Beholding the mind

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote:So you are not real and impermanent, then what makes Buddhahood permanent? Why are you always present?
What is real cannot be impermanent. What do you call Buddhahood? As for always being present, please clarify that.
By 'appears to be spontaneous," I mean something like you scratch when you itch.
That is satisfying a desire. It is quite conditioned and intentional.
Whether you recognize that you walk or not, you still walk. Whether you recognize your mind and its activity or not, they still happen. Your aware activity is your mind your nature. You are not maintaining your aware nature. Why do you maintain something that happens naturally? Your nature is aware. Your awareness is always present whether you see it or not. Is your awareness your true self? Well your awareness does not question itself whether its real or not real true or not true because it is not within the domain of language and does not operate within it.
How do you know it happens if there is no awareness of it? Is there an awareness separate from an object?
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
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote:
What is real cannot be impermanent. What do you call Buddhahood?
Are you real? Buddhahood is what a Buddha is.

From wiki:

In Buddhism, buddhahood (Sanskrit: बुद्धत्व buddhatva; Pali: बुद्धत्त buddhatta or बुद्धभाव buddhabhāva) is the state of perfect enlightenment (Sanskrit: सम्यक्सम्बोधि samyaksambodhi; Pali: सम्मासम्बोधि sammāsambodhi) attained by a buddha (/ˈbuːdə/ or /ˈbʊdə/; Sanskrit pronunciation: [ˈbud̪d̪ʱə]; Pali/Sanskrit for "awakened one").
As for always being present, please clarify that.

You were present to make a previous post. Are you not present now since your made your previous post?
That is satisfying a desire. It is quite conditioned and intentional.
Yes...it's conditioned. So if everything is conditioned, how is Buddha's teaching any good? Why should I follow Buddha's teaching?

How do you know it happens if there is no awareness of it? Is there an awareness separate from an object?
There is awareness of it, but you are not constantly aware. If you are, you are Buddha. Why is it important that awareness is separate from an object or not? Suppose that it is or suppose that it isn't, so what?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote:There is awareness of it, but you are not constantly aware. If you are, you are Buddha. Why is it important that awareness is separate from an object or not? Suppose that it is or suppose that it isn't, so what?
Previously you wrote: "Your aware activity is your mind your nature. You are not maintaining your aware nature. Why do you maintain something that happens naturally? Your nature is aware. Your awareness is always present whether you see it or not."

If it is always and unintentionally aware, how could one not be constantly aware?

If there were a separate awareness, then it could not be aware of anything, thus it were not awareness at all. If awareness were the same as the object, it would cease once the moment of consciousness of something has gone.
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
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote:
If it is always and unintentionally aware, how could one not be constantly aware?
Your subtle mind does not need to be intentional aware. While you are driving your car, are you always intentional aware that you are driving? Your subtle mind is not concerned with language because it does not operate within the domain of language. If your subtle mind is conditioned by language, then it is conditioned by appearance or object since language is referring to appearance or object. If it's conditioned, it will dissapear when object is not present. That's like saying your mind is present because a table is present. If I remove the table, does your mind dissapear?
If there were a separate awareness, then it could not be aware of anything, thus it were not awareness at all. If awareness were the same as the object, it would cease once the moment of consciousness of something has gone.
If awareness is conditioned by its object, then when the object is not present, awareness dissapears. Is this the case?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote:Your subtle mind does not need to be intentional aware. While you are driving your car, are you always intentional aware that you are driving? Your subtle mind is not concerned with language because it does not operate within the domain of language. If your subtle mind is conditioned by language, then it is conditioned by appearance or object since language is referring to appearance or object. If it's conditioned, it will dissapear when object is not present. That's like saying your mind is present because a table is present. If I remove the table, does your mind dissapear?
Where is the difference between aware and intentionally aware? If there were no intention to be conscious during driving, one could as well start reading a book or fall to sleep, not to mention that drinking and driving could pose no problem either.

What is the difference between mind and subtle mind? The Buddha talks about six consciousnesses, and neither of them are permanent nor independent. He also said: "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self." (SN 12.61) That is because the mind apparently changes moment to moment. Assuming an unaffected awareness looming above passing phenomena is the same as assuming a self.
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
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote:
Where is the difference between aware and intentionally aware? If there were no intention to be conscious during driving, one could as well start reading a book or fall to sleep, not to mention that drinking and driving could pose no problem either.
You have not answered the question: are you always intentional aware that you are driving while you are driving?

Intentional aware is with the intention to be aware. When you are not intentional aware, it does not mean your awareness dissapears. If it does, you cannot function at all.
What is the difference between mind and subtle mind? The Buddha talks about six consciousnesses, and neither of them are permanent nor independent. He also said: "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self." (SN 12.61) That is because the mind apparently changes moment to moment. Assuming an unaffected awareness looming above passing phenomena is the same as assuming a self.
The sensual mind is affected by language. The subtle mind is not affected by language, how can it be self if self is a construct of language? You only assume a self because you operate with language and you are concerned with self.

I have a problem when you say mind is conditioned. If mind is conditioned, it will disappear when conditions for it to arise are not present. I am not concerned if it's conditioned or not conditioned. Attachment is within the realm of language. Whether there is self or no self, I don't if that is true. There is a problem only when you become attached to a statement.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Astus »

LastLegend wrote:You have not answered the question: are you always intentional aware that you are driving while you are driving?
Intentional aware is with the intention to be aware. When you are not intentional aware, it does not mean your awareness dissapears. If it does, you cannot function at all.
When driving does one intend to be aware of what happens on the road? Yes. Otherwise why look forward? Unintentional awareness would be something like hearing the birds in the morning. And on the same level every sensory impression can be called unintentional most of the times, since we cannot manipulate every impression that occurs. We can also ask whether intention is intentional, or is it rather just another thought that comes up and then disappears? What we get in the end is just a series of conditioned processes without any overseer or controller.
The sensual mind is affected by language. The subtle mind is not affected by language, how can it be self if self is a construct of language? You only assume a self because you operate with language and you are concerned with self.
If there are two minds, one linguistic and one non-linguistic, then they cannot know of each other. Consequently the subtle mind you talk about is still the sensual mind. Also, since the subtle mind is originally free from language, it cannot be realised through any teaching, thus it cannot be the goal of the Buddha's teachings.
I have a problem when you say mind is conditioned. If mind is conditioned, it will disappear when conditions for it to arise are not present. I am not concerned if it's conditioned or not conditioned. Attachment is within the realm of language. Whether there is self or no self, I don't if that is true. There is a problem only when you become attached to a statement.
An unconditioned mind cannot be aware of anything conditioned. Thus it is either always aware of the same thing, or not aware at all. Because all experiences are conditioned, there cannot be an unconditioned mind that experiences any of that. What is the point of even supposing such an unconditioned mind?
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
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Wayfarer »

So is it really the case that:
Bodhidharma: The most essential method, which includes all other methods, is beholding the mind.
Means that to 'behold a mind' is to see the way the mind generates everything? It is not like 'when you see something called "the mind" then you have realized the goal'. It is more like 'beholding the working of mind' so as to understand how it operates. That is 'beholding the mind'.

I did a search on 'unconditioned mind' and got this phrase from a (non-Buddhist) teacher, which seems to say much the same:
Your mind is conditioned right through: there is no part of you which is unconditioned. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You may say a part of you -the watcher, the super-soul, the Atma- is not conditioned; but because you think about it, it is within the field of thought, therefore, it is conditioned. You can invent lots of theories about it, but the fact is that your mind is conditioned right through, the conscious as well as the unconscious, and any effort it makes to free itself is also conditioned. So what is the mind to do? Or rather, what is the state of the mind when it knows that it is conditioned and realizes that any effort it makes to uncondition itself is still conditioned?
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Yuren
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Yuren »

The Shurangama Sutra showcases various methods for "mind-observation" and points to "observing self-nature through the organ of hearing" as the most appropriate for human beings of this age. The method consists of 1) entering the stream through sound (letting all sounds come and go without fixating on any); 2) turn the organ on hearing upon itself, so that one hears hearing itself; 3) to facilitate the number (2) you should observe silence and sound and realize even silence has a specific sound; this allows you to see the essence of hearing is not sound; 4) now you "hear with the mind" instead of hearing with the ear; 5) now you have the hearer (which is like an emptiness in which hearing occurs) and something heard (the substance of hearing which is same for silence and sound), thus there is a duality; 6) this duality itself has to be let go of (the duality between subject and the object of hearing) - the emptiness is identical to the hearing; 7) now even this non-dual emptiness itself has to be let go of, the emptiness itself has to be emptied out. From my personal experience I do recommend this method.
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Dan74 »

To come back to the OP. I'm sorry to muddy the waters with my confusion. Maybe some of it is useful until an experienced person comes and sets us straight.

The state you describe MT, sounds familiar. I think I meditated like this for a few years. It's nice and kind of restful, you generally emerge feeling better than before and feeling quite unburdened, but it's not really liberating. I think it is a sort of a gap in awareness before it becomes sharp and able to perceive subtle movements, it falls into this space which is not the senses and not the nature either.

Beholding the nature is not this. To do that one has to follow one of the methods taught by our patriarchs. It's unmistakable when one sees minds nature. It must happen in varying intensities but if you want a comparison maybe it's like having been blind drunk your whole life, senses dull, head spinning, and suddenly sobering up. Except more so. And the difference is not only in clarity and awareness, but the perspective is changed.

In any case the best thing is to follow a particular practice or having the guidance of a real teacher. Meditating on ones own one can spin the wheels for decades and never set off. Or go around in circles. All too easy, IME, even with a teacher, but so much more without.

If you lean towards Soto, of course Master Dogens instructions are pertinent but I'd also look at his grand teacher, Hongji. It is a subtle practice and I don't know how many people these days can see the nature with it, seeing that our minds are so cluttered, full of notions and conceit. But there are probably great Soto teachers around who have ways.


_/|\_

Monlam Tharchin wrote:Bodhidharma and Huineng admonish us to "behold the mind," "see your nature" and so on.
Bodhidharma wrote:Student: If someone is determined to reach enlightenment, what is the most essential method he can practice?

Bodhidharma: The most essential method, which includes all other methods, is beholding the mind.

Student: But how can one method include all others?

Bodhidharma: The mind is the root from which all things grow if you can understand the mind, everything else is included. It's like the root of a tree. All a tree's fruit and flowers, branches and leaves depend on its root. If you nourish its root, a tree multiplies. If you cut its root, it dies. Those who understand the mind reach enlightenment with minimal effort. Those who don't understand the mind practice in vain. Everything good and bad comes from your own mind. To find something beyond the mind is impossible.
Huineng wrote:Those who realize this teaching do so through ‘no-thought,’ ‘no-memory,’ and ‘no-attachment.’ Don’t create a bunch of delusions. You yourself are the nature of suchness. View all dharmas with wisdom. Neither grasp nor reject them. This is the way to see your nature and become a buddha.
I would like to hear others' experience with this.

Currently, when I practice zazen, I notice that "observing" or "watching" the senses and thoughts creates a "tiring" gap. That is, experience with this intention is almost always "sound... there is listening" and it takes some effort to persist in listening. Or "thinking... now I come back from distraction and return to the body" and it takes effort as well. A lot of coming and going across that gap, and so a lot of daydreaming as well.

When I "behold the mind," I leave the senses to function by themselves. Hearing occurs without needing to listen, likewise thought and intention and so forth. They all seem to function autonomously.
Leaving the senses to themselves, there's no reference point among the senses to meditate from, such as focusing on the breath at the nostrils.
But it's also very energizing, not a dull state, and I'm not startled by loud sounds or sudden sights.
In trying to make "the mind" or "awareness" the meditation object, there's a funny experience of losing the ability to have an object. There's nothing to lean on like "listening for sounds" or "watching for distractions". "The mind" when grasped by attention this way is acutely ungraspable, so it's like putting your hand in water to grab it, and it flows cool and energizing regardless of how tight or loosely you try to grip.
It doesn't seem like some particular state because the contents are the impermanent experiences of the time.

Anyway, I've written too much and again would love to hear how others engage with "beholding the mind," "turning the light around," and so on.
It seems very hard to clearly relate these things, so don't be shy to be clumsy like me :rolleye:

Here's a quote in the spirit of my question.
Huang Po wrote:Why do they not copy me by letting each thought pass as though it were nothing, or as though it were a piece of rotten wood, a stone, or the cold ashes of a dead fire. Or else, by just making whatever slight response is suited to each occasion? … You must get away from the doctrines of existence and non-existence, for Mind is like the sun, forever in the void, shining spontaneously, shining without intending to shine. This is not something which you can accomplish without effort, but when you reach the point of clinging to nothing whatever, you will be acting as the Buddhas act.
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by 明安 Myoan »

Helpful posts, everyone, thank you.
Dan, it was fortunate I ran across that Bankei quote and now your experience says the same thing. It's a pleasant state because it's so effortless compared to trying to fix the mind upon something, which doesn't work for long and must be come out of eventually.
Since it's such a passive state, it seems easy to turn from identifying with activity (and trying to quash it) to identifying with inactivity (and trying to sustain it).

The thrust of my practice at the moment is Bodhidharma's pith instruction "If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever, and you'll succeed."
It seems like there's a constant deep desire to stop and dwell on something, a sensation, thought, or absence of those. So that's why in a previous post I enumerated the things I've seemed to try and dwell on, at some point or another.
Identifying with thoughts, finding them interesting/annoying/frustrating/alluring and so on, is the place I wind up most often.

I'll have to reflect on what LL and Astus have said before I can contribute to that conversation.
:spy:
Namu Amida Butsu
Caodemarte
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:40 am

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Caodemarte »

I am a little confused by the terms used in this thread. It seems like beholding the mind in this thread is used to mean standing outside the mind and watching it like an object. Standing outside of anything (including senses, objects, and recursive loops of standing outside and observing "standing outside and observing," etc.) seems to be what zazen practitioners try to stop doing. Am I misreading this?
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Astus wrote: If there are two minds, one linguistic and one non-linguistic, then they cannot know of each other. Consequently the subtle mind you talk about is still the sensual mind. Also, since the subtle mind is originally free from language, it cannot be realised through any teaching, thus it cannot be the goal of the Buddha's teachings.
Suppose that I don't use terms subtle and sensual. If mind does not question or declare itself to be this or that, that's when it's not attached to language. When mind operates at conceptual level in order to bring a solution, it will hold a statement to be true.

The teaching is not to create anything new. The teaching creates conditions for realization to reveal itself.
An unconditioned mind cannot be aware of anything conditioned. Thus it is either always aware of the same thing, or not aware at all. Because all experiences are conditioned, there cannot be an unconditioned mind that experiences any of that. What is the point of even supposing such an unconditioned mind?
I take issues with this because if mind is conditioned, you will be annahilated at death. Go back to intentional awareness and since you say awareness is conditioned such that it needs an object of awareness, when you become intentional aware, what particular object brings you to become intentional aware, and what object are you aware of when you are intentional aware?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Caodemarte wrote:I am a little confused by the terms used in this thread. It seems like beholding the mind in this thread is used to mean standing outside the mind and watching it like an object. Standing outside of anything (including senses, objects, and recursive loops of standing outside and observing "standing outside and observing," etc.) seems to be what zazen practitioners try to stop doing. Am I misreading this?

Right because you become the object yourself.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Dan74 »

Caodemarte wrote:I am a little confused by the terms used in this thread. It seems like beholding the mind in this thread is used to mean standing outside the mind and watching it like an object. Standing outside of anything (including senses, objects, and recursive loops of standing outside and observing "standing outside and observing," etc.) seems to be what zazen practitioners try to stop doing. Am I misreading this?
I take Bodhidharma's 'beholding the mind' to mean 'realising the nature' and resting in it while clearing the obscurations/attachments habits.

This is deep and subtle instruction. There are great materials here: https://www.upaya.org/uploads/pdfs/shik ... reader.pdf but they should be discussed with the teacher and appropriate parts integrated into practice when the time is right.
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by 明安 Myoan »

Some thoughts on this. Sorry for such long posts. :popcorn:

"Standing outside" means an initial and imprecise perception, like hearing sounds within an empty container of silence as Yuren said.
Turning towards what is the container for sound (silence) or distraction (standing outside), there's more of the same: one thing relying on another, in relationship, one end of the stick that you pick up and get the other, too. Silence has a sound relative to sound, "standing outside" is relative to becoming involved.
So turning to subtle perceptions "standing outside" or "listening to silence," I haven't found an underlying layer of perception or mental feeling that supports awareness as distinct from them. No water distinct from the waves, or man behind the curtain.
I can't find some stratum of awareness that does not include objects of awareness.
So sounds don't reach anywhere, they aren't inside or outside, they aren't absorbed into something else.
So what's happening when you try anyway?
Can I find what looking through an eyeball looks like among the objects I see?
That's the "funny pretzel" I mentioned.

At some point, there can be a restful feeling of senses functioning by themselves effortlessly. Nothing is more interesting than anything else. Pain isn't an automatic source of tension and so on.
From what Dan said and what I've read, I think this is plain old samadhi arising from concentration on a sense gate, or objectless resting. So it's not really a place to dwell, either. You have to leave at some point.

My interest now is trying to "set down" everything I pick up. To me, that is "not being fooled by appearances."
Mostly it's thoughts and memories I pick up. That is, they become obsessing, engrossing, and lead to more of the same, the entire meditation session possibly.
Being engrossed, I don't notice their impermanence, dependency, or suffering. I add labels, "I remember when James and I went hiking..." or "this agitated mind is really tiring" or "this peaceful relaxation must be the right way to go." Not in so many words, but the experience of settling into one impression, of tying together impressions and moments as continuous... memory, pain, discursive thinking, are all mini-selves.
The mind is calm, the body is relaxed, one thing: an impression of peace.
A memory of sex, the body responds, one thing: a sexual fantasy.
The body tingles, is warm, aversion, tension, one thing: pain.

So not being fooled is setting down, is losing preference. Losing preference is coming out of a dream. Coming out of a dream is seeing how memories have many gaps, how touch flickers rapidly, how sight pulses and fades... basically, how compound experiences, like "peace" or "sexual fantasy" or "seeing the wall", come apart into many non-peace, non-fantasy, non-seeing elements.
That way, appearances lose their allure on their own. There's no story in a bunch of letters. They become a story when we read them as words and sentences and paragraphs. But when you've grown up reading, it's deeply ingrained to whiz along reading whole books this way.

I can only talk about impressions and my imperfect practice.
Maybe it's inappropriate to share in an internet forum.
But I want to show what teachings can look like when clumsily attempted, because the mistakes I make are ones others will make, too :pig:
Namu Amida Butsu
User avatar
avisitor
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:03 pm

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by avisitor »

There is a problem with communication in that ..
Saying anything
Meaning is colored by feelings, memories and intent
For one like Buddhadharma, a method must lead to seeing one's original nature
It is what he has done
For others, a method is no guarantee it will lead anywhere
It is what other have done

Reading anything
Meaning is lost through words that don't carry context and feelings and memories and intent
To read the words of the masters, they become reflections of the mind reading them

When one sits in Zazen, one is returning the mind to its proper function
Instead of random thoughts of the past or the future, the mind becomes settled, calm, concentrated, clear
This clarity carries over to daily life
Then "beholding the mind" allows one to see it true functions
And still this doesn't bring about Kensho, awakening, enlightenment
Practice ... when it is perfected, it may happen
:hi:
Caodemarte
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:40 am

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by Caodemarte »

Dan74 said
I take Bodhidharma's 'beholding the mind' to mean 'realising the nature' and resting in it while clearing the obscurations/attachments habits.
Huike said, "Your disciple's mind has no peace yet. I beg you, Master,
please put it to rest."
Bodhidharma said, "Bring me your mind, and I will put it to rest."
Huike said, "I have searched for my mind, but I cannot find it."
Bodhidharma said, "I have completely put it to rest for you."

I too would think Bodhidharma would say 'beholding the mind' means 'realising the nature,' but he also said not to rest in anything (there is no place to rest) and realising the nature clears the kleshas or obscurations (or that one realises they are clear). So beholding the mind in the zen sense does not mean to watch the mind, but to realise it. This can be done by dropping everything (body and mind as others put it), not only by calming it (although tranquility may help or be a nice byproduct).

There are practices that do heavily focus on calming the mind, watch or even analyse the mind or the senses, or objects (meditation objects or sense objects), but that does not seem to be precisely zazen, although if you do them thoroughly enough you end up at the same place. The descriptions used in this thread made it appear to me that those practices and those traditions of "beholding the mind" had gotten a little confused with zazen and the zen understanding of the phrase. Hence my question over what 'beholding the mind' meant in this context. Anyway, that is how I currently (and very possibly mistakenly) behold the question from my own leaky boat.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by LastLegend »

Chan/Zen is not maintaining focus on a particular object of awareness. You are not trying to be aware of the activity, but more like you are the activity aware of itself and things happen in your surroundings such as when you hear sound, move your finger, see what you face, or blink your eyes. It's not trying to maintain a particular state of mind, more like you are a state of mind, not neccessarily fixed because you naturally shift your attention from one moment to the next. The whole package is at work and more brisk and dynamics. It's more like not this or that but this and that are not excluded.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
avisitor
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:03 pm

Re: Beholding the mind

Post by avisitor »

Monlam Tharchin wrote:I can only talk about impressions and my imperfect practice.
Maybe it's inappropriate to share in an internet forum.
But I want to show what teachings can look like when clumsily attempted, because the mistakes I make are ones others will make, too :pig:
Having a teacher can help guide one past these mistakes
And a sangha can give great encouragement to continue to practice

If one wishes to practice on one's own then asking questions on internet forums seems to be one way to get assistance.
Post Reply

Return to “Soto”