坐禅要领(一) -洪文亮老师开示
(2009-11-09 12:29:23)
转载▼
标签:
分类: 洪文亮老师
149
(转自正法眼藏论坛:http://www.hongzen.com)
录自2004年五月禅修
zhengdapang整理
打坐的要领
打坐,是你最好的老师。
你身体这样一摆,脊椎没有前俯后仰,稳稳地坐在蒲团上。呼吸,随它长,随它短。需要长的时候它自己长,不需要那么长的时候,它自己短。所以说,呼吸长,呼吸短。《阿含经》里讲的安那般那,其实大家有些地方误会了。它说,呼吸长,知呼吸长,知道的“知”。你的呼吸短,就知道你的呼吸短。那个“知”不是你起一个认识去知,“哎,我这一次呼吸长,我这一次呼吸短。” 不是那样的“知”。叫你呼吸长呼吸短,知道长知道短,你不是变成一个石头人,木头人,什么都不知道,死人一样,不是这个意思。但是,也不是起个念,“哎,我这一次呼吸长了,哦,这一次呼吸短了。”阿含经》的知呼吸短,知呼吸长,不是这样的“知”,别弄错了,又误会掉了。《阿含经》没有教你数一、数二、数三,没有哦。你去看看,它只告诉你,“知”呼吸长,“知”呼吸短,对不对!那个“知”的意思就是,不是木头人、石头人那个样子。这个意思就是“只管打坐”的要领。
身,口,意三个样子。身的样子,脊椎的姿式最重要。不是用力,不是弯腰驼背,也不是抻直起来,都不是,意加进去的都不是。口闭起来。闭起来可以念咒吗?还念佛号吗?可以吗?口闭起来,轻轻地闭起来。意,很多人就是误会在这里。哎呦,教你观心喽,观你的心从哪里来,心停在哪里。又是跑去了,跑到哪里去了。什么观心哪!释迦牟尼佛教的“身口意”三个方面的指导不是这样教的。他的意思,身口意的“意”,是教你这样静坐,坐禅,心念来了心念去,你不要欢迎它,也不要去排斥它。不迎不拒,不理它,有一个“不理”在那里,已经不对了。有一个“不理”这个念头,那就已经起个念头去“不理”了嘛!所以,真正的让你的心念来去自由,念头上来念头去。但是,不是死掉,也不是昏沉过去了。
怀奘不是说吗,“众生的本有,万法的全体”。心念是不是万法之一呀?就好像眼睛照到有相,眼睛就有相现。耳朵听到有声音,耳朵就有响。意根由法尘现,就有法相。念头来去是万法之一呀!万法的全身哪,全体的身,全身,那是你自己的光明藏啊!念头的来,念头本身是你的光明藏的作用,你的光明本身,你怎么知道有念头来去呀?还要在那里起个念头去观,不是矛盾吗?还有的人是,“哦,我知道有念头来了。好,不迎,不要去欢迎它,不要随它,也不要去排斥它。”以为不迎不拒是做意根的、身口意方面的“意”方面的用功,错掉了!
150
当念头本身的来去,念头本身是你自己的光明的作用,光明的动。光明本身的作用,是你本身,全身,万法的全身嘛!这个时候你起了个念头,“哦,有个念头,不要去碰它”,这个已经是分别意识了。但是,这个念头起以前的那个念头是自然的,是你本来的光明藏,你的光明的本身的作用。这样起的时候,你根本不知道这个(念头),那个(念头),这个时候你根本不知道哦!因为我们习惯性地会生起分别意识,“哎…哦,哦,你这个念头…”在这个以前的,所以叫做“父母未生前”,还没有预兆以前。所以,因为你的意识知道念头来了,这个刹那之间,你前面那个“未生前”的那个就,你就“哦!原来是这样!”识的境界跟“父母未生前”,连念头都不知道念头的时候,光是念头,是你的光明在动的时候,这个一刹那,这个时候开悟的人也有,但太少太少,这比有光出现看到东西,或听到了声音而把你的我执打断还不容易,很少很稀有。大概是过去宿世因缘,过去已经相当成就,生下来就有这本事。否则的话,这个……念头本身是你的光明的作用,跟你去认到这个念头不同哎!体会的出吗?了解吗?光是了解没有用,所以要打坐!所以要打坐!!!
密在汝边
念佛号表示尊敬,表示希望,表示期望,将来能够到净土,到佛菩萨旁边。对他尊敬是好,但是,这个不都是你的“识”的境界吗?现在声音在响,念佛号还是念别的什么的,声音在那边呢还是在你这边?如果声音在那边,你这里听不到吗?如果声音是在这里呢?跟他们又不相干哪!你这里生起就好!也不能说那边也不能说这边生起。但是有啊!这个叫“无生之生”,“没有而有”。这是用道理讲的。本来不用道理嘛!你现在是用耳朵,你问耳朵,就是这样啊!“无生而生”就是这样,还讲道理吗?象那个声音不是“无生而生”吗?谁生了它?你去想就不是在打坐。那边响,就有声音在耳边响。那边念的人是他的光明在动,这边你听了是你的光明在这里动,就这样子。这是方便讲“你”的光明“他”的光明,其实是本身,光明,光明藏,法界本身的动。
所以有人问六祖,佛法最秘密的在哪里,告诉我。最宝贵的,最神秘的要旨,请六祖告诉我。六祖怎么说,大家都知道。他说“密在你那边”。秘密在你那边!很多人都把这个话简单地解释过去了。他说“秘密啊,真正的秘密不在我这里,也不在别人手里,所有秘密都在你那边”。听懂了吗?这样有什么用啊!等于没有讲。“密在你那边”,六祖的意思,真义是什么意思知道吗?各位!
现在是不是听到声音,远处传来念经的声音。这个声音谁造出来的?在什么地方造出来的?工厂在哪里?你怎么能会听呢?都不知道!能听的力量从哪里发出来的?不知道,但是在听啊!所以这个叫做“不知”的,也就是我们自己不知道不上我们意识的东西和我们最亲不过,最亲密——亲密的“密”,这个不是秘密的“秘”——当然也是秘密了。其实是最亲密的意思。跟
151
你最亲密,那是你的实相。不知最亲密,所以“密”在你那边。听,看,感觉,知道,怎么能知道?你动了哪个地方才能知道?佛也不知道。不知最亲,最真实。所以说,“密”在你那边,六祖的意思是这样。
盘腿盘久了会痛会酸麻,这个酸麻从哪里生起?不知耶。不知,但是会酸会麻耶,会受不了。把腿放开了也就好了,痛没有了,麻也没有了。这个“痛”怎么除掉的你知道吗?你怎么把这个痛麻除掉?你也不知道!“不知”最亲,最密,是我们的实在的样子。我们每一刻都是真实的活着,没有一点虚假,没有一点幻。是自己想歪了,那才是问题。其实我们都是“真实”。
《金刚经》里的四相
好,最后讲一点,大家最熟悉的《金刚经》。高雄来的朋友也许听过,你复习一下。《金刚经》说,大家记得的一句话,很重要,是什么,“我相,人相,众生相,寿者相”。《金刚经》说这四个相是我们想错出来的相,是我们的错觉的样子,错的太离谱了。《金刚经》里头提出来,严重的错误的样子大概有四种:一个是没有“我”,你偏偏要认为有“我”,“我相”。有了“我相”之后呢,自然不是“我”就是“你”了嘛!“人相”。因为先有我相啊!那,不是我的,就是对方,对方是“人相”。“我相”“人相”出来了。“众生相”呢?很多人说,I是“我相”,you是“人相”,“众生相”是they。这只是一种说法了,不究竟。“我相”可以说是主subject,“人相”呢?object 客。“主、客”,“能、所”。知道吗?有了“能”,一定有下面的“所”。有了“主”,就有相对的“客”。“能、所”,“主、客”,“我、人”,这都是“我相、人相”的代号了,都是一样的意思,subject and object。
那么“众生相”是什么?比方说,我这里“啪”(师用力击掌),有没有声音,各位?有了。在各位耳边都响起来,有一个我拍手的声音。我请问各位,声音本身,这个声音哪,sound也可以,我发出的voice也可以。这个上头有没有“能所”?你听到的声音,这个声音上有没有“能”跟“所”在里面?你听到的声音哪,而且是被你听到的声音,才叫做声音是不是?只是你能听的不能称其为声吧,没有“所”的声,哪有这样的声音!但是,光是被你听到的声音,“所”,有了“所”,你没有能听的“能”,你怎么听到的。所以声音本身呢,本来就是声音而已,没有“能、所”之分对不对!哪有“能、所”之分,在哪里分呀?在哪里mix?声音本身没有办法分“能、所”,对不对,我有没有骗你?你告诉我,你听到的声音里有“你能听的”跟“被你听到的”我的声音在哪里碰头,在哪里交汇,在哪里混合,分得出来吗?可是光是能听不成其声,光是所听那你听到了什么?没有能所。但声音就是这样哦、呜、哎、啊、咿……那么明显,这声音上头没有能所。这个you can prove by yourself。这是很明历历的事嘛!声音是没有能所的,没有能所的是不属于我相人相哦!那么,我们把它叫做什么?这个才叫做“众生相”。声音如是,色相是不是?你看到的相,相上有没有“你能看到的”跟“被你看到的”?混在什么地
152
方?相就是相。没有办法分成你能看的“能”跟被你看到的“相”在哪里交汇,才变成一个相。有没有?没有。不能分能所,能看所看不能分,跟能听所听不能分一样。所以呢,相就是相,没有能所,所以叫众生相。不是我相,不是人相,所以叫众生相。所以声音也是众生相,色相也是众生相。痛啊、麻啊也是众生相,舒服啊那个“觉”也是众生相。“知道啊”,你知道什么?你说知道这个、那个,知道的那个内容。能知的跟被你所知的两个没有碰在一起,你知道什么东西呀?所以连“知”也是没有能所。色声香味触法,色是色,声是声音,香味是香,味道是味。色声香味触法各个不同哎!但是,不同的这些色声香味触法各个没有能所,找不出能所。但是有那么多“众生”,很多啊,色、声、香、味、触、法,各个不同——众生相。
好了,最后他讲什么?寿者相。嗨呀,我们这修修修的,声音没有能所,色相没有能所,我们误会有个我去看到这个色相,啊,那是根本的错误!但是奇怪,色是色啊,声音是声音啊,触觉是触觉啊,思想是思想啊,虽然没有能所,各个独立存在,所以众生相。对不对?好了,于是认为色相有色相的本体,有一个体,现出这个色相。我们总是认为它是从某一个…它一定有出生点、制造厂、工厂制造出来的,一定要有个原点、出生点。知道吗?一定要有出生点我们才心服。这个“一定要有个出生点”,一定由这个东西里生出来的迷知、妄想,这个叫什么?寿者相!这个东西不好处理。你知道色声香味触法都是没有能所的,但是它各个都好象真的有。到了这个时候,那修道的人,你慢慢能清楚到了这里,有的人莫名其妙的念头,越来越少、越来越淡。但是呢,还挂在这里,执著每一样存在都是真的存在,有它的来点,有它的出生点——这就是法执!所谓佛见、法见都是这个寿者相。这个寿者相怎么断?凭你聪明的大头脑,一千万个爱因斯坦的头脑都断不了。想不通的。什么方法能断?请你的两只腿跟你的腰部、臀部靠坐垫,好好稳稳地坐--下--去。不要去卖弄你的聪明,卖弄你的思想,卖弄你的感情,那感情更不用说了!这样你才能知道,原来这个寿者相都是假的啊!一定要一个出生点吗?所有生出来的东西一定要有体吗?
所以禅宗祖师常常叫你参,参什么?“父母未生前”。我们都认为是爸爸妈妈生我的,没有爸爸妈妈就没有我,一般的人都这样讲。那他就问,既然你认为爸爸妈妈没有的话,我就不存在,我就没有,一般都是这样,这样正确啊。好了,你爸爸妈妈还没有出生,还没有投胎以前,爸爸还没有出生,妈妈还没有出生,这个时候,你在哪里?你在哪里!怎么想,你怎么去想这个问题?怎么想也想不通的。但是奇怪,那你从哪里来?明明是爸爸妈妈的关系我才有啊!那爸爸妈妈还没出生以前我躲在哪里呀?天涯海角去找,“上穷碧落下黄泉”,到处找,找不到。禅宗祖师爷的问题,答案是什么?知道吗?问你的“只管打坐”。《金刚经》的四相那么清楚,你看看很多解说四相的,唉,文学作品一大堆,但看不到一篇屁股用功出来的作品。唉,头好大!
谁在打坐
153
大家学佛啊,很喜欢学神奇的、新奇的、很特殊的,很喜欢学这些,很少很少人喜欢去参这个“光明”。光明是你的本体、你的实相,很少人去理会这个。光明时时处处在动,都是你本身的光明在动。不去参这个,去参那个神奇的、奇奇怪怪的、很复杂的、很特殊的。人家不会的我会的,荷呦,时轮金刚呦,灌顶喔,插草喔,观想喔,这个叫做什么?“贪看天上月,失却手中珠”。有一天有人发飙,吃饭的时候,有人讲到这个,他就说,“天上月是假,手中珠也是假,两个都是不存在。”你看,用头脑去读宏智禅师的诗偈,不盘腿,光是用头脑。宏智禅师是慈悲啊,是用这个比方讲的。你自己本身在那里动,你自己就是光明,用这个比方讲的,他还做文章起来了“月亮不是真的有,手中珠也不是真的有。”那你现在讲的是真讲还是假讲。唉,喜欢用头脑的人就是专门找这个……
我请问各位呀,到底谁在打坐?谁呀?查得出来吗?谁在打坐?有的人会说,《金刚经》说没有我相,所以不敢讲“我”在打坐,所以他一定会说“没有一个我在打坐”。来了一个“没有我”!前面是有个“我”,想想不对,那么回答,“没有我”,没有这样子一个“我”在打坐。“我”也不对,“没有我”也不对,为什么?有个我,没有个我,“有”跟“没有”都是你的想法。同样道理,生和死,有一个生的叫做“生”,没有那个生的就叫“死”。等于是“有生”跟“没有生”,我们叫“生”跟“死”。还不是一样和“有”跟“没有”上头讲道理?那么,到底什么东西在打坐?不能用“我”。“我”也不对,“没有我”也不对,但是在打坐啊!那何物在打坐?什么东西在打坐?怎么办?有些高明一点的禅师,象择木兴道,他有的时候是为了开导说“打坐在打坐”,为了方便才这样讲。因为他是过来人,他怎么讲都对。或者用英文讲the universe is universing ,宇宙在坐宇宙,宇宙在宇宙。有的人听了会更莫名其妙。
各位一边听一边用功,如果不想听,从左边耳朵到右边耳朵溜过去就是了,不要抓住喽!我不是上佛学课。听了就算了,有点用处你自己知道。那个声音,外面那个叫的汽车声,跟我现在讲佛法,所谓的佛学的道理,等-同-价-值。没有分高低啊!不是我现在讲的才是佛法,外面那个叫的不是佛法,冷气机的这个声音也正在说法。哪有象穿袈裟、威严、上台、宝座,然后讲“诸行无常”这才是佛法。唉,永远也找不到,永远莫名其妙,把佛的真正宝贵的佛法都误解掉了。
大家知道,石头禅师的大弟子,药山大师。有人问他打坐的要领,怎么打坐才对呀?药山简单扼要的说…怎么打坐他怎么讲?药山禅师不是教你,哦,一呼一吸,一吸进去,念阿弥,吐气,念陀佛。吸进,阿弥,吐气,陀佛,那么任脉、督脉那样慢慢转,慢慢转……他才不会教你这种马戏团的戏法。他只告诉学生,怎么说?“思量个不思量的”。嘿,问题来了。思量,就是要想啊!想一个什么东西,他叫我们想打坐的时候的要领,“思量个不思量的”,想那个不想的。既然不想那你叫我怎么去想“那个不想的”呢?所以听不懂。一般的人会觉得很矛盾,你这
154
个药山禅师怎么搞的,一头雾水。药山说,你不懂啊?我再告诉你,怎么打坐,怎么用功——非思量!三个字,“非思量”。
非思量
好了,喜欢在经典里转,没有接触到正法的,那一滴的味道都没有尝过的人马上怎么解释?哎,听过我好像下午介绍过,上午也说过。耳朵听声音,有什么声音响,耳朵就有那种响,狗叫就有狗叫声,汽车的喇叭声,就有汽车的喇叭声,都不要经过你的思量,不用费思量,就是不经过你的思量,自然就响起那种声音。大就大,小就小,高就高,低就低,毫不费力。我们的六根都在这种非思量的状态,它的function,它的作用叫做非思量的那样动。他听过这个道理,但他没有实际听懂,也不常常打坐,喜欢用头脑打坐,屁股垫在头脑上,颠倒。头放在坐垫上,屁股朝上那样打坐。我都笑他们,很多人学佛法,跟佛教导的那个正坐不同啊!佛教导的是稳稳地把屁股坐在坐垫上。我看很多人学佛法都是,头垫在坐垫上,屁股往上翘,上天。这叫颠倒妄想。连坐都颠倒妄想。听过六根的动,不要费一点思量,自然的那样子动,心境一如,有的时候这么讲,那么他们认为非思量就是,“唉呀,原来不管它,六根都是那样动,就那样好了,打坐的时候就是放任六根。反正眼睛、耳朵、鼻子、舌头、身子,还有意根都是在非思量的状态跟境界交换,心境一如的状态在动。”哦!这样打坐,六根放任!好了,坐上去,就拼命在努力,做什么?放任六根。哎,还要你去放任六根啊!谁叫你去放任六根?哪个叫眼根?哪个叫耳根?还有一个叫耳根、眼根、意根的,都有吗?这些都是真正的具体的有自性的吗?你这还不是在道理上讲吗?(六根)只是方便这样一讲而已。
句中玄,或者言外意。没有经过真正的、透过这个的、嫡代相传的祖师爷禅师们交待过来、在旁边时常指导你,都会错掉。一上来就是放任六根、放任六根,本来我的六根都是非思量的状态动,所以我就应该这样做。就叫做多此一举,只是你的想法比较高明了一点而已!
药山在这里讲非思量是什么意思呢?他指的不是你的六根放下。有些人就把这个教法跟文殊师利的教法,认为是相同的说法。文殊师利怎么讲?不依身,不依心,不依也不依。有个“不依”在身心上弄还不对,是不依也不依。好像很类似,就这样用功。初修的人还可以啦,刚开始这样进去。可是听过、接触到曹溪一滴的人还一直在这个上头,哎呀,那你就笨透了!文殊师利的意思不是叫你不依,连不依也不依,还有一个你不依的不依嘛!他是这样的意思吗?药山禅师跟你讲“非思量”,也不是描写你的身心的状态,你的存在、你的一切活动、生理的和心理的都是非思量,不是在解说这个事。怎么老是喜欢说明呢?喜欢理解它的道理是干嘛的。你理解跟不理解有什么关系呢?你不理解,肚子饿了也懂的吃,吃了就会饱。反正我们就喜欢去理解,喜欢知道。不知道就好像缺少了什么东西似的。不知道就不满意,一定要知道。实相不由得你知道哎小姐!那么你说实相我不知道!嘿,知道的不对,难道不知道的更对吗?不要闹笑话了!
155
其实药山讲的非思量,文殊师利讲的不依也不依,也不是叫你抓住你这个身心,叫你不依身,不依心,也不要起那个不要依念头,他不是这个意思。不依也不依,非思量,统统指的是你的本相、真相。你说它是本地风光、本性、光明藏、三昧都可以。还要你怎么做!吃饭,拿起一双筷子。当你拿起一双筷子的时候,不是非思量在动吗?根本不认得自己的真正的样子是无限的、一个非常超越时空的、无限无量的一个存在。怎么老是拘束在那么一个小小的范围里,讨论非思量啊,不依也不依呢?经典都不晓得读到哪里去了。整个经典就你,真正的你就是经典,不是经典的理论在那里,你去读它,你去了解它。释迦牟尼佛的sutra就是你自己本身实在的样子,真相本身就是sutra。还要你师父上台去解说:如是我闻。谁闻哪!打坐就是这个样子。拿起一双筷子,就已经成佛了,那个就是成佛的样子。那么,盘起腿稳稳的坐,还不是和抓起一双筷子一样!只是你多加了一个妄想,你就自己糟蹋了自己。莫名其妙的要掉进自己妄想的桎梏里头去了。

Happy Vesak Day! Let us all awaken to our Buddha nature.

First, realise Mind. 

Then, realise originally No Mind. 

Then, All Arising is Non-Arising, Non-Arising is All Arising




….


Posted on my profile this year, 15 February:

Source of discussion: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=39248

Ted Biringer wrote:

"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 [i]from[/i] what you are aware of [i]to[/i] the very essence of awareness itself - this mind is Buddha."

Soh replied: 

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/2018/11/the-doctrine-of-no-mind-by-bodhidharma.html ), and Hui-Neng's and Dogen's 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature'.

Ted wrote: 

"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"

Soh replied: 

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

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=H6A674nlkVEC&pg=PA21&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.

Middle-Length Prajñāpāramitā,
"O Subhūti, phenomena are like dreams, like magical illusions. Even nirvāṇa is like a dream, like a magical illusion. And if there were anything greater than nirvāṇa, that too would be like a dream, like a magical illusion."

 

6m 
Shared with Your friends
“All four Tibetan traditions teach practices that search for the mind — where it came from, where it goes, what its shape and color are, and so forth. Speaking of this shared practice, Changkya said that after searching in this manner, we find that the mind is not tangible, lacks color and shape, and does not come from one place or go to another. Discovering this, meditators experience a sensation of voidness. However, this voidness is not the emptiness of inherent existence that is the ultimate reality of the mind; it is the mere absence of the mind being a tangible object.
Although someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind. There are two ways to meditate on the mind. The first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this amazing.”

The voidness of Mind is experienced even in my I AM phase.

The emptiness of inherent existence is realized only later on beginning with the anatta breakthrough.
About anatta, I also wrote years ago,

"I was having a conversation with someone today (he had some history with various practices, vipassana, actual freedom, and recently came across a famous Thai ajahn, etc) who shared about an experience of dissolving into centerless space. I told him what I call anatta is not just being centerless, it is the effulgence and radiance of the transience. That is, regardless of any realization of no-self, and no matter how centerless one feels or how centerless is one's experience of awareness and so forth... still, anything short of direct realization of the radiance or luminosity as the very stuff of transiency is still not what I call the realization of anatta. (And that too is also just an aspect of anatta, and furthermore not yet into the twofold emptying)"

There is no wind besides blowing, no rain besides falling, no awareness besides manifestation.. that is anatta.

(Also see: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html )


    Collin Wong
    Sorry it's not four , it's five hahah


  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Hey Soh where else was this posted recently?


    Soh Wei Yu
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland On my profile. But someone deleted his post and off goes all the sub comments of that thread.

    • Reply
    • 8h
    • Edited

  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    😞 there were some other things posted there as well that I wanted to comment on, but which is not in this post.







  • Soh Wei Yu
    John tan just wrote
    👍
    I m saying this -- Many can't discern this clearly. The ultimate is merely the emptiness of the conventional. They did not know that there is no ultimate reality behind anything. Hence there is only the wisdom that realizes the nature of the conventional has always been free and in nirvanic peace.
    That is y Mipham came out 2 models of 2 truths. One by the ontological model that is the above, i.e, no ultimate reality found and the other the authentic experience model to differentiate authentic (insubstantial non-dual as ultimate) from delusional experiences. But we have to take note that both authentic and non-authentic experiences are both conventional from the ontological 2 truth model.”

  • Reply
  • 5h
  • Edited

 

    Enjoy the uninhibited expression in the flow by André A. Pais 👍💪:
    ====================
    I couple of examples, just to make sure you get my point! 🤣
    Sooner or later we can come to realize, for instance in contemplation or meditation, that we aren't any longer - nor perhaps have we ever been - a corporeal being investigating its physical environment or human condition. Instead, there is just experience unveiling itself, knowingness contemplating and questioning its own nature, mere existence or reality touching and (un)mapping itself, luminous appearances displaying information. As we get to this point, no longer tethered by limiting notions of materiality, solidity and embodiment, things can start opening up, unblocking the way to a type of perception where anything can happen and appear. We are no longer a human being inside a physical world in a substantial universe, and therefore a new whole level of insight is possible.
    It's no longer a subject analyzing myriad objects, but a seamless sphere of luminous processing, an unknoting of perception, a release of crystallized categories. It's just an activity of open inquiry moving through and as appearances, an active but gentle flowingness of curiosity. The whole process can become less of a cry for peace and more of a celebration of inquiry itself, the glorification of an ever-deepening wisdom, an upward spiraling love of knowledge.
    ~
    (this following one actually makes sense in this post:)
    If there is no self at all,
    How could it be inside the head,
    Behind the eyes or in the chest?
    Implode notions of in & out,
    Internal or external,
    Subjective & objective,
    Material or mental.
    Dissolve into centerlessness;
    Into borderless experience.
    There is no agent, no observer.
    In this very experience
    There is actually no experiencer.
    Rest in sheer non-dual luminosity.
    In mere unestablished appearance.
    Now, finally,
    Having dropped such notions,
    Transcend their very absence.
    There is neither self
    Nor any lack of it.
    There is no essence
    Nor its emptiness.
    There is no center
    nor non-duality.
    Since a negation still implies
    Its refuted object,
    Drop all views.
    This dropping goes on.
    It goes deeper.
    Endlessly.
    Rest.
    Dissolve.
    Eyes wide open,
    Drop all views
    And shatter the universe.

    11 Comments


    Anurag Jain
    I especially liked the lines, "The whole process can become less of a cry for peace and more of a celebration of inquiry itself, the glorification of an ever-deepening wisdom, an upward soaring love of knowledge"


    John Tan
    Anurag Jain actually I like every sentence. 😁👍


  • Anurag Jain
    John Tan the rest of the sentences are often how enlightenment is sold and thus can be easily copy-pasted. But the sentences that I quoted are known by ones who have really tasted non-dual gnosis.
    At any rate, I too am sharing this whole post in my Advaita group 🙂

      • Reply
      • 1d
      • Edited






  • Yin Ling
    All is wrote by Andre ?
    It is exceptionally good 😭


    John Tan
    Yin Ling I think so. Have to ask the originator.. Haha...


  • Yin Ling
    John Tan haha it’s okie. I’m just enjoying it nontheless







  • Arthur Deller
    Signatures upon flowing waters. 🙇🏻


    Arthur Deller
    André A. Pais “a couple of examples, just to make sure you get my point”
    This following one actually makes sense in this post. 🤣
    Hahahaha!!!! Ty
    Priceless!


  • André A. Pais
    Those insertions make sense (hopefully) in the thread I posted these on. Here not so much...







  • Arthur Deller
    The absence of absence


  • André A. Pais
    "Uninhibited expression!" 🤣🙏

  • Reply
  • 1d