Topic: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

[LastLegend]

Hui Neng, 6th Zen Patriarch said, “Fundamentally, there is not a thing there.” Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Hui Neng, 6th Zen Patriarch said, “Fundamentally, there is not a thing there.” Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.

So, you are saying that perhaps, the "knowing quality" and"consciousness" is (are) a thing which is there?

That's interesting.

Where is it?
.
.
.

[Astus]

Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.

He did not add that. The term knowing/awareness (zhi 知) was what Heze Shenhui and Guifeng Zongmi propagated, while others ridiculed. So the Platform Sutra (ch 8, BDK ed, p 78) says this of Shenhui: “I told you it was without name or title, but you have called it the fundamental source, the buddha-nature. You’ve just covered your head with thatch. You’ve become a follower with only discriminative understanding.”

Hyujeong wrote (Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 239-240):

'Knowing (知) and understanding (解) are the great faults of the Buddhadharma. Heze, who was an illegitimate heir of Caoqi, used them. The Vimalakīrti(nirdeśa) sūtra says, “Remove what it has.” The Lotus Sutra says, “Remove the shit and take the wages.” These are all states of knowing and understanding. For this reason knowing and understanding are obstacles to correct views, like rancid rice offered to starving ghosts, like bad water being used to pollute the field of the mind, which is not as good as looking at Zhaozhou’s character mu.'

[LastLegend]

Hui Neng, 6th Zen Patriarch said, “Fundamentally, there is not a thing there.” Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.

So, you are saying that perhaps, the "knowing quality" and"consciousness" is (are) a thing which is there?

That's interesting.

Where is it?
.
.
.

Knowing quality is without substance yet it’s present that’s our nature. It cannot be understood by concept or perception/mental image. It has no location yet automated like you are itchy and scratch fully knowing your action. When it infuses with consciousness you can’t tell which is which. But now you are able to be boss. Yet delusional thoughts and traces of self still emerge from 8th consciousness store house be very very careful here. Thoughts “I this I that” still emerge. But there are not the boss. Having a good teacher is needed for further instructions. Make great personal specific vows here!

[LastLegend]

He did not add that. The term knowing/awareness (zhi 知) was what Heze Shenhui and Guifeng Zongmi propagated, while others ridiculed. So the Platform Sutra (ch 8, BDK ed, p 78) says this of Shenhui: “I told you it was without name or title, but you have called it the fundamental source, the buddha-nature. You’ve just covered your head with thatch. You’ve become a follower with only discriminative understanding.”

True! The difference is we embody the experience. With that, anything arises in mind all we have to do is be clear!

Hyujeong wrote (Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 239-240):

'Knowing (知) and understanding (解) are the great faults of the Buddhadharma. Heze, who was an illegitimate heir of Caoqi, used them. The Vimalakīrti(nirdeśa) sūtra says, “Remove what it has.” The Lotus Sutra says, “Remove the shit and take the wages.” These are all states of knowing and understanding. For this reason knowing and understanding are obstacles to correct views, like rancid rice offered to starving ghosts, like bad water being used to pollute the field of the mind, which is not as good as looking at Zhaozhou’s character mu.'

What I was taught: we can’t remove it. That would be grasping of skandhas. So be clear is what I was taught.

[LastLegend]

It’s the case of the child meets the mother automated process but we need to get to the mother!

[LastLegend]

Bất khả tư nghị (zh. bùkěsīyì 不可思議, sa. acintya, pi. acinteyya, ja. fukashigi), cũng đọc là tác bất khả tư nghị hoặc "nan tư nghị", nghĩa là "không thể nào suy nghĩ bàn luận ra được", vượt ngoài lý luận; câu này dùng để tả cái Tuyệt đối, chỉ có ai đạt giác ngộ mới biết. Cũng gọi ngắn là bất tư nghị (不思議). Bất khả tư nghị có thể hiểu là những hiện tượng siêu hình, những kinh nghiệm cá nhân không thể dùng ngôn ngữ thông thường để diễn tả được.

Source: Wikipedia

If you can translate Mr. Astus.

[HePo]

Bất khả tư nghị (zh. bùkěsīyì 不可思議, sa. acintya, pi. acinteyya, ja. fukashigi), cũng đọc là tác bất khả tư nghị hoặc "nan tư nghị", nghĩa là "không thể nào suy nghĩ bàn luận ra được", vượt ngoài lý luận; câu này dùng để tả cái Tuyệt đối, chỉ có ai đạt giác ngộ mới biết. Cũng gọi ngắn là bất tư nghị (不思議). Bất khả tư nghị có thể hiểu là những hiện tượng siêu hình, những kinh nghiệm cá nhân không thể dùng ngôn ngữ thông thường để diễn tả được.

Source: Wikipedia

If you can translate Mr. Astus.

I am not Astus but if it helps......

Irrevocable (zh. Compensationkěsīyì 不可思議, sa. Acintya, pi. Acinteyya, ja. Fukashigi), also read as impregnable or "unsettled", meaning "it is impossible to think about it." ", beyond reason;
This sentence is used to describe the Absolute, which only one who attains enlightenment knows. Also referred to as impartial (不 思議). Irrevocable can be understood as metaphysical phenomena, personal experiences that cannot be used in ordinary language to describe.

[LastLegend]

Bất khả tư nghị (zh. bùkěsīyì 不可思議, sa. acintya, pi. acinteyya, ja. fukashigi), cũng đọc là tác bất khả tư nghị hoặc "nan tư nghị", nghĩa là "không thể nào suy nghĩ bàn luận ra được", vượt ngoài lý luận; câu này dùng để tả cái Tuyệt đối, chỉ có ai đạt giác ngộ mới biết. Cũng gọi ngắn là bất tư nghị (不思議). Bất khả tư nghị có thể hiểu là những hiện tượng siêu hình, những kinh nghiệm cá nhân không thể dùng ngôn ngữ thông thường để diễn tả được.

Source: Wikipedia

If you can translate Mr. Astus.

I am not Astus but if it helps......

Irrevocable (zh. Compensationkěsīyì 不可思議, sa. Acintya, pi. Acinteyya, ja. Fukashigi), also read as impregnable or "unsettled", meaning "it is impossible to think about it." ", beyond reason;
This sentence is used to describe the Absolute, which only one who attains enlightenment knows. Also referred to as impartial (不 思議). Irrevocable can be understood as metaphysical phenomena, personal experiences that cannot be used in ordinary language to describe.

[Astus]

anything arises in mind all we have to do is be clear!

Do you mean the method of nonthought (vô niệm 無念)?

'If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations. Just purify the fundamental mind, causing the six consciousnesses to emerge from the six [sensory] gates, [causing one to be] without defilement or heterogeneity within the six types of sensory data (literally, the “six dusts”), autonomous in the coming and going [of mental phenomena], one’s penetrating function without stagnation. This is the samādhi of prajñā, the autonomous emancipation. This is called the practice of nonthought.'
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, p 33-34)

[Astus]

If you can translate Mr. Astus.

Sorry, I don't know Vietnamese. However, the concept of inconceivable as referenced in that article is not about anything absolute but literally what cannot be conceived, as stated in the Acinteyyasutta.
As for the inconceivable as emptiness, calling the very absence of anything graspable an absolute is surely a convoluted way to speak, but not unheard of.

'[That which] has transcended the duality of being and non-being without, however, having transcended anything at all; that which is not knowledge or knowable^ not existent nor nonexistent, not one nor many, not both nor neither; [that which is] without foundation, unmanifest, inconceivable, incomparable; that which arises not, disappears not, is not to be annihilated and is not permanent, that is [Reality] which is like space [and] not within the range of words [or] knowledge. The fact of dependent co-origination is exactly what You maintain to be emptiness. Of that kind is the true principle and the Tathagata is like that.'
(Acintyastava, 37-40, tr Lindtner)

[LastLegend]

anything arises in mind all we have to do is be clear!

Do you mean the method of nonthought (vô niệm 無念)?

'If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations. Just purify the fundamental mind, causing the six consciousnesses to emerge from the six [sensory] gates, [causing one to be] without defilement or heterogeneity within the six types of sensory data (literally, the “six dusts”), autonomous in the coming and going [of mental phenomena], one’s penetrating function without stagnation. This is the samādhi of prajñā, the autonomous emancipation. This is called the practice of nonthought.'
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, p 33-34)

Correct! Except less work is needed there because it’s not really a method anymore. Here is where we learn how to walk and will be no longer subject to skandhas’ work. The best way it could be described is like an open space covering all but it’s not a thing not really space but knowing quality is present so that we still know what’s going on. The direct introduction through Zen or Tibetan is very helpful to get to clarity state and it will mature to like 5K HD view (through eyes) and eventually get to a touch down and return that would be samadhi. But as we learn to walk here, there is still seeds or delusional thoughts here from storehouse that emerge but we know how to manage them. Some people went to touch down don’t know what to, and they see it very ordinary they expect rainbow and without proper guidance, so they left. Case for my teacher, 10 years to come back to that touch touchdown. One Zen master said, “It takes me 40 years to smash it into one piece.”

It’s very ordinary yet powerful. If we want a a good compassion thought for someone, it will manifest. Good things can be manifested for others here. Very careful here because thoughts like “I this and I that” still come. Absolutely avoid getting into it with people or a big price to pay.

[LastLegend]

If you can translate Mr. Astus.

Sorry, I don't know Vietnamese. However, the concept of inconceivable as referenced in that article is not about anything absolute but literally what cannot be conceived, as stated in the Acinteyyasutta. As for the inconceivable as emptiness, calling the very absence of anything graspable an absolute is surely a convoluted way to speak, but not unheard of.

Not if we move beyond grasping of skandhas, then it’s just language and even know the work of skandhas. So it depends on where we stand. If a view is maintained by skandhas, that’s grasping. But we don’t harbor that! Also nothing is there except innate knowing/quality (not a thing) how can you maintain a view? This is why we need to get to touch down.

[LastLegend]

'[That which] has transcended the duality of being and non-being without, however, having transcended anything at all; that which is not knowledge or knowable^ not existent nor nonexistent, not one nor many, not both nor neither; [that which is] without foundation, unmanifest, inconceivable, incomparable; that which arises not, disappears not, is not to be annihilated and is not permanent, that is [Reality] which is like space [and] not within the range of words [or] knowledge. The fact of dependent co-origination is exactly what You maintain to be emptiness. Of that kind is the true principle and the Tathagata is like that.'
(Acintyastava, 37-40, tr Lindtner)

Is simply a view or the talk of actual embodiment? There is a difference. If we talk about transcending duality and all of that and likewise talking about the absences of mentioned things, it doesn’t mean on the other side we can’t embody ‘nothing.’ The reason why it’s ‘nothing’ because it’s not a thing yet it knows or any object concept imaginable. We are it! But we also always try get it with thinking concept or a location. No! We can’t even see with eyes yet through eyes everything is super clear HD if you will. It’s characteristicless but still knows the unborn knowing!. STILL KNOWS that’s all. That’s why it’s not conceivable! We are it!

[LastLegend]

It’s like when we itch we knows spontaneously to scratch without filtering through thinking, discrimination, or intention. It’s an automated knowing, but it’s not a mindless normal reflex where we don’t know. We know very clearly when itchy and hand moves to scratch.

[LastLegend]

But it manifests really well through consciousness.

[LastLegend]

There is a difference between maintaining and knowing/recognizing a view.

[Astus]

it’s not a thing yet it knows or any object concept imaginable. We are it! But we also always try get it with thinking concept or a location. No! We can’t even see with eyes yet through eyes everything is super clear HD if you will. It’s characteristicless but still knows the unborn knowing!. STILL KNOWS that’s all. That’s why it’s not conceivable! We are it!

Consciousness, i.e. what knows, is conventionally not without characteristics, as it arises with its object, and performs several functions of perceiving, interpreting, relating, etc. quite quickly. Of course, it is good practice to take the position of the observer, to distance oneself mentally from both external and internal phenomena, however, it's still just a temporary technique that eventually has to be let go of. To do that, it should eventually become clear that even the most distilled, pure, peaceful, and seemingly independent watcher/awareness/knowing/witness/mind is an unsustainable and painful identity.

[LastLegend]

it’s not a thing yet it knows or any object concept imaginable. We are it! But we also always try get it with thinking concept or a location. No! We can’t even see with eyes yet through eyes everything is super clear HD if you will. It’s characteristicless but still knows the unborn knowing!. STILL KNOWS that’s all. That’s why it’s not conceivable! We are it!

Consciousness, i.e. what knows, is conventionally not without characteristics, as it arises with its object, and performs several functions of perceiving, interpreting, relating, etc. quite quickly. Of course, it is good practice to take the position of the observer, to distance oneself mentally from both external and internal phenomena, however, it's still just a temporary technique that eventually has to be let go of. To do that, it should eventually become clear that even the most distilled, pure, peaceful, and seemingly independent watcher/awareness/knowing/witness/mind is an unsustainable and painful identity.

I understand your point. However, if you are the experience a view a thought or a perception arises, they are understood as what they are that’s all. If we maintain a view that everything is unsustainable and absences of, that’s still a view. The issue is where do we stand to propose the absences of. If we say nowhere, that’s still a view. Denial itself is still a view because that’s the work of skandhas. What we want to do is surpass skandhas.

[LastLegend]

The issue here is whether we recognize grasping such as opposing to one side and holding or creating other. That would be grasping. If thought is simply known as thought or view simply as view, then no issue but usually skandhas don’t keep it that simple.