Is this the discussion we go over and over?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Is this the discussion we go over and over?

Post by ardy »

Hi All - Happy New Year to you.

One of the things I have noticed here is the clash between mind [reason] and no mind. I was given a book 'Zen Masters in China' via a Christmas voucher and thought this mondo had some relevance here. This is a scan of the book so there may be minor errors in it but I did read it through but did not check it word for word against the book.

An inquirer once asked Huizhong how he could attain Buddhahood. Huizhong told him that Buddhahood was attained only by the use of "no mind" (unixin or wu-shin in the Wade-Giles Romanization). "But if no mind is used, who can attain Buddhahood?" the inquirer asked.
Hui-chung [Huizhong]: "By no-mind the task is accomplished by itself. Buddha, too, has no mind."
Inquirer: "The Buddha has wonderful ways and knows how to deliver all beings. If he had no mind, who would ever deliver all beings?"
Hui-chung: "To have no mind means to deliver all beings. If he sees any being who is to be delivered, he has a mind (yu-shin) and is surely subject to birth and death."
Inquirer: "'No-mind-ness' (wu-shin) is then already here, and how was it that the Buddha appeared in the world and left behind ever so many sermons? Is this a fiction?"
Hui-chung: "With all the teachings left by him, the Buddha is wu-shin (no-mind)."
Inquirer: "If all his teachings come from his no-mind-ness, they must be also no-teachings."
Hui-chung: "To preach is not (to preach), and not (to preach) is to preach."
Inquirer: "If his teachings come out of his no-mind-ness, is my working karma the outcome of cherishing the idea of a mind (yu-shin)'i"
Hui-chung: "In no-mind-ness there is no karma. But (as long as you refer to working out your karma) karma is already here, and your mind is subjected to birth and death. How then can there be no-mind-ness (in you)?"
Inquirer: "If no-mind-ness means Buddhahood, has your Reverence already attained Buddhahood, or not?"
Hui-chung: "When mind is not (wu), who talks about attaining Buddhahood? To think that there is something called Buddhahood which is to be attained, this is cherishing the idea of a mind (yu-shin); to cherish the idea of a mind is an attempt to accomplish something that flows out. . . ; this being so, there is no no-mind-ness here."
Inquirer: "If there is no Buddhahood to be attained, has your Reverence the Buddha-function?"
Hui-chung: "Where mind itself is not, whence its functioning?"
Inquirer: "One is then lost in outer no-ness (wu); may this not be an absolutely nihilistic view?"
Hui-chung: "From the first there is (no viewer and) no viewing; and who says this to be nihilist?"
Inquirer: "To say that from the first nothing is, is this not falling intro emptiness?"
Hui-chung: "Even emptiness is not, and where is the falling?"
Inquirer: "Both subject and object are negated (wu). Suppose a man were all of a sudden to make his appearance here and cut your head off with a sword. Is this to be considered real (yu) or not real (wu)'!"
Hui-chungi "This is not real."
Inquirer: "Pain or no pain."
Hui-chung: "Pain too is not real."
Inquirer: "Pain not being real, in what path of existence would you be reborn after death?"
Hui-chung: "No death, no birth, and no path."
Inquirer: "Having already attained the state of absolute no-ness, one is perfect master of oneself; but how would you use the mind (yung-hsin), when hunger and cold assail you?"
Hui-chung: "When hungry, I eat, and when cold I put on more clothes."
Inquirer: "If you are aware of hunger and cold, you have a mind (yu-hsin)"
Hui-chung: "I have a question for you: Has the mind you speak of as a mind a form?"
Inquirer: "The mind has no form."
Hui-chung: "If you already knew that the mind has no form, that means that from the first the mind is not, and how could you talk about having a mind?"
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is this the discussion we go over and over?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy, what I get from the above is that it is the belief in a doer or a seer (a mind) that is the problem. If one removes the personal or sense of self from the pronoun "I" and applies it to existence itself, one is suddenly enlightened to their true nature:

I, existence, am hungry so I am going to eat. I, existence, am cold so I am going to put on a coat.

A whimsical little video I made that illustrates my point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHst5wMu ... e=youtu.be
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Is this the discussion we go over and over?

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:ardy, what I get from the above is that it is the belief in a doer or a seer (a mind) that is the problem. If one removes the personal or sense of self from the pronoun "I" and applies it to existence itself, one is suddenly enlightened to their true nature:

I, existence, am hungry so I am going to eat. I, existence, am cold so I am going to put on a coat.

A whimsical little video I made that illustrates my point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHst5wMu ... e=youtu.be
Yes it is the basics of existence or as a Japanese Zen master stated when asked about compassion, 'yes this is true but do not let an old woman stand in my way if I am starving' [rough quote].

Loved your video.

My argument here is that we have many people here arguing from a rational POV and others arguing from an existential, Zen/Taoist POV. Neither will ever come to an agreement. "mind has no form, that means that from the first the mind is not".
Locked