Dharma Wheel

Guo Gu wrote:The Chan tradition does not usually refer to steps or stages. Its central teaching is that we are intrinsically awake; our mind is originally without abiding, fixations, and vexations, and its nature is without divisions and stages. This is the basis of the Chan view of sudden enlightenment. If our mind’s nature were not already free, that would imply we could become enlightened only after we practiced, which is not so. If it’s possible to gain enlightenment, then it’s possible to lose it as well.

Consider a room, which is naturally spacious. However we organize the furniture in the room will not affect its intrinsic spaciousness. We can put up walls to divide the room, but they are temporary. And whether we leave the room clean or cluttered and messy, it won’t affect its natural spaciousness. Mind is also intrinsically spacious. Although we can get caught up in our desires and aversions, our true nature is not affected by those vexations. We are inherently free.

In the Chan tradition, therefore, practice is not about producing enlightenment. You might wonder, “Then what am I doing here, practicing?” Because practice does help clean up the “furniture” in the “room.” By not attaching to your thoughts, you remove the furniture, so to speak. And once your mind is clean, instead of fixating on the chairs, tables, and so on, you see its spaciousness. Then you can let the furniture be or rearrange it any way you want—not for yourself, but for the benefit of others in the room.

Guo Gu wrote:The difference between delusion and enlightenment is only a moment away.

The difference between delusion and enlightenment is only a moment away.

Even if you understand this, you must make the most strenuous of efforts.

disjointed wrote:So,...
this is an example of a message that is lost in translation?

Last time I checked Cha'an was a highly eloquent school that had no trouble clearly laying out it's doctrine.
Obviously that did not carry over into the English because this is an unintelligible mish mash of 1000 distinct definitions being translated into the catch all "enlightenment".

oushi wrote:

Guo Gu wrote:The difference between delusion and enlightenment is only a moment away.

This is from the same article. Although, I mostly agree with what is written there, I see inconsistency which clearly shows deficiency in understanding (mine or his).

Gwenn Dana wrote:Given that only the moment is experienced, it can either be clear or deluded. The next moment may be either. And the next. And the next.

Best wishes
Gwenn

disjointed wrote: Last time I checked Cha'an was a highly eloquent school that had no trouble clearly laying out it's doctrine.

Sherab Dorje wrote:So where does this moment end and the next one begin?

disjointed wrote:So,...
this is an example of a message that is lost in translation?

Wayfarer wrote:

The difference between delusion and enlightenment is only a moment away.

... The other point is, this talk is situated in the context of serious commitment. The sentence preceding the one quoted is 'You might ask, “I’ve been practicing for ten years now—exactly when is this going to hap­pen to me?” '

So I think it is a lesson about abandoning expectations, about expecting to get something. Whereas, I think if it taken to mean that I am already enlightened, then it can easily be misconstrued as a kind of short-cut. Whereas, to quote Huang-Po, another ancient Zen luminary:

Even if you understand this, you must make the most strenuous of efforts.

So, I think - excellent article, easily misconstrued. That perhaps is why a teacher is necessary.

A practitioner should not practice buddha-dharma for his own sake, to gain fame and profit, to attain good results, or to pursue miraculous power. Practice only for the sake of the buddha-dharma.

Remember that practice is much more than following a particular method or going through stages on a path.

disjointed wrote: So,...
this is an example of a message that is lost in translation?

Last time I checked Cha'an was a highly eloquent school that had no trouble clearly laying out it's doctrine.
Obviously that did not carry over into the English because this is an unintelligible mish mash of 1000 distinct definitions being translated into the catch all "enlightenment".

Anders wrote:

disjointed wrote: Last time I checked Cha'an was a highly eloquent school that had no trouble clearly laying out it's doctrine.

I would not characterise Chan like that in a million years.

Karma Jinpa wrote:

Guo Gu wrote:The Chan tradition does not usually refer to steps or stages. Its central teaching is that we are intrinsically awake; our mind is originally without abiding, fixations, and vexations, and its nature is without divisions and stages. This is the basis of the Chan view of sudden enlightenment. If our mind’s nature were not already free, that would imply we could become enlightened only after we practiced, which is not so. If it’s possible to gain enlightenment, then it’s possible to lose it as well.

Consider a room, which is naturally spacious. However we organize the furniture in the room will not affect its intrinsic spaciousness. We can put up walls to divide the room, but they are temporary. And whether we leave the room clean or cluttered and messy, it won’t affect its natural spaciousness. Mind is also intrinsically spacious. Although we can get caught up in our desires and aversions, our true nature is not affected by those vexations. We are inherently free.

In the Chan tradition, therefore, practice is not about producing enlightenment. You might wonder, “Then what am I doing here, practicing?” Because practice does help clean up the “furniture” in the “room.” By not attaching to your thoughts, you remove the furniture, so to speak. And once your mind is clean, instead of fixating on the chairs, tables, and so on, you see its spaciousness. Then you can let the furniture be or rearrange it any way you want—not for yourself, but for the benefit of others in the room.

Huang Po says the cessation of conceptual thought requires great effort. According to the Dzogchen root text, effort only creates more suffering in Samsara. Which is correct? Somebody please tell me and explain why.

Anders wrote:

disjointed wrote: Last time I checked Cha'an was a highly eloquent school that had no trouble clearly laying out it's doctrine.

I would not characterise Chan like that in a million years.