the innkeeper is the host," says Arya Ajnatakaundinya.

And so we identify the ego’s myriad thoughts which rise and fall in the stream of consciousness as transients, travelers who come and go and who should not be detained with discursive examinations. Our Buddha Self is the host who lets the travelers pass without hindrance. A good host does not detain his guests with idle chatter when they are ready to depart. Therefore, just as the host does not pack up and leave with his guests, we should not follow our transient thoughts. We should simply let them pass, unobstructed.
The key point here is that the ‘guest’ is our normal, internal sequential expression of thoughts or perceptions (objects-of-thought) while the host is something that we can place our awareness ‘in,’ that watches over the activities of the ‘guest.’ The 'host' is not our train of thoughts, but something (a ‘space’, or an entity) we can shift our awareness to, that allows us to remain continually, yet indirectly aware of our practice. This awareness need not register the thoughts’ content, it just monitors their activity.

It’s important to avoid sitting and trying to look into your unconscious with your conscious mind. That would be trying to get the guest to watch over the host, just the opposite of what Master Sheng-yen & Master Xuyun recommend. That kind of work may belong on the couch, but not the pillow.

Interpretation of ‘To Turn Around’
So, I’ve come to the conclusion (lately) that the most significant meaning of the expression: “to turn around” is to shift one’s awareness from the guest to the host! This allows one to look at the guest’s action (practicing a method) from the host’s vantage point. Thus, all the basic methods of meditation (listed above) are all leading you to “Turn around the light to shine within.” (Granted, I could have expressed it in terms of ‘awareness of thoughts’ & ‘awareness of the space through which thoughts move,’ or any other set of terms that equate to the guest & host.)

Practice
Now given this interpretation of the expression “to turn around” how can we achieve it in an effective manner? This takes us back to the first quote from Chan Master Sheng Yen.

The remainder of this discussion is going to focus on this particular method of practice:
Whenever a thought occurs, be aware of it; as soon as you aware of it, it will vanish. If you remain for a long period forgetful of objects, you will naturally become unified. This is the essential art of tso-ch'an (& zazen).
According to Carl Bielefeldt (1988, Manuals of Zen Meditation. p. 181), both Tsung-tse's Ch'an-yüan ch'ing-kuei Tso-ch'an I and Dogen’s Koroku version of the Fukan zazen gi give this same instruction.

Now let’s see how the terms ‘guest’ and ‘host’ can be applied to describe this method. Normally, when having a series of thoughts your awareness stays within the thoughts: aware of each successive thought in turn. Your awareness remains with the guests.

As with naturally becoming aware of counting breaths, once you start practicing the method above, you will ‘naturally’ become aware of when a thought occurs. “It is not a direct awareness but peripheral, indirect, unintentional.” This awareness, outside of thought, is that of the host.

At this stage, the host’s awareness interrupts the guest’s. Since the guest can only be aware of one thing at a time, as soon as the guest becomes aware of the thought’s occurrence, the thought “will vanish.”

It’s common for movement in your peripheral vision to draw your attention away from where you are looking to the region of motion. This is a physically discernable example of the peripheral awareness of the host interrupting the prior attention of the guest.

People who have not practiced this or a similar method might question why the guest wouldn’t always be aware of having a thought, while being aware of the thought itself. But that simply isn’t the case in normal thinking. If it were, and what the method suggested were true, our streams of thought would constantly be cutting themselves off. To follow the method, we must rely on mind to becoming aware of whenever a thought occurs and patiently practice the method.

Completing the Turn: Strengthening Awareness within the Host
Our normal way of learning a skill (e.g., driving a car) that we will eventually perform automatically (with unconscious competence) is to consciously go through all the necessary actions in order to train the unconscious to perform the task. Ultimately, a smoothly flowing yet responsive high-level of performance is only attained through unconscious control. When we drive with unconscious competence our conscious goes along for the ride. It may observe the traffic and give its own directives. It may think about other things, listen to music, etc. But it very rarely works its way into awareness of the unconscious (awareness within the host).

The next step in meditation is to expand one’s awareness within the host, to follow Chan Master Sheng Yen’s guidance give earlier: “After you have spent considerable time practicing a method, illumination will be so strong that you will no longer be aware of external stimuli.” To achieve that kind of a result we have to transition over from just noticing having each thought to settling into watching thoughts arise, pass by, and fade away of their own accord. This allows awareness to stay with the host. Awareness of the host shifts into the foreground while awareness of the guests fades into the background. Eventually you will only have a vague awareness of the contents of the thoughts, when practicing, but you can clearly watch thoughts arise and fall away.

I would describe this approach as following Master Xuyun’s teaching to shift one’s attention from that of a ‘guest’ to the ‘host’, following the Surangama Sutra and clarified by Master Sheng Yen’s insights. In the sense that it offers a single underlying understanding that applies to a variety of Chan meditation techniques, it presents a unified-field theory (or a unified ‘empty field’ theory) for such practice.

I find it strange that the references I’ve found for shifting awareness into the host (or the space in which ‘objects-of-thought’ move) are sprinkled sparsely into the more conventional literature on practice. If anyone can point me to further references that specificially talk about shifting awareness to the host and the consequences of doing so, I would greatly appreciate it.

Shining the Light Within
As awareness works its way into the host, even in this narrow way (concerned only with watching thoughts arise and fall), it gains authority over the guests. In the early stage, the host’s awareness interrupts the guest to recognize that it’s having a thought. In the advanced stage the host can temporarily shut down the guests to produce the open samadhi of Silent Illumination, where the host’s awareness pervades the mind. (Refer to my earlier post entitled ‘Undriven-Mind: letting go of the next thought’, under Buddhism Discussion Forum > Upāya > Meditation).

Here are four more significant references to ‘turning within’:

The Surangama Sutra: translated into Chinese no later than 730 CE.
from Epstein, R., & Rounds, D. (Eds.). (2009). The Surangama Sutra: A New Translation with Excerpts from the Commentary by the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua. Buddhist Text Translation Society.
To listen wisely is to listen inside, not outside. You do not allow your mind to chase after sounds. Earlier in the Sutra, the Buddha spoke of not following the six faculties and not being influenced by them. You reverse your hearing to listen to your own true nature. Instead of listening to external sounds, you focus inwardly on your body and mind, you cease to seek outside. yourself, and you turn around the light of your attention so that it will shine within yourself. (V, 133)
Huineng: (638-713) Enlightenment of Huiming
from Taigen Dan Leighton with Yi Wu (2000) Cultivating the Empty Field. p. 100
Miraculously the burly Huiming was unable to budge them. Realizing that he truly wanted the teaching itself and not its trappings, he became Huineng's first disciple. He immediately asked Huineng for instruction, and was told to sit quietly and then without thinking of good or bad to find his original face. Huiming was awakened. He asked Huineng if there was any other essential teaching and Huineng told him to turn the light within and he would find whatever was needed.
Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091–1157)
from Taigen Dan Leighton with Yi Wu (2000) Cultivating the Empty Field. p. 33
In his Practice Instructions Hongzhi makes a similar suggestion:
… When the stains from old habits are exhausted, the original light appears, blazing through your skull, not admitting any other matters. Vast and spacious, like sky and water merging during autumn, like snow and moon having the same color, this field is without boundary, beyond direction, magnificently one entity without edge or seam. Further, when you turn within and drop off everything completely, realization occurs. Right at the time of entirely dropping off, deliberation and discussion are one thousand or ten thousand miles away.
Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)
from Gudo Wafu Nishijima & Chodo Cross (2007) Shōbōgenzō: The True Dharma-Eye
Treasury.
Appendix II Fukanzazengi (Universal Guide to the Standard Method of Zazen)
Volume I. p. 364:
"Therefore we should cease the intellectual work of studying sayings and chasing words. We should learn the backward step of turning light and reflecting. Body and mind will naturally fall away, and the original features will manifest themselves before us.”
"… Think about this concrete state beyond thinking.” “How can the state beyond thinking be thought about?” “It is different from thinking.” This is just the pivot of zazen.
“This sitting in zazen is not learning Zen concentration. It is simply the peaceful and joyful gate of Dharma. It is the practice-and-experience which perfectly realizes the state of bodhi. The universe is conspicuously realized, and restrictions and hindrances never reach it.”
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Aemilius »

Thank you! That is excellent study.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Jesse »

The supreme meditation method is not any technique of manipulating thoughts, being "mindful", or "staying in the moment," but rather to turn around and directly recognize the luminous*, boundless nature of one's own mind.
Meido Moore Roshi: The Rinzai Zen Way, p. 17
Whenever a thought occurs, be aware of it; as soon as you aware of it, it will vanish. If you remain for a long period forgetful of objects, you will naturally become unified. This is the essential art of tso-ch'an (& zazen).
This is mindfulness, so it's strange that he dismisses mindfulness as a practice.
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Jesse wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:05 am
The supreme meditation method is not any technique of manipulating thoughts, being "mindful", or "staying in the moment," but rather to turn around and directly recognize the luminous*, boundless nature of one's own mind.
Meido Moore Roshi: The Rinzai Zen Way, p. 17
Whenever a thought occurs, be aware of it; as soon as you aware of it, it will vanish. If you remain for a long period forgetful of objects, you will naturally become unified. This is the essential art of tso-ch'an (& zazen).
This is mindfulness, so it's strange that he dismisses mindfulness as a practice.
Yes, you make an excellent point. It raises a lot of questions related to that concern!
But if you look directly into what The Surangama Sutra is saying, very clearly with lots of examples, that is what one finds. As best as I can tell, Master Xuyun and Master Sheng-yen also saw it that way.

( I was going to let the dust settle before pointing that out, but you saw it right away! )
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Astus »

Let's step back and turn one's attention around to the origins of the idea of turning around, which I take to be the method known as the mindfulness of breath in six aspects coming from the Sarvastivada tradition (more on that: Mindfulness of Breathing in the Dhyāna Sūtras by Florin Deleanu). An easy reference for it is the Abhidharmakosabhasyam VI.12, where the fifth aspect is given (Poussin-Sangpo tr, vol 3, p 1905 (Pruden, vol 3, p 923)):

'Modifying (vivartana). - The practitioners modify the cognition which had the wind for its cognitive object and apply the cognition onto more and more superior wholesome roots up to and including the supreme mundane factors.'

It means that the object changes from the breath to higher qualities/dharmas, taking one to the doorstep of attainment that is the sixth aspect. Here's its description in The Sutra on the Concentration of Sitting Meditation (BDK ed, p 29-30):

'One dispenses with abiding at the gates of wind (i.e., the nostrils) and gives up the method of coarse contemplation. When one gives up the method of coarse contemplation, one knows the impermanence of the breath. This is called the “shifting” contemplation. One contemplates the impermanence of the five aggregates and also reflects on the impermanence of inhalation and exhalation. One sees that the initial breath does not come from anywhere and observes that the subsequent breath also leaves no trace. They come into being because [their] causes and conditions meet, and they cease to exist because [their] causes and conditions disperse. This is called the method of “shifting” contemplation, which removes the five obstacles [of meditation] and various defilements.'

Then we can come to Zhiyi's description that can be presumed to be the antecedent of its Chan version (The Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime, ch 2):

'As for the cultivation of turning, once one has realized that contemplation itself arises from the mind and once one has also understood that, if one continues to follow along with analysis of the objective sphere, this does not by itself directly bring about convergence with the original source, one should then turn back the direction of one’s contemplation so that one now contemplates that very mind that is engaged in contemplation.
As for this mind which engages in contemplation, from what does it arise? Is it generated by contemplative thought or is it generated by something other than contemplative thought? If it is the case that it is generated by contemplative thought, then it should also be the case that there was a pre-existing contemplation process already underway. But in the present situation, this is certainly not the case. Why not? Because there was not yet anything in the midst of the three [immediately preceding] dharmas of “counting,” “following,” “stabilization,” and so forth that was identifiable with this [process of] “contemplation.”
If it is the case that [contemplative thought] arose from a mind not involved in contemplation, is it the case that the mind not involved in contemplation generated it when [that non-contemplating thought] had already ceased or instead produced it when [that non-contemplating thought] had not yet ceased? If it is the case that it produced it when [that non-contemplating thought] had not ceased, then this would be a case of two thoughts existing simultaneously.
If [one were to posit that] it was generated by a dharma which had already ceased to exist, [one should realize that], once an extinct dharma has already disappeared, it is no longer able to generate any contemplative [thought process].
If one were to claim that it was generated from that which had ceased and yet not ceased, or if one were to go so far as to claim that it was generated from that which had neither ceased nor not ceased, in all such cases, those [antecedent causes] cannot ultimately be apprehended. One should therefore realize that the contemplative mind itself was originally unproduced. Because it was unproduced, it does not exist. Because it does not exist, it is just “empty” [of any inherent existence]. Because it is empty [of any inherent existence], there is no mind engaged in the process of contemplation.
If there is no contemplative mind, how could there be an objective sphere which serves as the object of contemplation? This perishing of both the objective sphere and the faculty of knowing is the essential factor in turning back to the source. This is the characteristic feature of the cultivation of turning.

As for the characteristic feature of the realization of turning, the wisdom of the mind opens forth and develops in a way no longer requiring one to bring to bear additional skillful effort. It carries on in a way allowing one to naturally be able to invoke analyses, turn back towards the origin, and return to the source. This is what is meant by the realization of turning.
The practitioner should realize that, if he desires to retreat into [a circumstance involving] an absence of both objective sphere and knowing faculty utterly apart from an objective sphere and a knowing faculty, he would thereby fail to leave behind being tethered to [the duality inherent in] an objective sphere and a knowing faculty. This is because, in such a case, one would still simply be coursing along in the sphere of duality-based extremes. At just such a time, one should then relinquish the gateway of turning and establish the mind in the path of purification.'
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Thank you Astus!
That gives me a lot more of connections to the earlier, foundational works.
Zhiyi (538–597 CE) never ceases to amaze me. I knew that he spelled out the practice of Silent Illumination in his Great Calming and Contemplation. Now I see from your quote that he also explained the basis for what is called “the mindfulness of breath in six aspects.” (It’s as if the Chan school had to break away so it could digest his framework a little bit at a time, recasting it more as expediant practice, than as his insightful theory-based-practice.)

I do not pretend to fully understand Zhiyi’s argument, but it is reassuring to see how he worked it through, and came to the conclusion that: “There is no mind engaged in the process of contemplation. … [And] This perishing of both the objective sphere and the faculty of knowing is the essential factor in turning back to the source.”

The question (for me) then becomes: Does ‘the shifting of awareness from the guests to the host’ trigger the “perishing of both the objective sphere and the faculty of knowing”? Based on my own limited experience, I’d say that this happens when a samadhi opens to (help) ‘clear things up.’
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Astus »

JimTempleman wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:45 pmThe question (for me) then becomes: Does ‘the shifting of awareness from the guests to the host’ trigger the “perishing of both the objective sphere and the faculty of knowing”? Based on my own limited experience, I’d say that this happens when a samadhi opens to (help) ‘clear things up.’
The position of the host is where there is no subject and object, where there is no abiding. The host does not mean the owner of the inn watching guests going around, rather it is the realm of the whole inn.
Also, on the matter of the meaning of turning the light and reflecting back (回光返照) or simply reverse-illumination/tracing back the radiance (返照), two important authors should be looked into: Dahui Zonggao and Bojo Jinul. They explain it quite well, plus check Prof. Buswell's explanations found in the introductions to his translations.

'You yourself say that your faculties are “dull”; so try this sort of reverse-illumination: the one who has the ability to know dullness — is he, after all, dull-witted? If you don’t turn the light backwards and do a reverse-illumination, and you merely perpetuate the dull-wittedness, your production of more worry and distress is piling illusion on top of illusion, adding more [unreal] flowers in the sky on top of the [unreal] flowers in the sky. Just listen to me: the one who has the ability to know that his disposition is dull is most definitely not dull. Although you must not perpetuate this “dull-wittedness,” you also must not discard this “dull-wittedness practice” [i.e., doing a reverse-illumination on dullness]. Seizing and discarding, sharpness and dullness, lie in people, not in [the true] mind. This [true] mind, and the buddhas of the three times, are of a single substance: they are non- dual. If they were to be dual, then dharma wouldn’t be the same everywhere. Receiving the teaching and transmitting mind are both unreal [i.e., students can’t receive this true mind from teachers, and teachers can’t transmit it to students]. You are seeking the true and real, but going ever more amiss. If you merely come to know that the [true] mind of the single substance and of nonduality definitely does not lie in [discriminations such as] sharp and dull, seizing and discarding, then you will see the moon and forget the finger [pointing at the moon], decisively severing [all discriminations] at the single stroke of the sword. If you further hesitate, thinking about “before” and calculating upon “after,” then it’s calculating that something “really” exists in the empty fist;385 vainly “adoring the odd and playing with strangeness” in the midst of the sense organs, sense objects, and dharmas; and falsely imprisoning oneself in the midst of the five aggregates and eighteen elements [which produce sensory experience]. You’ll never put an end to it!'
(Letters of Dahui, 14.3, p 121-122)

'The viability of all approaches to meditation, in Chinul’s view, ultimately derives from the process of tracing the radiance emanating from the mind back to its source (hoegwang panjo 廻光返照), or simply “tracing back the radiance” (panjo 返照). This concept is an essential element of the processes especially in the Hwaŏm-oriented approach of faith and understanding according to the complete and sudden teaching. Chinul employs a variety of complementary designations for this aspect of contemplation: “trace the radiance back to one’s own mind” (panjo chasim 返照自心); “trace the radiance back to one’s own nature” (panjo chasŏng 返照自性); “in one thought-moment, trace the light back and see one’s own original nature” (illyŏm hoegwang kyŏn chabonsŏng 一念廻光見自本性); “trace back and observe the qualities and functions of your own mind” (pan’gwan chasim chi tŏgyong 返觀自心之德用); “to observe and reflect on your own mind” (kwanjo chasim 觀照自心); “reflect on and view your own mind” (chogyŏn chasim 照見自心); “mirror your own mind” (kyŏng chasim 鏡自心); or simply “trace back the radiance” (panjo 返照), “contemplative reflection” (kwanjo 觀照), or even “introspection” (naejo 內照).98 Although the term hoegwang panjo can be interpreted as “reflection,” “introspection,” “counterillumination,” or even “meditation,” the more dynamic renderings I adopt here better convey, I believe, a sense of the actual gnoseological process involved.
Chinul’s Chosŏn-dynasty commentator, Yŏndam Yuil 蓮潭有一 (1720-1799), gives a succinct and precise definition of the term: “ ‘To trace back the radiance’ means to trace the radiance back to the numinous awareness (yŏngji 靈智) of one’s own mind; for this reason, it is called ‘trace back the radiance.’ It is like seeing the radiance of the sun’s rays and following it back until you see the orb of the sun itself.”'

(Introduction: Chinul’s Life, Thought, and Writings, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 2, p 62-64)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Queequeg »

Its worth looking at Zhiyi's Six Saddharma Gates (Dharmamitra unfortunately translates this as Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime, IMO erring in putting emphasis on an object - the Sublime, instead of properly contextualizing this text in the Tiantai corpus with the reference to Saddharma 妙法, as in the Saddharmapundarika Sutra ie. Lotus Sutra, and also leaving the place the gates lead to as open).

In that text, turning is contextualized within practices of Counting, Following, Stabilizing, Contemplating, Turning, and Purification. The quote Astus provided offers a glimpse, but its worth reading the rest of the text because to get a fuller understanding of turning, its helpful to contrast it against the discussion of the other steps so that we can identify what it is not.

To offer my own ham handed take - Counting, Following and Stabilization are Shamatha practices. Contemplation, Turning are Vipashyana, while Purification is the perfection of what one gains insight to in Vipashyana. In Counting, Following and Stabilization, the reflexive mind is gradually calmed. Counting is a kind of blunt practice that forces the incessant conversation in our minds to become focused on counting with that very voice... "1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, I have to do laundry, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, ..." Eventually the mind settles down, and I find Zhiyi's description spot on - the counting becomes an annoyance. At that point we drop the concepts of numbers and just follow the physical sensations of breathing. Eventually that gets cumbersome, and we transition into stabilization where the focus on the breath becomes extremely subtle. At that point, we turn to the ground of this awareness and begin examining its contours until that contemplation itself feels coarse, at which point we turn into examining the source - at which point we see all these features of the luminous mind described in the texts. Perfecting that stage, abiding in the source, we then proceed to eliminate all the subtle obstacles that prevent us from perfecting abiding in that subtle mind.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Astus,
Thank you for introducing me to Dahui Zonggao and Bojo Jinul! It’s really nice to gather these references under a common heading. I hope others appreciate it too. I do not understand why this topic is treated so ‘peripherally’ in the current literature?
Astus wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:31 amThey explain it quite well, plus check Prof. Buswell's explanations found in the introductions to his translations.
– I think your refering to a book by Robert Buswell that gives these two translations, but I don’t know the title of the book?
Astus wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:31 am The position of the host is where there is no subject and object, where there is no abiding.
True, but you don’t really notice that when awareness is ‘there,’ only when the guest looks back at the experience & starts to analyse it. I’d go so far as to say that when “there is no subject and object” there is no awareness of there being “no subject and object,” it’s just that way. Yes, there is “No-abiding” but it comes across more as a cool detachment that flows on. Now it could be that I’m only getting a ‘watered down’ version, because I didn’t make the most of it early on (because it surprised me) and it’s been a while (going on a year). Many people say it fades, but my experience is more that it comes & goes, and if I’m quiet & give it space, it will come (sometimes it’s more ‘here’ than at others).
Astus wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:31 am The host does not mean the owner of the inn watching guests going around, rather it is the realm of the whole inn.
Yes, the space (with inn).

I’ve always (since reading the Tao Te Ching) considered “the one who has the ability to know dullness” as ‘the heavy lifter’ the one who sets up the stage for consciousness to exist, and which feeds and nurtures it, albeit without being noticed.

Chinul’s list of expressions is neat. I particularly like to see “mirror your own mind” included in the list of “tracing back the radiance” expressions. Another unification!
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Queequeg wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:52 pm Its worth looking at Zhiyi's Six Saddharma Gates ...
That’s definitely on my ‘to do list.’
When I read the quote Astus gave me about the Cultivation & Realization of Turning, I wasn’t aware that it was described within a framework that starts with counting the breath. It seemed to me to apply just as well to watching thoughts arise & fall away.

The ease and directness with which Zhiyi concluded that:
the contemplative mind itself was originally unproduced. Because it was unproduced, it does not exist. Because it does not exist, it is just “empty” [of any inherent existence]. Because it is empty [of any inherent existence], there is no mind engaged in the process of contemplation.
Is most impressive! But you’re right, I skipped over too many terms that I wasn’t familiar with, so I really need to go back and get a better grounding into the development of his approach.

I also admit that the method I was using was a hybrid. I started out following the approach described by Master Sheng Yen in his book: The Method of No Method. His “Key Points in Practicing the Method” reminded me of my prior Ki-Aikido meditation practice, which I felt comfortable with. The approach he presents starts out a lot like shikantaza. After reading a number of books by Master Sheng Yen, I decided to see if I could practice the:
more ‘formless’ method of Silent Illumination in which the mind does not hold on to anything but has to maintain utter clarity. It was also stageless. He simply told us to sit and let go of everything without allowing the mind to “abide” anywhere, whether it be in sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or thought. As soon as we discovered that the mind was caught up with something, we were instructed to let it go and return to the natural clarity of awareness itself.
(IMHO) The chapter about Silent Illumination in Master Sheng Yen’s Hoofprint of the Ox, comes closest to describing this ‘formless” method. Over time I also read a number of really good books from Dogen’s side of the house, by Dainin Katagiri, Kosho Uchiyama, Shohaku Okumura, & Kobun Chino Otogawa. That drifted my practice to emphasize watching thoughts arise & fall, rather than sensations.

I appreciate your ‘crib notes’ on:
Queequeg wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:52 pm - Counting, Following and Stabilization are Shamatha practices. Contemplation, Turning are Vipashyana, while Purification is the perfection of what one gains insight to in Vipashyana. ...
It’s nice to have an overview until I get the time to read it through on my own.

The impression I’ve got from Master Sheng Yen’s texts on Silent Illumination is that (agiain IMHO) although there is supposed to be a (perfect) balance between Silence & Illumination (Shamatha & Vipashyana) it seems inevitable that the beginner has to keep emphasizing the silence to go deep enough to ‘prime the pump’ (a Ki-Aikido expression) for illumination.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Astus »

JimTempleman wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:40 pmI think your refering to a book by Robert Buswell that gives these two translations, but I don’t know the title of the book?
The second quote is from his introduction, you can download the whole book from here.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
KeithA
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 11:02 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by KeithA »

I apologize, I didn’t read every post inthe really wonderful thread (yet!), but to me “turning around” has always meant searching for the thing we call a “self”. I like to lean on Bassui’s “Talk on One Mind” for inspiration to “turn around”:
… If you want to realize your own Mind, you must first of all look into the source from which thoughts flow. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, profoundly ask yourself, "What is my own Mind?“ with an intense yearning to resolve this question. This is called "training" or "practice" or "desire for truth" or "thirst for realization.
Chinul called this “tracing back the radiance ”.

🙏
Keith
When walking, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking,
being silent, moving, being still.
At all times, in all places, without interruption - what is this?
One mind is infinite kalpas.

New Haven Zen Center
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Keith,
I was trying to be as specific as I could, without missing the boat.
My central statement was:
So, I’ve come to the conclusion (lately) that the most significant meaning of the expression: “to turn around” is to shift one’s awareness from the guest to the host!
Thus, I narrowed down from your:
KeithA wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:58 am “turning around” has always meant searching for the thing we call a “self".
To: first entering one’s awareness into “the thing we call a ‘self’.”

It fits with Bassui’s:
… If you want to realize your own Mind, you must first of all look into the source from which thoughts flow. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, profoundly ask yourself, "What is my own Mind?“ with an intense yearning to resolve this question. This is called "training" or "practice" or "desire for truth" or "thirst for realization.
As to: “looking into the source”.

And it matches Chinul's “tracing back the radiance”.
Astus cited Chinul’s expression of that & kindly showed me where I could download the excellent book: Robert Buswell’s Chinul Selected Works.
User avatar
KeithA
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 11:02 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by KeithA »

JimTempleman wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:12 pm Keith,
I was trying to be as specific as I could, without missing the boat.
My central statement was:
So, I’ve come to the conclusion (lately) that the most significant meaning of the expression: “to turn around” is to shift one’s awareness from the guest to the host!
Thus, I narrowed down from your:
KeithA wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:58 am “turning around” has always meant searching for the thing we call a “self".
To: first entering one’s awareness into “the thing we call a ‘self’.”

It fits with Bassui’s:
… If you want to realize your own Mind, you must first of all look into the source from which thoughts flow. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, profoundly ask yourself, "What is my own Mind?“ with an intense yearning to resolve this question. This is called "training" or "practice" or "desire for truth" or "thirst for realization.
As to: “looking into the source”.

And it matches Chinul's “tracing back the radiance”.
Astus cited Chinul’s expression of that & kindly showed me where I could download the excellent book: Robert Buswell’s Chinul Selected Works.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Jim. In retrospect, I probably should have read the thread, then responded. Lots of good stuff to chew on. And, I did repeat some of what was already written.

My teacher talks a lot about guest and host. In fact, the kong an I am currently assigned has much to do with this matter. Good grist for the mill!

I have to admit the line: “first entering one’s awareness into “the thing we call a ‘self’.” Isn’t a bullseye for me. I will have to give it some thought.

Thanks again for the topic.

🙏
When walking, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking,
being silent, moving, being still.
At all times, in all places, without interruption - what is this?
One mind is infinite kalpas.

New Haven Zen Center
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

KeithA wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:16 am I have to admit the line: “first entering one’s awareness into “the thing we call a ‘self’.” Isn’t a bullseye for me. I will have to give it some thought.
Yes, I have to admit I was reaching to connect with your statement:
KeithA wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:16 am to me “turning around” has always meant searching for the thing we call a “self”.
I’m much more interested to know if you uncover a problem with my saying:
JimTempleman wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:12 pm to shift one’s awareness from the guest to the host
Because that comes closer to how the experience was perceived.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated!
User avatar
oryoki
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by oryoki »

Perhaps you can add the quote below to your collection of quotes about "turning around":
Not that he can ever, no matter how refined his instruments and techniques, get to the Subject by probing into the object: to do that he has simply to turn his attention round 180 degrees. .....
Now the "hard" part begins, which is the repetition of this headless seeing-into-Nothingness till the seeing becomes quite natural and nothing special at all; till, whatever one is doing, it’s clear that nobody’s here doing it. In other words, till one’s whole life is structured round the double-barbed arrow of attention, simultaneously pointing in at the Void and out at what fills it. Such is the essential meditation of this Way.
Taken from the book: "D.E.Harding, On Having No Head, Zen and the rediscovery of the obvious"
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by Matt J »

I see it as an experiential pointer, more than a concept for analysis. I have the same issue, trying to pin down direction. But in the end, it is this trying to pin down that is the problem IME.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Thanks Oryoki!
I like how the words in your quote contrast the words I was using,
yet they are saying the same thing.
oryoki wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:07 pm Perhaps you can add the quote below to your collection of quotes about "turning around":
Not that he can ever, no matter how refined his instruments and techniques, get to the Subject by probing into the object: to do that he has simply to turn his attention round 180 degrees. .....
Now the "hard" part begins, which is the repetition of this headless seeing-into-Nothingness till the seeing becomes quite natural and nothing special at all; till, whatever one is doing, it’s clear that nobody’s here doing it. In other words, till one’s whole life is structured round the double-barbed arrow of attention, simultaneously pointing in at the Void and out at what fills it. Such is the essential meditation of this Way.
Taken from the book: "D.E.Harding, On Having No Head, Zen and the rediscovery of the obvious"
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Matt J wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:15 pm I see it as an experiential pointer, more than a concept for analysis.
Yes, I’m trying to focus the analysis entirely on things that can be performed & experienced.
Matt J wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:15 pm I have the same issue, trying to pin down direction. But in the end, it is this trying to pin down that is the problem IME.
I think I understand what your saying, that when you seek after something in silent sitting the ‘overhead’ involved in seeking (‘trying to pin’ it down) gets in the way.

I rarely encounter that problem. I usually know what I want to do during the practice period, because I’m either doing what I did yesterday, decided to do it before starting, or decided early in the practice session. Then I just focus on doing it! So, if I’m watching thoughts rise & fall, that’s all I’m doing, thought after thought. If I do it when I’m waking around the block I might notice something I look at or greet someone passing by, and then go back to watching my thoughts. I don’t start thinking about: ‘Am I really getting anywhere with this strangely introverted method' - for example. I’m not saying I never drift off course, just that I rarely get caught up in judging the method or my progress in applying the method during a 35-minute practice session.

Maybe you are raising the issue of: how do you know when you are really just watching the thoughts rise & fall in the correct way? All I can say to that is that you just keep trying your best, to do it the best you know how. And remain open to refining your method a time goes by. If you change something and it makes things clearer and/or goes more smoothly, then great! If not, go back to how you were doing it, while still keeping open to other refinements.

If I haven’t addressed what you were really asking about, then ‘try to pin it down’ a bit further with a follow-on question.
User avatar
JimTempleman
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:48 pm

Re: An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’

Post by JimTempleman »

Warning, the following post will be midly controversial towards the end, so brace yourself.
Matt J wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:15 pm I see it as an experiential pointer, more than a concept for analysis.
I have the same issue, trying to pin down direction.
But in the end, it is this trying to pin down that is the problem IME.
Another way that I can addres the ‘problem’ he raises is in terms of:
How clearly defined should the method be, that you are following?
Is it good or bad to have a clearly ‘pinned down’ method to follow?

My first reaction was to go back to Shakyamuni Buddha’s metaphor for prescribing guidance for practice, as analogous to a doctor giving a prescription for a cure. (I belive this was in the Lotus Sutra.) Viewed that way, the prescription should be as clear & precise as possible. This is made tricky by the fact that ‘patients’ has to interpret and apply the prescription within their own meditation practice. This means that it is vitally important that the method is clearly and correctly understood by the patient. And the method has to be one that the patient can apply to themself. In the body of the article introducing this thread, I sought to lay out just such a clear and attainable practice to let people to shift their awareness to the host. In general, if a method is too confusing or too demanding a simpler method should be administered, so progress can be made.

That all sounds straightforward and reasonable. But there was something bothering me, a doubt in the back of my mind. This led me to consider just the opposite case: an intentionally vague description of the method. And this led me to the interesting case that I will now describe:
-------------------------------------
Tempu Nakamura (1876–1968) was an elite, intellectual Japanese man, who travelled and studied all over the world, seeking a cure for his tuberculosis. He studied the autonomic nerves at Columbia University, and traveled to England, Germany, Belgium and France. For a period of time, he lived with the family of Sarah Bernhardt. In 1911, on his way back to Japan, he met an Indian yogi in Egypt named Kaliapa. Kaliapa assured Nakamura that if he followed his teachings (a variation of Raja Yoga and Karma Yoga) he would be cured. Nakamura went back to India with Kaliapa, who took him to a village boardering the jungle in eastern Nepal. Kaliapa pointed out some flat rocks near a waterfall surrounded by the jungle. He told Nakamura that after immersing himself in the ice-cold river every morning; he was to climb the path to the waterfall and sit there at his perch every day. These are the only specific instructions that he was given. After a while, Nakamura insisted that Kaliapa give him some form of direction. Kaliapa told him to first “listen to the voices of the earth”, and then proceed to learn to “hear the voice of heaven.”

Eventually, Nakamura became able to hear birds singing even against the “painful roar” of the waterfall. Kaliapa confirmed this as “the voices of the earth.” Still later, Nakamura was getting tired of the whole affair and took a break from sitting and layed back looking at the clouds in the sky. Then he had “the odd sensation that he is being sucked into the sky’s emptiness.” … “Nakamura sits up. What has just happened? For a fleeting moment, a moment that felt like an eternity, he has witnessed a background of absolute silence in which all the sounds of the world appeared to be framed. And in that moment, that background, the instant it was acknowledged, had become foreground. He looks around. Nothing has changed—the same river, the same forest, the same sky—yet everything has changed. The river is dancing with light, the forest is dancing with joy, the sky is a visible link to the farthest reaches of the universe. Warm tears run down his face. The world is whole, perfect, complete. Furthermore, he is inseparable from that world; he, too, is whole, perfect, complete.” – from Stephen Earle (2017) Heaven's Wind: The Life and Teachings of Nakamura Tempu-A Mind-Body Integration Pioneer. p. 148

Nakamura’s tuberculosis cleared up soon after this awakening experience. He remained there for a total of two and a half years to study and practice yoga. After returning to Japan, he went on to establish & teach the practice of Shinshin-tōitsu-dō (the way of mind and body unification). He taught Shin Shin Tōitsu-dō to Tōhei Kōichi, who later founded Shinshin-tōitsu-aikidō. (I hope to say more about that in a future post.)
--------------------------------------
So why on earth (or in heaven) would a teacher choose to give such vague instructions? (Yes, because it works; but why does it work, and is it efficient?) When I look at it from the student’s side, I think of sitting on the pillow trying to follow vague guidance and wondering if I’m on the right track, constantly seeking a better way of following the guidance, without being sure which way to turn. In other words it raises doubts about what I’m doing. Where is there value in that? So I thought of it this way: When practicing Silent Illumination, one seeks to silence the discriminating-mind (the guests) and illumninate (with) the ‘unifying-mind’ (the host). But maybe that’s not enough, maybe the teacher wants to do more than that? The teacher might want to use this conscious doubt to futher disrupt the discriminating-mind.

As Chan Master Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091–1157) put it: “You must purify, cure, grind down, or brush away all the tendencies you have fabricated into apparent habits. Then you can reside in the clear circle of brightness.” -from Taigen Dan Leighton with Yi Wu (2000) Cultivating the Empty Field. So it seems like it might be necessary to apply some form of abrasive, by throwing sand into the gears of the discriminating-mind. The doubt produced by working with an ambiguous method might serve as the abrasive.

It’s generally best to avoid adding unnecessary friction because it decreases a system’s efficiently, but if abrasion is the only means available for cleaning things up, you can’t avoid it. Are there other problems assocated with introducing doubt in one’s practice? In this case, the two opposing factors seem to be faith in one’s practice method versus doubt. In terms of the discriminating-mind its easy to see that doubt tends to undermine faith, while faith tends to overcome doubt, but what about the unifying-mind? Since: “There is no conflict in the Absolute Universe, but there is conflict in the relative world.” (Koichi Tohei Sensei’s Shokushu) the unifying-mind doesn’t generate internal friction, i.e., it doesn’t generate its own doubt. My main concern is that if the guests start to doubt what they are doing, this doubt might spread to the host! That could degrade the method’s ability to shift awareness into the host and have the host take the initiative.

Is there an alternative way of disrupting the discriminating-mind, without relying on the vague description of a method to produce doubt? I think there is! I think it is described by the third of the Four Noble Truths: The Truth of Cessation: by eliminating desire one eliminates dukkha. That’s how to disrupt the guests (without casting doubt on the host). That was at the heart of the first teaching after The Great Awakening!

I describe how to apply the Truth of Cessation to fade away one’s desire for the next thought and generate the samadhi of Silent Illumination in my post “Undriven-Mind: letting go of the next thought” on this Buddhism Discussion Forum, under Upāya > Meditation. Once awareness is firmly established in the host, even within the limited role of watching thoughts arise and pass away, the host is quite capable of clearing the inn of guests, & that is the samadhi.
Post Reply

Return to “Meditation”