Sudden Awakening 101

[Ted Biringer]

The reason or message of Zen is expressed here by Chinul in unambiguous terms:

The triple world is blazing in defilement as if it were a house on fire. How can you bear to tarry here and complacently undergo such long suffering? If you wish to avoid wandering in samsara there is no better way than to seek Buddhahood. If you want to become a Buddha, understand that Buddha is the mind. How can you search for the mind in the far distance? It is not outside the body. The physical body is a phantom, for it is subject to birth and death; the true mind is like space, for it neither ends nor changes. Therefore it is said, "These hundred bones will crumble and return to fire and wind. But One Thing is eternally numinous and covers heaven and earth."
Secrets On Cultivating the Mind, The Korean Approach to Zen, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF CHINUL, Translated by Robert E. Buswell Jr., p.140

In harmony with all the great Zen masters, Chinul clearly states the not so secret secret, “if you what to become a Buddha, understand that Buddha is the mind.” Once we understand that Buddha is the mind we open up to the possibility of actually recognizing this truth. For we then know where to direct our attention – or better, where not to direct our attention. Buddha is not outside us, in a book, person, spiritual tradition, etc. – Buddha is the mind. Moreover, “the mind” that “is Buddha” is not some extraordinary, mystical, esoteric, of transcendent reality apart from us – it is the normal mind as it is.

If it is the normal mind, why don’t we recognize it? While there are many dialogues and explanations about why we don’t recognize it – primarily detailing the nature and function of ignorance and delusion – a more interesting and fruitful question is, “How can we recognize it?” In short, rather than entering into a theoretical exploration, we will be better served to see if we can personally verify the truth or falsity of the assertion that this mind is Buddha. This is simpler than we might think. While there may be a considerable discrepancy among contemporary “Zen teachers” as to what such a verification entails, the classic records of Zen are, fortunately, remarkably clear and consistent.

Let’s consider a couple short examples:

[Bodhidharma] instructed Hui K’o, “Simply stop all concerns regarding outside matters; stop panting after inner matters. To enter the Way, keep your mind like a wall.”
Although Hui K’o was acquainted with many different theories regarding the mind-nature, he was not yet in accord with the Tao itself. The Master dealt only with his mistakes and did not explain to him the essence of mindlessness.
Hui K’o said, “I have already stopped my relationship with the plurality of things.”
The Master asked, “Haven’t you completely died yet?”
Hui K’o replied, No, I am not completely dead.”
The Master said, “With what can you testify that you are not completely dead?”
Hui K’o replied, “I know it clearly, clearly, all the time. It cannot be put into words.”
The Master said, “This is the mind-essence carried down from the Buddha. There is no doubt about it.”
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.71

[Hui-ming] made obeisance and said, “Lay brother, preach to me, please.”
“Since the object of your coming is the dharma,” said I [Hui-neng], “refrain from thinking of anything and keep your mind blank. I will then teach you.” When he had done this for a considerable time, I said, “When you are thinking of neither good nor evil, what is it at that particular moment, venerable sir, your real nature [literally, original face]?”
As soon as he heard this he at once became enlightened. But he further asked, “Apart from those esoteric sayings and esoteric ideas handed down by the patriarchs from generation to generation, are there any other esoteric teachings?”
“What I can tell you is not esoteric,” I replied. “If you turn your light inwardly, you will find what is esoteric within you.”
The Sutra of Hui-neng, translated by A.F. Price & Wong Mou-lam, p.71

When the Zen masters use the term “mind” in the sense that “mind is Buddha” they mean mind as it is in itself, that is, our core-subjectivity, or awareness itself. In short, they do not mean thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. – all of these are objects of mind or contents of awareness. Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.

Mind or awareness (that is Buddha) is ever-present here and now, and it is always on full blast. It is just so close we don’t notice it unless it is pointed out, thus Bodhidharma tells Hui K’o, “Simply stop all concerns regarding outside matters; stop panting after inner matters” and “keep your mind like a wall.” Hui-neng directs Hu-ming to “refrain from thinking of anything and keep your mind blank” and asks him to examine the mind when he is “neither thinking of good nor evil.” In short, the masters direct their student’s attention to that ever-present lucid awareness in which, and with which all thoughts and things are illuminated. That is the mind that is Buddha.

All Zen students are duly warned that the actual experience of “the mind” that “is Buddha” is beyond the capacity of words to convey. Unfortunately, this is often overly emphasized in ways that seem to suggest that that mind or Buddha is somehow complicated, mystical, weird, or otherwise difficult to recognize. Notice that the actual experience of “drinking water” is also beyond the capacity of words to convey. The fact that something is beyond words simply means that a conceptual understanding of something is not the thing in itself. The fact that we must actually experience Buddha to truly realize it is no stranger than the fact that we have to actually drink water to slake our thirst. In short, actually awakening to our true nature is possible for anyone with genuine aspiration to do so. It is not something that requires a unique talent, years of study and practice, or any kind of esoteric knowledge.

In reality, there is not the slightest thing that could be the source of understanding or doubt for you. Rather, you have the one thing that matters, each and every one of you! Its great function manifests without the slightest effort on your part; you are no different from the patriarch-buddhas!
Yunmen, Master Yunmen, Urs App, p.103

When Bodhidharma came from the West bringing the Zen transmission to China, he didn’t set up written or spoken formulations—he only pointed directly to the human mind.
If we speak of direct pointing, this just refers to what is inherent in everyone: the whole essence appears responsively from within the shell of ignorance. This is no different in ordinary people than in all the sages since time immemorial. It is what we call the natural, real, inherent nature, fundamentally pure, luminous and sublime. It swallows up and spits out all of space. It is a single solid realm that stands out alone, free of the senses and their objects.
Yuanwu, Zen Letters, Thomas Cleary, p.41-42

The Zen founder did not come from India to China because there is something to be transmitted. He just pointed directly to the human mind for the perception of its essence and realization of awakening. How could there be any sectarian style to be valued?
Fa-yen, The Five Houses of Zen, Thomas Cleary, p.133

There is no need to try to read some mystical mumbo jumbo into these expressions. The Zen masters are not trying to trick us – they mean exactly what they say. All that is left for us to do is to look directly at where they are pointing – this very mind here and now. Fortunately the Zen masters did not let the fact that enlightenment or Buddha cannot be conveyed by words stop them from expressing directly what this mind that is Buddha is like:

Zen study is basically to reach the fundamental and clarify the essence of mind. If you don’t reach the fundamental, you live and die in vain, misunderstanding yourself and others. As for what this fundamental essence is, your features may differ as you die and are born over and over again, but at all times there is an inherent awareness.
Keizan, Transmission of Light, Thomas Cleary, p. 136

Fundamentally, this great light is there with each and every person right where they stand—empty clear through, spiritually aware, all-pervasive, it is called the scenery of the fundamental ground.
Yuanwu, Zen Letters, Thomas Cleary

Of course, all of this is merely academic without actually putting it into practice and verifying it for ourself. Moreover, of those that do verify the truth of this, most will initially experience only a glimpse. Due to our conditioning and habitual modes of self-centeredness most of us have to diligently apply ourselves to gradual cultivation and refinement if we are to experience a genuine transformation, deepening and refining our realization throughout our lifetime. Nevertheless, an actual awakening into our true nature is the essential first step of authentic practice-realization. With this initial experience we shift from practice based on authority (books, teachers, doctrines) to practice based on awakening.

The points made here are nicely summarized by Chinul:

Chinul: First let us take sudden awakening. When the ordinary man is deluded, he assumes that the four great elements are his body and the false thoughts are his mind. He does not know that his own nature is the true dharma-body; he does not know that his own numinous awareness is the true Buddha. He looks for the Buddha outside his mind. While he is thus wandering aimlessly, the entrance to the road might by chance be pointed out by a wise advisor. If in one thought he then follows back the light [of his mind to its source] and sees his own original nature, he will discover that the ground of this nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is originally endowed with the non-outflow wisdom-nature which is not a hair's breadth different from that of all the Buddhas. Hence it is called sudden awakening.

Next let us consider gradual cultivation. Although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no different from that of the Buddhas, the beginningless habit-energies are extremely difficult to remove suddenly and so he must continue to cultivate while relying on this awakening. Through this gradual permeation, his endeavors reach completion.
Secrets On Cultivating the Mind, The Korean Approach to Zen, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF CHINUL, Translated by Robert E. Buswell Jr., p.144

In sum, sudden awakening simply refers to the realization of what we are and have been all along. It is the essential first step to authentic Zen practice. Sit down and direct your attention from what you are aware of to the very essence of awareness itself - this mind is Buddha. For nearly all of us, this awakening will need to be refined for a long time if it is to become truly stabilized in our everyday lives. Nevertheless, there is nothing stopping any of us from taking that initial first step here and now – as Linji says, “Look! Look!”

Peace,
Ted

[Astus]

When the Zen masters use the term “mind” in the sense that “mind is Buddha” they mean mind as it is in itself, that is, our core-subjectivity, or awareness itself. In short, they do not mean thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. – all of these are objects of mind or contents of awareness. Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.

If that had been the case they would have been simply mistaking consciousness for a self. For direct insight it is exactly that kind of grasping and identifying that should be immediately put an end to. How? By recognising that all five aggregates are empty, and there is no mind to be found anywhere.

[master of puppets]

Can you lean your back on the practice and have a rest?

I think it is like to be an astronaut that effected by nothing and flying freely because of the empty mind already having a rest.

[Miorita]

Thank you!
It is useful because my root guru has passed away.
My other teacher is compassionate and all loving, but he knows he did not give me the initial readings.
However, he allows me to stick around because he rescued me from feral former cult members. I thus owe him about everything.
Again, thank you!


Miorita

[narhwal90]

The missing post was due to a moderation error on my part- first post is restored. I apologize for the mistake.

[Ted Biringer]

When the Zen masters use the term “mind” in the sense that “mind is Buddha” they mean mind as it is in itself, that is, our core-subjectivity, or awareness itself. In short, they do not mean thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. – all of these are objects of mind or contents of awareness. Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.

If that had been the case they would have been simply mistaking consciousness for a self. For direct insight it is exactly that kind of grasping and identifying that should be immediately put an end to. How? By recognising that all five aggregates are empty, and there is no mind to be found anywhere.

It is the case, and they are not “mistaking consciousness for a self.” The very reason that they went to lengths to clarify what they meant by mind was to try and preempt the very kind of grasping you allude to (which was the same reason I paused to put this clarification in the original post).

As to describing the process of awakening as “recognising that all five aggregates are empty, and there is no mind to be found anywhere” – no problem. That is one way to say it. Indeed, it is almost exactly as it is expressed at the beginning of the Heart Sutra. Nevertheless, that is only one way to point at the truth. As all Zen students should know, and as I pointed out in my op, any and all words and expressions fall short of conveying the actual experience – even those of the Heart Sutra. As I also pointed out, that did not stop the Zen masters from making prolific attempts to express the point in talks and writings. Sometimes they say, with you, “There is no mind to be found anywhere” and sometimes they say the opposite – “Everything is mind.” For example:

The principle and phenomena are not different; everything is wonderful function, and there is no other principle. They all come from the mind.
For instance, though the reflections of the moon are many, the real moon is only one. Though there are many springs of water, water has only one nature. There are many phenomena in the universe, but empty space is only one. There are many principles that are spoken of, but ‘unobstructed wisdom is only one.’ Whatever is established, it all comes from One Mind. Whether constructing or sweeping away, all is sublime function; all is oneself. There is no place to stand where one leaves the Truth. The very place one stands on is the Truth; it is all one’s being. If that was not so, then who is that? All dharmas are Buddhadharmas and all dharmas are liberation. Liberation is identical with suchness: all dharmas never leave suchness. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or reclining, everything is always inconceivable function. The sutras say that the Buddha is everywhere.
Ma-tsu, Sun-Face Buddha, p.66

Of course, in the absolute sense, both are wrong. But in the realm of language both are legitimate ways of pointing to the truth.

Nevertheless, I don’t see how you could confuse my explanation (quoted in your post) as suggesting it might amount to “mistaking consciousness for a self.” In fact, my explanation was meant to clarify that consciousness (that is, our fundamental consciousness, or awareness itself) is the Buddha. I thought my explanation – in the context of the op, as well as the excerpts from the classic records provided for clarification – was pretty clear and straightforward. Perhaps this expression from Huang Po will help to clarify what I meant by saying that the “mind” in “mind is Buddha” means that “Buddha” is our awareness (or consciousness) itself – as opposed to “objects of” consciousness:

Q: At this moment, while erroneous thoughts are arising in my mind, where is the Buddha?
A: At this moment you are conscious of those erroneous thoughts. Well, your consciousness is the Buddha!
The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, John Blofeld, p.80

As the subject of the original post was “Sudden Awakening 101” my emphasis was on the fact that awakening is first and foremost awakening to the true nature of our own mind. The snippet you quoted from that post was meant to clarify what “mind” meant in that context – particularly that it did not refer to some mystical, esoteric, or otherwise extraordinary reality, but that it meant the normal mind of sentient beings – your mind and mine here and now. Here is one way Bodhidharma describes it when he is asked “what is meant by mind””

But if they don’t define it, what do they mean by mind?
You ask. That’s your mind. I answer. That’s my mind. If I had no mind, how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that’s your real mind, that’s your real buddha. This mind is buddha says the same thing. Beyond this mind you’ll never find another buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature, the absence of cause and effect, is what’s meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind, but such a place doesn’t exist.
Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine, p.9

In short, if you want awaken, that is, meet Buddha (kenbutsu), don’t look beyond your own mind here and now.

Once mortals see their nature, all attachments end. Awareness isn’t hidden. But you can only find it right now. It’s only now. If you really want to find the Way, don’t hold on to anything. Once you put an end to karma and nurture your awareness, any attachments that remain will come to an end. Understanding comes naturally. You don’t have to make any effort. But fanatics don’t understand what the buddha meant. And the harder they try, the farther they get from the Sage’s meaning. All day long they invoke buddhas and read sutras. But they remain blind to their own divine nature, and they don’t escape the Wheel.
Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine, p.35

Because it is hard for many to believe, I provided a number of quotes from the Zen records to point out the simple fact that it is this very mind that perceives that is Buddha, it is our own true nature.

Q: ‘How may we perceive our own nature?’

M: ‘That which perceives is your own nature; without it there could be no perception.’
Hui Hai, The Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening, John Blofeld

My point was to stress the fact that:

The awakening of sages lies within the normal awareness of ordinary people, but ordinary people wake up every day without ever realizing it. Even though they are awake, they are still dreaming; even though aware, they are still muddled. That is why the sages took the trouble to point it out to them, hoping that they’d seek awakening, inducing them to head for it, hoping they would attain it.
Ming-chiao, The Five Houses of Zen, Thomas Cleary, p. 112

While many seem reluctant to talk about it today, the classic masters hardly talk about anything else. Your own human mind is Buddha – awakening to that fact is enlightenment:

If you have great capacity, you won’t seek outside anymore. Right where you stand you will come forth in independent realization. When the transitory blinders of false perception have been dissolved away, the original correct perception is complete and wondrous. This is called the identity of mind and buddha.
Yuanwu, Zen Letters, Thomas Cleary, p. 70

Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, perceiving, arching your brows, blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, it’s all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the buddha.
Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine p.29

When he came from India, he transmitted only Mind-Buddha. He just pointed to the truth that the minds of all of you have from the very first been identical with the Buddha, and in no way separate from each other.
The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, John Blofeld p.78

When sentient beings realize the essence of mind, they are buddhas.
The Sutra of Hui-Neng, A. F. Price & Wong Mou-lam p.150-151

If you want to be no different from the patriarchs and buddhas, then never look for something outside yourselves.
The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi, Burton Watson, p.24

If a person wants to find buddha, he must look into his own mind, because it is there, and nowhere else, that buddha exists.
The Essential Teachings of Zen Master Hakuin, Norman Waddell, p.61

[Astus]

Nevertheless, I don’t see how you could confuse my explanation (quoted in your post) as suggesting it might amount to “mistaking consciousness for a self.” In fact, my explanation was meant to clarify that consciousness (that is, our fundamental consciousness, or awareness itself) is the Buddha.

It is because you specified mind as 'our core-subjectivity, or awareness itself. In short, they do not mean thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. – all of these are objects of mind or contents of awareness. ... mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.'

The meaning of emptiness is that there is no core, no substance, no self. Mind is a common term for a complex system of processes that arise dependent on various conditions.

'Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form.'
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 62)

To say that only an awareness apart from everything else is the buddha contradicts what you quoted from Mazu, that 'All dharmas are Buddhadharmas and all dharmas are liberation. Liberation is identical with suchness: all dhannas never leave suchness. Whether walking, standing, sitting or reclining, everything is always inconceivable function.'

You also quoted Bodhidharma's answer to the question about mind, and it also illustrates this very well: 'You ask. That’s your mind. I answer. That’s my mind. If I had no mind, how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that’s your real mind, that’s your real buddha.'

Asking, answering, those are all mental functions, not some subject/awareness merely watching in the background. An awareness apart from thoughts and feelings is without function and actually does not exist. To say that this mind is the buddha, and not something special, there is no need to exclude anything. The only issue to solve is the matter of attachment.

'If the mind grasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes and conditions, which is the meaning of birth and death. If the mind does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness.'
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 67)

And as you quoted: 'If you really want to find the Way, don’t hold on to anything.'

Huangbo warned (Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 21): 'Ordinary people grasp at [their sensory] realms, while religious persons grasp at the mind. For the mind and the realms to both be forgotten is the True Dharma. To forget the realms is relatively easy, but to forget the mind is extremely difficult. People do not dare to forget the mind, fearing that they will fall into the void (i.e., the emptiness of space) with nowhere to grab hold. They do not understand that the void is without void, that there is only one true Dharma body.'

[Ted Biringer]

Nevertheless, I don’t see how you could confuse my explanation (quoted in your post) as suggesting it might amount to “mistaking consciousness for a self.” In fact, my explanation was meant to clarify that consciousness (that is, our fundamental consciousness, or awareness itself) is the Buddha.

It is because you specified mind as 'our core-subjectivity, or awareness itself. In short, they do not mean thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. – all of these are objects of mind or contents of awareness. ... mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.'

The meaning of emptiness is that there is no core, no substance, no self. Mind is a common term for a complex system of processes that arise dependent on various conditions.

'Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form.'
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 62)

To say that only an awareness apart from everything else is the buddha contradicts what you quoted from Mazu, that 'All dharmas are Buddhadharmas and all dharmas are liberation. Liberation is identical with suchness: all dhannas never leave suchness. Whether walking, standing, sitting or reclining, everything is always inconceivable function.'

First it seems you are simply re-defining terms regardless of their original context and meaning. Once when Joshu was asked if a dog had Buddha-nature he said, “Mu” another time he said “U”. Each time his response was ‘right’ in the context of the situation. In my op I clearly pointed out what I meant by “mind” in the context of “mind is Buddha.” This was to distinguish its usage from the many other possible meanings that “mind” can have depending on the context, for instance as distinct from the meaning you apply above as “a common term for a complex system of processes that arise dependent on various conditions.” Not what I meant at all, as a reading of the op makes clear.

Next, the “meaning of emptiness” in the classic Zen records is infinitely diverse. Yes, in certain contexts it can mean, “there is no core, no substance, no self.” But it is certainly not confined to such a narrow definition. Emptiness can also be used to mean interdependence, essential nature, etc. Emptiness is also frequently used as a synonym for Buddha, suchness, reality itself, etc. etc.

Also, when Matsu says, “Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form.” He is expressing the truth in the particular context and situation in which he is in. As noted in my previous posts, this does not, however, deny the truth of Zen expressions that seem to say just the opposite. For instance, one of Matsu’s own Dharma heirs says:

Q: When there are sounds, hearing occurs. When there are no sounds, does hearing persist or not?
A: It does.
Q: When there are sounds it follows that we hear them, but how can hearing take place during the absence of sound?
A: We are now talking of that hearing which is independent of there being any sound or not. How can that be? The nature of hearing being eternal, we continue to hear whether sounds are present or not.
Q: if that is so, who or what is the hearer?
A: It is your own nature which hears and it is the inner cognizer who knows.
Hui Hai, The Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening, John Blofeld

Although Hui Hai’s teaching literally contradicts the previous words of his master – by asserting that the mind (“the nature of hearing” the “inner cognizer who knows”) does indeed persist (“continue”) in the absence of form (in this case “sounds”) – it does not mean he is denying the truth of Matsu. Each is a legitimate expression in its particular context and situation.

Finally, I did not say that only “an awareness apart from everything else is the buddha.” I believe I was pretty clear about what I meant in the op, and if not it should now be very clear in light of this post.

---------------

You also quoted Bodhidharma's answer to the question about mind, and it also illustrates this very well: 'You ask. That’s your mind. I answer. That’s my mind. If I had no mind, how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that’s your real mind, that’s your real buddha.'

Asking, answering, those are all mental functions, not some subject/awareness merely watching in the background. An awareness apart from thoughts and feelings is without function and actually does not exist. To say that this mind is the buddha, and not something special, there is no need to exclude anything. The only issue to solve is the matter of attachment.

'If the mind grasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes and conditions, which is the meaning of birth and death. If the mind does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness.'
(Sun-Face Buddha, p 67)

And as you quoted: 'If you really want to find the Way, don’t hold on to anything.'

Huangbo warned (Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 21): 'Ordinary people grasp at [their sensory] realms, while religious persons grasp at the mind. For the mind and the realms to both be forgotten is the True Dharma. To forget the realms is relatively easy, but to forget the mind is extremely difficult. People do not dare to forget the mind, fearing that they will fall into the void (i.e., the emptiness of space) with nowhere to grab hold. They do not understand that the void is without void, that there is only one true Dharma body.'

Here it seems you greatly misunderstand or misrepresent my words. I certainly did not say there was “some subject/awareness merely watching in the background” – those are your words, not mine.

Having created a straw man from my words you then assert, “An awareness apart from thoughts and feelings is without function and actually does not exist. To say that this mind is the buddha, and not something special, there is no need to exclude anything.”

First, whether you call it “an awareness”, “mind”, “Buddha-nature”, “the void”, or any other similar term it is all-inclusive – that is, whatever you might call “thoughts and feelings” are not thoughts and feelings; they are mind or Buddha-nature, etc.

Further, it is fine to say it “does not exist” as long as you mean “does not exist independently.” Otherwise it is easy to misunderstand this nihilistically.

As for the notion that my post advocated the idea that there was a “need to exclude anything”, I can only conclude that you misunderstood my attempt to assert the need to “discern” between the essence of mind, and concepts about, or objects of mind. Discerning is distinct from excluding. To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going. In the words of the Sixth Ancestor:

“Who would have thought,” I said to the patriarch, “that the essence of mind is intrinsically pure! Who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically free from becoming or annihilation! Who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically self-sufficient! Who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the essence of mind!”
The Sutra of Hui-Neng, A. F. Price & Wong Mou-lam, p.73

In short, as should be clear in context of the original post, “sudden awakening” is what it is called when we “turn the light around” or “trace the radiance back to its source” to see that while things (objects of mind) appear to come and go the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change.

Finally, as I have emphasized throughout these posts, no matter how careful we are with language, it will always fall short. The best we can hope for is to encourage people to look within and discover what has been shining there all along.

Peace,
Ted

[Astus]

In my op I clearly pointed out what I meant by “mind” in the context of “mind is Buddha.” This was to distinguish its usage from the many other possible meanings that “mind” can have depending on the context, for instance as distinct from the meaning you apply above as “a common term for a complex system of processes that arise dependent on various conditions.” Not what I meant at all, as a reading of the op makes clear.

That's very much my contention here as well. In general mind in Buddhism refers to the six (or eight) types of consciousness and the four mental aggregates. That's a complex system of processes dependent on other factors, especially as presented most commonly that consciousness arises dependent on the sense faculty and the sense object.

The op makes clear that you assume there to be a constant, independent awareness, and you named that the nature of mind to be awakened to. How is that not mistaking consciousness for a self, taking what is impermanent as permanent?

Further, it is fine to say it “does not exist” as long as you mean “does not exist independently.”

If the nature of mind is not independent, then how could it be unchanging? But then you state:

To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going.

That looks very much like a duality of a permanent awareness and impermanent objects. Then how is such an awareness not independent?

see that while things (objects of mind) appear to come and go the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change.

An unchanging subject, isn't that what is called a self?

[Pablo]

Good sons, all sentient beings' various illusions are born from the perfectly enlightened marvelous mind of the Tathāgata, just like the sky-flowers come to exist from the sky. But even though the illusory flowers vanish, the nature of the sky is indestructible. The illusory mind of sentient beings also vanishes based on illusion, and while all illusions are utterly erased, the enlightened mind is unchanged.

(from the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, tr. Muller)

I guess the important point for Zen students is to make clear, in our bones, what is this unchanged enlightened mind, or the "essence of mind" that Huineng speaks about. I don't know if much can be gained from endless discussions.

Having said that, I appreciate Astus's efforts to prevent us from falling into delude views. Thanks for that.

[Malcolm]

That looks very much like a duality of a permanent awareness and impermanent objects. Then how is such an awareness not independent?

see that while things (objects of mind) appear to come and go the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change.

An unchanging subject, isn't that what is called a self?

It’s a purusha, and Ted is basically advocating a kind crypto-Samkhya.

[xabir]

. To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going. I

What you are describing is the Shrenika false view of eternalism which Dogen refuted.


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=H6A ... 1&lpg=PA21

From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen

Question Ten:

Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.

"Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"

What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?



Answer 10:

You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.

According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.

But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.

I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.

Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?

You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.

Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.

In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.

[xabir]

In sum, sudden awakening simply refers to the realization of what we are and have been all along. It is the essential first step to authentic Zen practice. Sit down and direct your attention from what you are aware of to the very essence of awareness itself - this mind is Buddha.

I agree it is an important first step. But it is not the last and it is not what the Buddha came here to teach. Otherwise he would not be here -- the Vedas and Upanishads would have sufficed, and he would not have left his two Samkhya teachers.

First Mind is Buddha.

Then Seeing Form is Apprehending Mind, Hearing Sound is Realizing Dao. （见色明心，闻声悟道）

Then the realization of No Mind, No Buddha.

That is getting to Ma Tzu and Bodhidharma's message (especially his text The Doctrine of No Mind https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com ... harma.html ), and Hui-Neng's and Dogen's 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature'.

[master of puppets]

Sometimes they say, with you, “There is no mind to be found anywhere” and sometimes they say the opposite – “Everything is mind.”

sorry, have technical problems.was here.

simply with no mind you experience mind. same coin.
it is impossible experience mind by using mind. no mind becomes a mirror show you that your mind.
think like a motor engine, no mind (the piston) only creates the energy that which you need, that endless energy, that mahakasyapa mind.



a small note:
ı' m just trying to be a beginner,
don't take my words formally

[Ted Biringer]

In my op I clearly pointed out what I meant by “mind” in the context of “mind is Buddha.” This was to distinguish its usage from the many other possible meanings that “mind” can have depending on the context, for instance as distinct from the meaning you apply above as “a common term for a complex system of processes that arise dependent on various conditions.” Not what I meant at all, as a reading of the op makes clear.

That's very much my contention here as well. In general mind in Buddhism refers to the six (or eight) types of consciousness and the four mental aggregates. That's a complex system of processes dependent on other factors, especially as presented most commonly that consciousness arises dependent on the sense faculty and the sense object.

The context of the post (and my specific clarifications in the op and subsequent posts) makes clear that I was not talking about the “general mind in Buddhism” but mind as used by the Zen masters in context of their constant refrain “mind is Buddha.” Two very different usages of the term “mind.”
If I had been talking about mind in the sense you speak of as “consciousness arises dependent on the sense faculty and the sense object” I would have made that clear.

The op makes clear that you assume there to be a constant, independent awareness, and you named that the nature of mind to be awakened to. How is that not mistaking consciousness for a self, taking what is impermanent as permanent?

Not true. While I, in harmony with the classic Zen records, did and do describe “mind” (in the context of “mind is Buddha”) as synonymous with essential nature, fundamental awareness, etc., and do recognize it as constant, immutable, unchanging, etc. Again, “mind” (in the context of “mind is Buddha”) is constant (free from change) as I quoted earlier:

Who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the essence of mind!”
The Sutra of Hui-Neng, A. F. Price & Wong Mou-lam, p.73

And I never said or implied that it was an “independent” existent. Just the opposite. All the thoughts and things (dharmas) that do appear as coming and going, arising and ceasing, “independently” are in fact not thoughts and things but mind itself, Buddha-nature, etc. To see dharmas as somehow independent of mind is to be caught up in conceptualization – for there is only the one mind, the essential nature of our own mind here and now:

There is only the One Mind and not a particle of anything else on which to lay hold, for this Mind is the Buddha. If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge.
Huang Po, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, John Blofeld, p.31

Further, it is fine to say it “does not exist” as long as you mean “does not exist independently.”

If the nature of mind is not independent, then how could it be unchanging?
...

That is the million dollar question! Yes! The masters tell us that this cannot be described in words – we must turn the light (of our own awareness) around and verify it for ourselves. At the same time, as I have emphasized in these posts, in Zen no assertion is absolute – we could cite Zen expressions that seem to say just the opposite. It depends on the context, audience, etc. In any case, the fact that this awareness or mind is unchanging or immutable and at the same time not independent is asserted by the masters. This should be clear enough from the quotes already previously provided. While no explanation will be intellectually satisfying, Hui Hai does a wonderful job of pointing to how this is in the following dialogue:

Q: By what means do this body or mind perceive? Can they perceive with the eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and consciousness?

A: No, there are not several means of perception like that.

Q: Then, what sort of perception is involved, since it is unlike any of those already mentioned?

A: It is perception by means of your own nature (svabhava). How so? Because your own nature being essentially pure and utterly still, its immaterial and motionless ‘substance’ is capable of this perception.”’

Q: Yet, since that pure ‘substance’ cannot be found, where does such perception come from?

A: We may liken it to a bright mirror which, though it contains no forms, can nevertheless ‘perceive’ all forms. Why? Just because it is free from mental activity. If you students of the Way had minds unstained, “they would not give rise to falsehood and their attachment to the subjective ego and to objective externals would vanish; then purity would arise of itself and you would thereby be capable of such perception. The Dharmapada Sutra says: ‘To establish ourselves amid perfect voidness in a single flash is excellent wisdom indeed!’
Hui Hai, The Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening, John Blofeld

But then you state:

To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going.

That looks very much like a duality of a permanent awareness and impermanent objects. Then how is such an awareness not independent?

see that while things (objects of mind) appear to come and go the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change.

An unchanging subject, isn't that what is called a self?

Your misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my views here seems to be centered on the same point as above – you do not see, or cannot accept that mind (in context of “mind is Buddha”) cannot be both unchanging and all-inclusive. This truth can never be resolved on the conceptual level – but it can and is resolved seeing into our own nature (kensho) or seeing Buddha (kenbutsu).

The first axiom of Zen is to personally accept the completeness of present actuality. There is no other in the whole universe; it is just you. Who else would you have see? Who would you have hear? All of it is the doing of your mind monarch, fulfilling immutable knowledge. All you lack is personal acceptance of the realization. This is called opening the door of expedient methodology, to get you to trust that there is a flow of true eternity that pervades all time. There’s nothing that is not it and nothing that is it.
Hsuan-sha, The Five Houses of Zen, Thomas Cleary p.127

Peace,
Ted

[Ted Biringer]

That looks very much like a duality of a permanent awareness and impermanent objects. Then how is such an awareness not independent?

see that while things (objects of mind) appear to come and go the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change.

An unchanging subject, isn't that what is called a self?

It’s a purusha, and Ted is basically advocating a kind crypto-Samkhya.

If you read the posts you should see that is not the case at all. Please do no assert that I am "advocating" views that I am definitely not.
Thank you,
Ted

[Ted Biringer]

. To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going. I

What you are describing is the Shrenika false view of eternalism which Dogen refuted.

Dear xabir,
I am very familiar with Dogen's work and with the Shrenika view. If you read my actual posts (and not just the misrepresentations attributed to me) you will see that I am definitely not advocating the Shrenika view - or any other form of dualism.
Please be more circumspect with your claims about what I may or may not be advocating in the future.
Thank you,
Ted

[Johnny Dangerous]

Phenomena don’t even come and go, arise or cease, nor are they some separate thing from “mind”.

When someone recognizes the nature of mind, it does not have the limitation of some kind of unchanging container that changing phenomena exist within. We can separate the two for convenience, but viewing “unchanging” mind as separate from changing phenomena is an obstruction of sorts, I think.

That said, teachers talk this way all the time. I can think of lines from various prayers, practices etc. that sound like this on the surface, but it seems necessary to go beyond the most superficial meaning.

[Malcolm]

. To recognize that objects of mind (phenomena, forms, dharmas) arise and cease endlessly, while mind itself neither arises nor ceases is not to deny the reality (Buddha-nature) of such objects – just the opposite in fact. It is, in truth, the very coming and going of all transient forms that allows us to awaken to that which is ever and always free from coming and going. I

What you are describing is the Shrenika false view of eternalism which Dogen refuted.

Dear xabir,
I am very familiar with Dogen's work and with the Shrenika view. If you read my actual posts (and not just the misrepresentations attributed to me) you will see that I am definitely not advocating the Shrenika view - or any other form of dualism.
Please be more circumspect with your claims about what I may or may not be advocating in the future.
Thank you,
Ted

People only have your words to go on. Astus is quite right to fault your words, which posit a permanent knower. You made two mutually contradictory statements:

Moreover, “the mind” that “is Buddha”...is the normal mind as it is.

And:

Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.

The "normal mind" is the aggregate of consciousness. It is impermanent and it changes constantly. There is no "awareness" or "mind" that is separate from the aggregate of consciousness.

[Ted Biringer]

What you are describing is the Shrenika false view of eternalism which Dogen refuted.

Dear xabir,
I am very familiar with Dogen's work and with the Shrenika view. If you read my actual posts (and not just the misrepresentations attributed to me) you will see that I am definitely not advocating the Shrenika view - or any other form of dualism.
Please be more circumspect with your claims about what I may or may not be advocating in the future.
Thank you,
Ted

People only have your words to go on.

Yes. But those words need to be understood in context.

Astus is quite right to fault your words, which posit a permanent knower. You made two mutually contradictory statements:

Moreover, “the mind” that “is Buddha”...is the normal mind as it is.

And:

Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease.

The "normal mind" is the aggregate of consciousness. It is impermanent and it changes constantly. There is no "awareness" or "mind" that is separate from the aggregate of consciousness.

If you read the actual post rather than misrepresentations attributed to me it should be clear that I did not posit a “permanent knower.” I, in harmony with the classic Buddhist records, did and do recognize that “mind” (in context of “mind is Buddha”) is beginningless and endless. If that is what you mean by saying that it “right to fault” such words, then you are not simply refuting my words, but the words of the classic records – that is, Buddhism itself.

That which is called “the essential nature of Mind” is unborn and imperishable.
The Awakening of Faith, Yoshito Hakeda, p.32


Matsu said, “Mind is Buddha.” He also said, “Not mind, not Buddha.”

When asked if the dog had Buddha nature Joshu said “Mu,” he also said, “U.” In Zen it is important to consider the context – and also never to take any word or doctrine as absolute.

Malcolm wrote: The "normal mind" is the aggregate of consciousness. It is impermanent and it changes constantly. There is no "awareness" or "mind" that is separate from the aggregate of consciousness.

Again, as I have made perfectly clear in my posts, I am using “mind” as it is used by the Zen masters in the sense of “mind is Buddha” – not as the aggregate consciousness, but as the “normal mind” or “ordinary mind” that is our essential nature (Buddha nature, Tao, etc.). This “mind” is intrinsically free from change, and the aggregates you refer to, along with all other thoughts and things (dharmas) are actually manifestations of this essential mind. As already quoted:

Who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically free from change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the essence of mind!”
The Sutra of Hui-Neng, A. F. Price & Wong Mou-lam, p.73

If the op was not clear enough, my subsequent posts should certainly have made it clear by now. “Mind” as used by the Zen masters when they say “mind is Buddha” is the normal human mind – the ordinary mind – which is Buddha or Tao. Here is how Nan-ch’uan expressed it:

“The ordinary mind is the Tao.” And he went on to explain, “The Tao is not subject to knowing or not knowing. Knowing is delusion, not knowing is blankness. If you truly reach the genuine Tao, you will find it as vast and boundless as outer space. How can this be discussed at the level of affirmation and negation.”

Peace,
Ted