Dependent Designation and Non-Duality
Wrote on facebook:

Without awareness there can be no objects, (there is no “unheard sound”) and without objects there can be no awareness, (seeing is dependently designated with “sight”) not because there are two distinctly existing things depending or interacting with each other but because they are merely dependently designated and have no existence of its own to speak of. For example you cannot speak of a sun without sunlight or a computer screen without the images, they are dependently designated and without any intrinsic existence. Just like a computer screen that doesn’t display images is not a computer screen, a knowing is labelled as such in dependence on the known, so both subject and object are severed - nondual clarity is vividly presencing as all appearances without needing to collapse subject into object or object into subject.

There is no denial of knowing known or “you” like there is no need to deny a conventional car. But if “you” or “knowing known” is just a label for vroomyumouch, just like car is merely imputed based on the parts and functions, then there is also no intrinsically (independent, changelessly) existing “you” or “car”. So you or car is not denied but simply a convenient label, so you can still use conventions but are not bound by them, just like when you talk about weather you don’t think of an entity but directly experience the rain falling wind blowing clouds forming and parting and so forth. When we say sensing we don’t get bound by subject action or object but directly sense the coolness, heat, softness and so forth.

The realisation of true mind, the luminous vivid presence is also important. But mind is no mind - empty of intrinsically existing entity. And being empty of mind, it is as dogen said,

“And just what is this wondrously pure, bright mind? It is the great earth with its mountains and rivers, along with the sun, the moon, and all the stars.”

....

Objects are merely conventionally and dependently designated as such. It cannot be understood apart from or excluding other conventions that make them meaningful otherwise it becomes erroneous (the same goes for everything - from self, to cars, to awareness, to whatever). A sound is not an object besides hearing, besides awareness - there is no such thing as an unheard sound. This part I believe you agree, the other part however in Buddhadharma's emptiness teaching is that awareness is also dependently designated in relation to what's experienced. So it's a two-way dependence unlike the one way dependence in Advaita. Hearer and hearing is only meaningful in reference to sound (and vice versa) - in truth there is no hearer, no hearing, no sound, the bell ringing has no subject or object -- direct immediacy of just this awareness as ringing.

But you'll interject, what about the formless consciousness that underlies and exists beneath, and in the absence of, thoughts and sensations? That pure infinite formless sense of Existence which is a mere formless sense that I AM? I too have realised that through self-inquiry a long time ago. But now I see that too is also another manifestation of consciousness, another face of Presence, no more and no less Presence than a sound, a sight, etc. It cannot be understood apart from manifestation, and apart from the conditions that defines it.

 ...

 In my experience, manifestation is limitless. When walking, it's not legs walking, the entirety of everything is walking. Any sort of abiding, be it in the fiction of a subject or an object, even in a grasped image of 'infinite formless consciousness', is still limitations

 ...

 You're saying there is an ocean independent of its wave (a limitation) reflecting back on itself without investment in wave. I'm saying the wave is none other than the entirety of the ocean, including the conditions that makes it wave - the wind, etc

To me, the latter is 'more' 'limitless'

0 comments | | edit post
Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha

Taken from http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.sg/2011/02/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html

Zazen-Only - Polishing Tiles, Making Buddhas
...
The perfection of each person is unique; a particular human becomes a Buddha when that human wholly becomes that particular human. The Buddhahood of an individual being is the perfection of the “integral character” of that particular being “as it is.” Zazen-only is the perfection of the “normal mind,” that is, a particular body-mind that is fully seated in and as the wholeness of its particular existence ceaselessly advancing in harmony with the true nature of its own integral character. One of the clearest of Dogen’s numerous presentations of this aspect of the Buddha Dharma is revealed in one of his masterly commentaries on a classic Zen koan.

One day when Nangaku came to Baso’s hut, Baso stood up to receive him. Nangaku asked him, “What have you been doing recently?”

Baso replied, “Recently I have been doing the practice of seated meditation exclusively.”

Nangaku asked, “And what is the aim of your seated meditation?”

Baso replied, “The aim of my seated meditation is to achieve Buddhahood.”

Thereupon, Nangaku took a roof tile and began rubbing it on a rock near Baso’s hut.

Baso, upon seeing this, asked him, “Reverend monk, what are you doing?”

Nangaku replied, “I am polishing a roof tile.”

Baso then asked, “What are you going to make by polishing a roof tile?”

Nangaku replied, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”

Baso said, “How can you possibly make a mirror by rubbing a tile?”

Nangaku replied, “How can you possibly make yourself into a Buddha by doing seated meditation?”

For hundreds of years now, many people have held the view that, in this story, Nangaku is earnestly endeavoring to encourage Baso in his practice. This is not necessarily so, for, quite simply, the daily activities of the great saintly teacher were far removed from the realm of ordinary people. If great saintly teachers did not have the Dharma of polishing a tile, how could they possibly have the skillful means to guide people? Having the strength to guide people is the Bones and Marrow of an Ancestor of the Buddha. Even though the tile was the thing that came to hand, still, it was just an everyday, household object. If it were not an everyday object or some household utensil, then it would not have been passed on by the Buddha’s family. What is more, its impact on Baso was immediate. Be very clear about it, the functioning of the True Transmission of Buddhas and Ancestors involves a direct pointing. We should truly comprehend that when the polished tile became a mirror, Baso became Buddha. And when Baso became Buddha, Baso immediately became the real Baso. And when Baso became the real Baso, his sitting in meditation immediately became real seated meditation. This is why the saying ‘polishing a tile to make a mirror’ has been preserved in the Bones and Marrow of former Buddhas.

Thus it is that the Ancient Mirror was made from a roof tile. Even though the mirror was being polished, it was already without blemish in its unpolished state. The tile was not something that was dirty; it was polished simply because it was a tile. On that occasion, the virtue of making a Mirror was made manifest, for it was the diligent effort of an Ancestor of the Buddha. If polishing a tile did not make a Mirror, then even polishing a mirror could not have made a Mirror. Who can surmise that in this act of making, there is the making of a Buddha and there is the making of a Mirror?

Further, some may wonder, “When the Ancient Mirror is polished, can It ever be polished into a tile?” Your state of being—your breathing in and breathing out—when you are engaged in polishing is not something that you can gauge at other times. And Nangaku’s words, to be sure, express what is expressible. As a result, in the final analysis, he was able to polish a tile and make a Mirror. Even we people of the present time should try to pick up today’s ‘tile’ and give it a polish, for ultimately it will become a Mirror. If a tile could not become a Mirror, people could not become Buddha. If we belittle tiles as being lumps of clay, we will also belittle people as being lumps of clay. If people have a Heart, then tiles too will have a Heart. Who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a tile comes, the Tile appears? And who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a mirror comes, the Mirror appears?
Shobogenzo, Kokyo, Hubert Nearman

The "ancient mirror" is the Buddha mind; more specifically, it is an aspect or quality of the Buddha mind that is traditionally referred to as the "universal mirror prajna." The “universal mirror prajna” is the first of the “four prajna's (or “cognitions”) of Buddhahood.” This prajna is described as the aspect of mind that, like a mirror, perfectly reflects the world as it is in the immediate present – the world in its ‘thusness.’ Unlike an ordinary mirror, this prajna is not only reflective, it is also luminescent. It is the initial realization of this “prajna” (or “cognition”) that is traditionally regarded as the practitioners entrance into awakening (often called "kensho" in Zen).

Dogen’s commentary on the koan illumines the same principle informing his teaching that “clear seeing is prajna itself” – here the principle is formulated as “when the polished tile became a mirror Baso became Buddha.”

A “tile” is only a tile by virtue of being experienced as a mind-form unity (dharma) as it is. In the koan, “Baso” is only Baso (his true self; Buddha) by virtue of experiencing mind-forms as they are. When “the tile became a mirror Baso became Baso” – Baso became Baso (his true self; Buddha) when the tile became a mirror (its true self; a mind-form). Moreover, because the mirror (that which verifies) is never separate from the tile (that which is verified), the mirror (Baso) was actualized as a real mirror (the real Baso) by virtue of experiencing the tile.

In terms of the prajna paramita literature, tile and mirror (forms) is emptiness, Baso is Buddha, emptiness is tile and mirror, Buddha is Baso; therefore, emptiness is emptiness, tile is tile, mirror is mirror, Buddha is Buddha, Baso is Baso. When Baso is Baso the whole universe is solely Baso; when zazen is zazen, the whole universe is solely sitting.

In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.
...
Peace,
Ted
Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
Perfect Wisdom Beyond Thinking
I like this quote but does anyone know who translated it and the source of that text?


Subhuti asked: "Is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? Is it unimaginable and totally unique but nevertheless reaching the unreachable and attaining the unattainable?"

The Buddha replied: "Yes, Subhuti, it is exactly so. And why is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? It is because all its points of reference cannot be thought about but can be apprehended. One is the disappearance of the self-conscious person into pure presence. Another is the knowing of the essenceless essence of all things in the world. And another is luminous knowledge that knows without a knower. None of these points can sustain ordinary thought because they are not objects or subjects. They can't be imagined or touched or approached in any way by any ordinary mode of consciousness, therefore they are beyond thinking."
2 comments | | edit post
A is not A, therefore A is A
"Bodhidharma asked, "Can each of you say something to demonstrate your understanding?"
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, "It is not bound by words and phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is the function of the Tao."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my skin."
The nun Zong Chi[note 6][note 7] stepped up and said, "It is like a glorious glimpse of the realm of Akshobhya Buddha. Seen once, it need not be seen again."
Bodhidharma; "You have attained my flesh."
Dao Yu said, "The four elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual existence. Not a single dharma can be grasped."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my bones."
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence and stood up straight.
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my marrow." [38]"
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
Miraculously Aware
Also see: Luminosity vs Clarity
The Sun Does Not Rise or Set
The Unbounded Field of Awareness
Jax's Message
Fully Experience All-Is-Mind by Realizing No-Mind and Conditionality


To find a buddha, all you have to do is see your nature. Your nature is the buddha. And the buddha is the person who's free, free of plans, free of cares. If you don't see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you'll never find a buddha. The truth is there's nothing to find. Life and death are important. Don't suffer them in vain. There's no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize that everything you see is like a dream or illusion.

Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, perceiving, arching your brows, blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, it's all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the buddha. And the buddha is the path. And the path is zen. But the word zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not zen.

Bodhidharma (440-528)
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Freedom from Extremes
Jamgon Mipham:

Accordingly, in the case of a beginner, it is possible for mere nonexistence (med rkyang tsam), the negation of truly existent phenomena, to arise as a mental object. But a person whose Madhyamaka investigation has hit the mark will perfectly distinguish the difference between the lack of inherent existence and mere nonexistence; and will be quite certain that a phenomenon's lack of inherent existence is inseparable from its dependent arising. Such an extraordinary mode of apprehension indeed acts as an antidote to the precipitous extremes of both substantialism and nihilism. For as long as, according to one's mode of apprehension, one is either refuting things or establishing them, one is not actually in the nature beyond all conceptual extremes. When, with reasoned analysis, one arrives at the certainty that phenomena do not dwell in any of the four extremes, and when one settles evenly in the dharmadhatu, by way of the self-cognizing primordial wisdom, this will have the power to dispel all conceptual constructs. Thus one will gain confidence in ultimate reality, in 'which there are no misconceptions to dispel and no progress to make. One will have confidence in the genuine meaning of "freedom from mental activity" as explained in the Prajnaparamita-sutra.
Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
Emptiness and Causal Efficacies
Wrote to someone:

The red petals are not red petals of an inherently existing flower. Flower is conventionally designated in dependence on the petals, there is no flower core anywhere. So it might be more accurate to say the petals “are” the flower. Even the red appearance is dependently originating with no real substance to be found, I.e. unreal - dogs don’t see red, so it is a nonoriginating reflection/appearance in any case, like the reflection of the moon on water, only appearing in dependence on certain conditions but never actually referring to an actual thing being created or abiding or ceasing anywhere. Like scrolling through facebook posts or watching a movie, no actual things or persons or objects are created despite their appearances. This is not to say "what you see is all there is" but "what you see does not amount to something truly existing or truly arising" and whatever "things" - self, cup, table, sky, car, flower, are all conventionally designated in dependence on parts, conditions, functions, designating consciousness and when analysed no true existence can be found.

The universe is like that. Nothing that appears in dependence on conditions exists intrinsically by its own power or essence. But of course it is not a rejection of phenomena and its causal efficacy, as explained in the chapter on the four noble truths in madhyamikakarika. It is precisely because conventional empty phenomena are not intrinsically existing that they could arise due to conditions and cease through practicing the path, otherwise they would be forever “there” like a moon in the lake would be stuck there if it were real and intrinsic. So we have to understand emptiness through dependent origination and understand the causal efficacy of conventional empty phenomena, otherwise we are falling into nihilism and rejecting the four noble truths, etc.

When we talk about illusion, there is a difference between water-moon and rabbit-horn. Appearances are like water-moon being dependently originated, without substance and base but not non-existent, whereas true existence/inherent existence is illusory in the sense of being "horns of rabbits", it does not exist even conventionally. If we merely see non-existence, or negate conventionalities and their valid functionalities, that is nihilism. The sun, even if hidden behind the clouds and thus "unseen", is still exerting a causal function of heating up the earth. On the other hand if we treat these things (e.g. the sun) as real and substantial instead of dependently designated/dependently originating and thus unreal, then we are having substantialist tendencies. The sun is also designated in dependence on its functions like 'heat', just like the flower is designated in dependence on the petals, and other conditions. So seeing this, we do not think of the sun as a substantial thing causing a substantial thing to happen, for the heating and sun are dependently designated. But that is not to deny "sun" or "heating" conventionally and their causal efficacy.

"In brief from empty phenomena
Empty phenomena arise;
Agent(cause), karma(action), fruits(effect), and their enjoyer(subject) -
The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.

Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot
Are produced from a collection [of factors],
We accept the external world of dependent origination
To be like a dream and an illusion.

That phenomena are born from causes
Can never be inconsistent [with facts];
Since the cause is empty of cause,
We understand it to be empty of origination."

- Nāgārjuna
.....

“Earlier we saw that both the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika argue that only ultimately intrinsic reality (svabhāva) enables things to perform a causal function (arthakriya). The Svātantrika Madhyamaka rejects this, and it instead argues that things are causally efficient because of their conventionally intrinsic reality (svabhāva) or unique particularity (svalakṣaṇa). The Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, however, rejects both these positions, and argues only what is conventionally non-intrinsic reality (niḥsvabhāva) is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsic, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional reality (here treated as dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal, and hence lacks any intrinsic reality even conventionally. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen and strictly does not arise ultimately.”

"Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to being that which is conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important arguments justifying the correlation between conventional truth vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth. These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological correlations ([MMK] 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever applies emptiness as the ultimate reality, there applies the causal efficacy of conventional reality and wherever emptiness does not apply as the ultimate reality, there does not apply the causal efficacy of conventional reality (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality's being empty of any intrinsic reality affords conventional reality its causal efficacy since being ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced, conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such thing that is not empty” ([MMK] 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a)."

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/
Labels: , , , 0 comments | | edit post
What is Strong Sitting?


For Zen Master Seung Sahn’s enlightenment story, see https://kwanumzen.org/teaching-library?author=599de3933e00be59c1734e28

Wrote to someone,

“Recently been reading Zen Master Seung Sahn. He is also very clear. The teachers in his lineage teaching in the Singapore dharma center Kwan Yin Chan Lin are also consistently clear in terms of realisation of anatta.

As I wrote:

What’s important is that the insight must be clear. The teachings must be clear. It’s impossible to overcome the propensities of dualism without the correct insights. I’m not bothered about the terms, words they use or even whether he or she is unconventional or traditional.

For example, recently I started reading Zen Master Seung Sahn writings. I noticed that although he uses the term true self a lot, his insights are clearly anatta. He is not talking about a background or ultimate self behind everything.

Seung Sahn said “your true self has no outside, no inside. Sound is clear mind, clear mind is sound. Sound and hearing are not separate, there is only sound.”

Thusness also said, “Seung Sahn is anatta. Self/self is not important to him at all””

(Update by Soh: we are mistaken about this. See http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/this-is-impersonality-aspect-not-anatta.html)

Nowadays OCR softwares are very powerful. I took a photo of a page from a book using my phone, used the free app Office Lens to convert the image into text in word document. It is fast and accurate.

Here’s a teaching by Zen Master Seung Sahn which is converted using OCR, it’s from the book  “Only Don’t Know: The Teaching Letters of Zen Master Seung Sahn”, also it’s somewhat relevant to my previous encounter with a Zen Master from this lineage (See Total Exertion):

WHAT IS STRONG SITTING?

Toronto, Canada
January 29, 1977

Dear Soen Sa Nim,

I miss you very much and wish that I did not live so far away from you. Every day I sit Zen and bow 108 times— Lawlor and I do this together. But often when I'm bowing and sitting, I am thinking:

"What will I make for dinner? What shall I wear to work? Thinking is no good." All thinking!

You say—"Put it all down. Only go straight." But isn't there some balance about practice? Maybe I should do more sitting. You talk about strong sitting. What is this?

What am I? I ask this more and more through my day. But there is so much thinking!

I hope you are well, and I send you my great love.

Sherry

February 22, 1977

Dear Sherry,

How are you? Thank you for your letter.

You told me that you and Lawlor have been practicing  gether every day—that is wonderful. A lot of thinking, no thinking, a little thinking—it doesn't matter. You say, "thinking is no good." This is no good. This is being attached to your thinking. Only try, try, try, and your thinking will rest. Then finally, at bowing time, only bow; at sitting time, only sit; at chanting time, only chant. This is possible. If you keep practicing, this will happen.

In your letter you asked me about balance in your practice and about strong sitting. If you are attached to something, your mind and your body will be unbalanced. If you don't make anything, your mind and your body become one, and will be perfectly balanced, and everything will be complete and clear.

Strong sitting means not checking your mind and feelings. At times everyone has many thoughts and feelings while sitting. This is correct. Don't worry. But many people check themselves. "I am no good. What do other people think of me? I am always thinking. How can I cut off all thinking? How do you only go straight? How do you put it all down?" This is being attached to thinking. Thinking itself is not bad or good Just don't be attached to thinking. Don't worry about every. thing. Thinking is thinking; feeling is feeling. Don't touch. Only go straight—don't know. That is strong sitting.

If you keep this strong-sitting mind, your mind will be clear moment to moment. Clear mind means keeping your correct situation. When you drive, just drive. Then when you come to a red light, stop. When it turns green, go. That is the correct situation. Correct situation means just-like-this.

I understand your mind. Your mind constantly checks your mind. But if you practice and try every day, your checking mind will rest, and you will be able to keep a just-like-this mind. Then when you see the sky, only blue; when you see a tree, only green. Your mind is still. Then saving all beings is possible.

I hope you only go straight— don't know, keep a mind which is clear like space, attain Enlightenment, and save all beings from suffering.

Yours in the Dharma,

S. S.




You can find many similar teachings by him in https://kwanumzen.org/resources-collection/2017/9/15/teaching-letters-of-zen-master-seung-sahn
Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
True Zazen is Sitting with Everyone
Zen Student: Could you speak about when you sit zazen away from Zen Center, and you sit alone? Could you speak about that?
Suzuki-rōshi: Oh, sit alone. By yourself? True zazen, you know, cannot be sit by yourself, you know. That you sit there means that every one of us [is] sitting with you. That kind of zazen is true zazen. Even though you are sitting in Japan or Tibet, you know, you are sitting with all the people in the world. That kind of feeling you must have in your zazen. You include — your practice include everything. That is our practice, you know. When you are you on your cushion, everyone sitting on their own cushion. That is our zazen.
*************
Uji Koan, 3:
The way the self arrays itself is the form of the entire world. See each thing in this entire world as a moment of time.
Things do not hinder one another, just as moments do not hinder one another. The way-seeking mind arises in this moment. A way-seeking moment arises in this mind. It is the same with practice and with attaining the way. Thus the self setting itself out in array sees itself. This is the understanding that the self is time.
Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
Unwritten Tantra
Malcolm's translation:

“Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
-- Unwritten Tantra

Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
The Importance of Emptiness and Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka in Dzogpachenpo
Kyle Dixon shared:

= The Importance of Emptiness and Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka in Dzogpachenpo =

From Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

"Furthermore, since one must rely on Nagarjuna’s reasonings in order to realize the essence of Dzogchen, it is the same for Mahamudra. Those who studied at the shedras (philosophical universities) in Tibet studied 'The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way' and Chandrakirti’s 'Entering the Middle Way' and other similar texts over the course of many years. Mahamudra and Dzogchen were not studied, however, because it is the Middle Way texts that are filled with such a vast array of different arguments and logical reasonings that one can pursue the study of them in a manner that is both subtle and profound. 

In the Mahamudra teachings as well, we find statements such as this one from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje’s Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer:

'As for mind, there is no mind! Mind is empty of essence'
If you gain certainty in mind’s emptiness of essence by analyzing it with the reasoning that refutes arising from the four extremes and with others as well, then your understanding of Mahamudra will become profound. Otherwise, you could recite this line, but in your mind it would be nothing more than an opinion or a guess.

If you study these reasonings presented in 'The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way', when you receive Mahamudra and Dzogchen explanations of emptiness and lack of inherent reality, you will already be familiar with what is being taught and so you will not need to learn anything new. Mipham Rinpoche composed a brief text called 'The Beacon of Certainty', in which he states: 'In order to have perfect certainty in "kadag" (primordial purity) one must have perfect understanding of the view of the Consequence or Prasangika school. Kadag, or original, primordial purity, is the view of Dzogchen, and in order to perfect that view, one must perfect one’s understanding of the Middle Way Consequence or Prasangika school’s view. What this implies is that the view of Dzogchen kadag and the view of the Consequence or Prasangika of Chandrakirti's school are the same."
From Tulku Tsullo's instruction on the view of Dzogchen:
"Therefore, whether in sutra or in tantra, there is consensus that the only direct antidote to the ignorance of clinging to things as real - which lies at the root of our karma and disturbing emotions - is the wisdom that realizes emptiness. So for Dzogchen practitioners, too, it is extremely important to realize emptiness."
The sgra thal gyur tantra states:
"Nonexistent therefore appearing, appearing therefore empty. The inseparable union of appearance and emptiness with its branches."
Zilnon Zhepa Tsal said:

"How could liberation be attained without realizing emptiness? And how could emptiness be realized without the Great Perfection [Dzogchen]? Who but I offers praise such as this?"
The Dalai Lama states:

"We need a special form of wisdom - the wisdom that realizes emptiness - to act as the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. Without this wisdom, which can be realized through the Great Perfection... we will not have the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. So this point is conclusive."
Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:
"The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same."
Longchenpa says:

"This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist [Prasangika] Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on. However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here [in Dzogchen] naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis. - The phenomena that arise from the basis are apprehended as being free from extremes, like space."
David Germano:
"While a detailed analysis of the relationship of these classical Great Perfection texts to the Madhyamaka Prasangika tradition is quite beyond the scope of my present discussion, at this point I would merely like to indicate that even in The Seventeen Tantras (i.e. without considering Longchenpa's corpus) it is very clear that the tradition embodies an innovative dialectical reinterpretation of the Prasangika notions of emptiness, rather than a mere sterile 'diametric opposition' to them that Karmay suggests."

Ju Mipham Rinpoche states in his Madhyamakālaṃkāra:
"Without finding certainty in primordial purity (ka dag), just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it (such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Visnu, Īśvara, or wisdom) except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen (the luminosity that is to be personally experienced) is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusionlike,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning."

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu states:

"...Madhyamaka explains with the four 'beyond concepts,' which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme."
and, 

"That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that."

From Jigme Lingpa:

"I myself argue ‘To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion 'Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault', as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion."

Chokyi Dragpa states:

On the path of trekchö, all the rigidity of mind's clinging to an "I" where there is no "I", and a self where there is no self, is cut through with Madhyamika Prasangika reasoning and the resulting conviction that an "I" or a "self" does not exist. Then, by examining where mind arises, dwells and ceases, you become certain of the absence of any true reality."

Again from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

"The great scholar and master, Mipham Chokle Namgyal, said, 'If one seeks to master the basic nature of alpha purity, or kadak, it is necessary to perfect one’s understanding of the view of the Prasangika, or the Consequence School.' Alpha purity describes the basic nature of mind as it is expressed in the dzogchen descriptions. If one wishes to realize dzogchen, alpha purity, or trekcho, as it is also called, then one must perfect one’s understanding of the Consequence School. That is, one must realize that the nature of reality transcends all conceptual fabrications; it cannot be described by any conceptual terms. This is the aspect of the 'expanse.' If one recognizes this, then it is easy to realize the mahamudra because, as Milarepa sang:

'The view is original wisdom which is empty
Meditation clear light free of fixation
Conduct continual flow without attachment
Fruition is nakedness stripped of every stain.'"

From Acarya Dharmavajra Mr. Sridhar Rana:

"The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is talking about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has qualities. First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty of real existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamika Karika: 'All things are possible (including qualities) because they are empty', Therefore the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt. paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth in Hinduism."

from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche:

"The practice of tregcho is essential when it comes to realizing the originally pure nature of mind and phenomena. This nature is emptiness, the basic state of the Great Perfection. For this reason, a thorough grounding in the view of Madhyamaka can be a great help when receiving instructions on tregcho. With the correct view of emptiness, one can meditate effectively on original purity [ka dag]."

and a final warning from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

"If we still believe in existence, if we have some type of belief in something substantial, if we think that there is something that truly exists, whatever it might be, then we are said to fall into the extreme called eternalism or permanence. And if we fall into that extreme, we will not realize the true nature of reality."

Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
A Good Description of Total Exertion

I shared this video and commented that it was a good description of total exertion.

Someone asked "What do you mean? Can you say more?" so I further elaborated -





Total exertion is direct realization of each manifest activity as arising with all conditions in seamless interdependency, where one feels that the whole universe is giving its best to make this moment possible.

I started having glimpses and insights into this about one or two years after my initial realisation of anatta (the direct realisation and penetration of the false dichotomy of subject-action-object through contemplating the verse in Bahiya Sutta) back in 2010. Anatta demolishes the background subject so that there is only the entirety of manifestation, and then you may penetrate further -- this entirety of manifestation is a seamless activity with no self-nature anywhere. When I experienced this I called it the "dharma body". To put it in laymen's term, it's like the universe as your body (but the word universe doesn't really capture the dynamic, interdependent and empty nature of it well).

Let me give you an example. Recently, I was sitting in meditation with my sister. Then as usual I entered into a blissful state. In that state, I saw that it's not me sitting here, like there is no I, no sister, no baby, etc, but it's really all these factors that is "meditating" plus much more... all the way back to the time of the Buddha! The living presence of Buddha and its sangha and the whole lineage is right here, same time and in communion. This breath is the universe. Suddenly some passages by Dogen made perfect sense*

Also, I just visited a Zen temple earlier today to meditate. Something that the novice monk said after the meditation struck me - chanting as "together action". He didn't elaborate what he meant by that but I intuited its meaning and purpose. To me what this means is this - when we practice as a community, we are enacting "together action" so that it is not you that is chanting but the chanting as a whole arising seamlessly that is chanting. But "together action" is in fact every moment! This breath is together action with all the conditions, the whole community and lineage. Carrying your meditation cushion and waiting for your turn to place that cushion back to its original place -- together action, not 'you' action.

Walking on the street, you look at the traffic and maneuver your way to reach your destination, the traffic and people walking are as much an inseparable part of the activity which you call 'your walking', each moment of walking is doing together action with all conditions. The same for driving a car. If you lose the "zone", if you get distracted and are not practicing "together action", watch out! Lives can be lost.

When you are walking in the park, the legs moving arise in tandem with the whole universe moving. The tree in front is manifesting the way it is in accord with all other conditions like the wind, light, the way I am moving and looking, etc. The tree has no tree-ness in itself or apart from me and I have no me-ness apart from the interplay that is manifesting the tree. When I see and interact with others, it's not I interacting with others as I and others are empty and dissolved in the interplay. Truly it is like a node of Indra reflecting all other nodes, each node is not other than all others nodes, there is neither self nor others.

'Self' and 'others' are learnt and is a result of the ignorance of our true nature. The structures of language or convention posits that when we encounter something it is always 'I' am touching/encountering a 'thing' as if there is a real subject interacting with an object. I am I and interacting or talking with a real other as discrete entities.

Although in actual experience it's just all conditions in total exertion but when spoken in language it appears separate. The structure of language is dualistic.. which is not a problem in itself when taken conventionally or as dependent designation but instead we wrongly reified them into things with its own existence in and of themselves.

*e.g.,

The Buddhas and Ancestors manifest before our very eyes whenever we respectfully serve the Buddhas and Ancestors by bringing Them up through our presenting of Their story. They are not limited simply to some past, present, or future time, for They have undoubtedly gone beyond even ‘going beyond Buddha’.

Shobogenzo, Busso, Hubert Nearman

The robe of the right transmission of the buddhas and patriarchs is not arbitrarily transmitted from buddha to buddha. It is the robe transmitted from the former buddha to the later buddha, and from the ancient buddha to the contemporaneous buddha. In order to transform the Way, to transform the buddha, and to transform the past, present, and future, there is a right transmission from past to present, from present to future, from present to past, from past to past, from present to present, from future to future, from future to present, and from future to past. It is the right transmission only between a buddha and a buddha.

- Dogen
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
Recent articles by Adyashanti expresses the insight of anatta and total exertion well.
Www.adyashanti.org
What Is the World?
Study Course Q&A
Excerpted from "The Philosophy of Enlightenment"
Leslie writes: Several years ago, while on retreat with you, the insight suddenly hit that what I had thought of as "me" was just an illusory boundary. I laughed and cried as beliefs seemed to pop and dissolve like soap bubbles. Awareness or presence, well, just simply is.
A lot of seeking has fallen away, but the perception of unity or "Everything is one" still remains not really experienced. Any pointers or inquiries you would suggest for unity to move beyond intellectual understanding? I somehow intuit that it's another layer of "illusory boundary" that hasn't been seen through. Sometimes it feels like I'm trying to crack an unsolvable riddle!
Adyashanti: Here is the direct answer to your question: Simply contemplate the question “What is the world?” By contemplate, I mean to simply form the question in your mind. Don't think about it. Just present the question and relax your awareness as much as possible. That’s the “how.”
Experiencing unity is a bit like getting a joke. The "getting" of a joke is what causes the laughter. In a sense, the getting is the laughter. But we don't laugh because we have analyzed the joke and come to understand it; we laugh because the joke exposes something about ourselves. It removes the seriousness of the boundaries that we believe in and live by. It reveals that they are absurd and therefore funny. The same is true of the beliefs that cause us to experience boundaries. In a very real sense, beliefs are the creators of the experience of boundaries. They are absurd, even if at times useful, fictions, but only experienced as absurd when we see that they are absurd and worthy of a good laugh.
Every description, every name, every belief -- good or bad -- every concept, creates boundaries where there are in fact no boundaries at all. Even to say “I” instantly imposes a boundary upon what is actually a unified field of being. To say “I” instantly creates what is not “I.” “Big” is always in relationship to “small,” “up” in relationship to “down,” “good” in relationship to “bad,” “heads” of a coin in relationship to “tails.” Words imply that these opposites exist separately from one another, but they do not. They are simply different ways of looking at the same thing. You cannot have the crest of a wave without also having its trough; they are in reality one dynamic process.
As I have often said, each thing is its total environment. Remove the environment in which anything exists, and the thing will also not exist, which is to say that there is no such thing as a thing. To call something a thing, or to give it a name, is to conceptually impose boundaries upon it where they do not actually exist. A tree does not exist independently of its environment; it is its total environment. It takes a cosmos to produce a tree -- no cosmos, no tree. To say “tree” implies the entire cosmos. The same is true of you.
When we give any aspect of the cosmos a name like tree, or human being, or rain cloud, we forget that we are imposing boundaries where there actually are no boundaries. There are, of course, practical uses to doing such a thing, but practical usefulness does not mean that what we are naming actually exists independently from the dynamic process of life. Even to say that we are presence or awareness mistakenly implies that we are not what we are aware of. It is an intermediate level of realization, and is much more freeing than experiencing ourselves to be a separate someone, but is still defined and experienced as its own form of formless separateness. It is formless presence as opposed to the world of forms. But formlessness and form appear together, and beyond even together. They are ways of looking at one dynamic process. They are simply two different points of view from within that process.
When we drop whatever point of view we are entertaining, the illusory experience of separateness and having conceptually imposed boundaries disappears. Concepts, names, descriptions, beliefs, and opinions are nothing more than abstract ideas that have the power to create very real feelings and experiences within our bodies and alter our perception of the world to an extraordinary extent. So even though concepts are a part of daily functioning, and necessarily so to some degree (though not to the degree that we imagine), when we forget that the boundaries they impose upon our perception is an illusion, we take the conceptual game of naming and believing far too seriously and lose not only our sense of humor, but also any deep sense of freedom and love. We stop taking ourselves lightly and become like an unbendable blade of grass forever bracing itself against the slightest breeze.
In truth we are the All, as is everyone and everything else. There is simply nothing else to be. The All is not here to be understood as a noun; it is a process, and not even that. It is the process of existence and nonexistence as well. It cannot be known in the conventional sense, because all that is known is an idea, an object within consciousness. And by the way, ideas are it too. But it is not defined or limited by its ideas. The All that you are can only be lived, either unconsciously or consciously. It has a simple intuitive regard for itself, from within all of itself. If you want to find yourself, just open your eyes, and there you are. Or close your eyes, and there you are: something, nothing, someone, no one, everything, not-a-thing. Living, dying, smiling, crying -- one Self experienced as many selves. The entire cosmos awake to itself, and not even that, and all of that.
Quick now, where is the Buddha?
With Great Love,
Adya
The above Q&A is excerpted from an online study course with Adyashanti. Learn about his current course on the Study Course page.
© Adyashanti 2016



Www.adyashanti.org
No Distinct Self Awakens
Study Course Q&A
Excerpted from “The Way of Liberating Insight”
A participant writes: I have been sensing into awareness, but I have not previously thought of it as the ground of my being; it hasn’t had any spiritual connotation for me. I have, however, experienced it as a quiet alertness, warm, comforting, peaceful and loving, and somehow both young and old. Whenever I relax into it, all the stress goes away and my mood becomes softer.
If there is a problem, it is that I know I am aware but not that I am awareness. I also know that I am not my thoughts or emotions, or even my body. But when I consider I am that which is aware, so far I haven’t seen what “that” is, even though you and others have offered teachings to help me recognize it. I need to see.
Adyashanti: I appreciate your inquiry into the nature of yourself and awareness. It is true that we can never see ourself as a thing, or as an object of awareness. And we certainly cannot ever see awareness; we cannot see our own seeing. But there is a mysterious and profound way in which our true nature recognizes itself -- not as something “out there” that we can see or relate to, but as the totality itself recognizing itself.
Such recognition is intuitive, spontaneous, and immediate. And it happens when we no longer try to recognize ourself as apart from anything, when we are no longer looking for ourself as some piece, or part, or subject of our experiences and our perceptions. For there is no part or distinct subject who awakens; rather, it is the whole or the totality that awakens.
And all along we are the totality. Even our sense of individuality and human uniqueness is itself the totality appearing in a unique way.
The above Q&A is excerpted from an online study course with Adyashanti. Learn about his most recent course on the Study Course page.
© Adyashanti 2015

Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
Excerpts from the Jewel Mirror Samadhi
Update 2023: For full translation of this text with ChatGPT 4, see The Song of Samadhi of the Precious Mirror 
 
 
Also see: Nonduality of Life and Death
The Path of Anatta
Fearless Samadhi
Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan

Here is a compilation of articles by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang, who is very clear: https://app.box.com/s/ceb9i7wsk0lkfl2sjex97ai56l1k52pf 


Translated some excerpts from http://tradewhat.blogspot.sg/2013/12/blog-post_11.html - talk by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang on the Jewel Mirror Samadhi. I found this article recently and resonated well with it.
「苦樂 升沉」包括痛麻癢…這些都是，這表示不是特別有一個三昧，各位修了就可以進入，未修就不能進入；或是說有所成就的人才有寶鏡三昧，不是！不管是佛還是凡 夫，有情、無情、饅頭、鑽石、唱歌、走路…皆是，到底什麼意思？
"The rise and fall of suffering and joy" including pain, numbness and itch... these are all it, this means it is not that there is a special samadhi, in which everybody can practice to enter, or that those who have not practiced are unable to enter it. Nor is it the case that only someone accomplished is able to obtain the jewel mirror samadhi, not so! It does not matter if one is a Buddha or a sentient being, sentient or insentient, steam bun, diamond, singing, walking... all is it, what does this mean?
以正眼看，全宇宙是一枚寶鏡三昧。因是一枚故，無能見與所見。
With accurate vision, the entire universe is a piece of Jewel Mirror Samadhi. Because it is one piece, there is no perceiver nor perceived.
『若解會為鏡』假如你把他解釋為一面鏡子，那就『入地獄如矢』。
If you interpret that as a mirror, then you'll enter straight into hell.
你把他當作一面鏡子 解釋，是解釋哦，一解釋的話，你就把他當作是對像去解說，那當然奇怪了，一面鏡子照的當然是影子，這樣分開來的話就完全錯了。
If you explain it as a mirror, you'll be treating it as an object, that would of course be odd. What a mirror reflects would of course be a reflection, it would be erroneous to delineate/separate in this way.
「入地獄如矢」就是馬上錯掉 了，不可以把他當作這樣去解釋。『不見言』是沒有聽說過嗎？『山河不在鏡中見，山河草木即鏡』，你聽到「全宇宙是一枚寶鏡三昧」，就把三昧當作是一副鏡 子，這樣就很容易錯掉了。所以他強調「山河草木不在鏡中見，山河草木就是鏡子」。千萬不要把你所看的、所覺受的當作是鏡中的影子，不可以這樣講，山河大地 本身都是鏡子，不是鏡中的影子。
"Entering straight into hell" means instantly falling into error, we cannot explain it that way. Haven't you heard of it? "Mountains and rivers are not seen within a mirror, mountains and rivers are themselves the mirror." When you heard "the whole universe is a piece of Jewel Mirror Samadhi", and you treat that as a mirror, it is very easy to err. Therefore he emphasizes, "mountains and rivers are not within a mirror, mountains, rivers, grasses and wood are the mirror." Never treat what you saw and sensed as being reflections of a mirror, we cannot explain it that way. Mountains, rivers, and the great earth are themselves the mirror, not the reflections of a mirror.
所以各位看到的、聽到的，你千萬不要以為是大圓鏡智所現，有一面法界法性的鏡子所現 的，隨你的因緣果報不同而現出的影子，這樣解說就完全錯掉了。看到、聽到、摸到、想到的通通都是鏡子，包括你自己，整個都是鏡子！這點不要誤會了。
Therefore, do not think that whatever you see and hear are the manifestations of the Great Mirror Wisdom, as if there is a universal mirror that is reflecting the reflections according to your causes and conditions/karma, such explanations are false. Whatever you see, hear, sense, think are entirely the mirror, including yourself - in their entirety they are all the mirror. Do not be mistaken on this point.
『能見所見雙泯，本應解釋為相容，恐被誤解為二元之說』。有一個能見的，有一個所見 的，有你和被你看見的山，兩個東西溶解在一起，很容易被誤解為二元，本來是兩個東西，後來變成是一個東西，融入了，不是這樣子。『故曰山隱，此為隱之道 理』，所謂「山隱」，眼睛對到山的時候，眼睛變成山，眼和山變成一個東西，能見所見沒有了。「山」是「我見」，你說「山」即是「我見」加進去了，思維一 動，我見有了，山和你就分開了。現在知道能見所見相容的關係，能見所見都是一張寶境的變化而已。
"Perceiver and perceived are both extinguished, that ought to be explained as interwoven, but I'm afraid it might be misunderstood in terms of a dualistic view." There is a perceiver, and something perceived, there is you and the mountain seen by you, the two things melt into one, this is easily mistaken as subject-object duality - originally there are two things, then later they fused into one thing. It is not like that. "What is known as mountain concealment, is to be regarded as the principle of concealment" - what is known as "mountain-concealment", when the eyes face the mountain, eyes become mountain, eyes and mountain become one thing, perceiver and perceived vanishes. "Mountain" is "self-view", when you say "mountain", the "self-view" is thereby inserted. Once conceptual proliferation begins, self-view emerges, then the mountain and you have separated. When you understood the interwoven relationship between perceiver and perceived, perceiver and perceived are merely the transformations of a Jewel Mirror.
最要緊是時時刻刻「老實承受與緣合一而忘己」，能一直不偏離這個就是悟後起修。
The most important point is to always "conscientiously bear/endure/experience and fuse with conditions, thereby forgetting oneself", by continuously not deviating from this, that would be the practice after realization.
並不 是澈悟後就絕對不會跑掉、偏離，因此隨隨便變都可以，不是這樣，處處時時「與緣合一而忘己」都不偏離就對了。
It is not the case that after realization one will absolutely not be lost or deviate, and therefore we can let our guards down. That is not the case. Instead, at anywhere and at any time, never deviating from "being one with conditions and thereby forgetting self" is the correct (way).
弄清楚自己就是寶鏡，就是悟了，悟後還要修行 嗎？「修行沒有終止」，這就是曹洞宗最難使人瞭解的地方，使得學人轉學跑到臨濟宗或是淨土宗那裡去。「悟沒有開始，修行沒有終了」一聽就受不了！修行沒有 終止？那我要悟作什麼？我以為悟了就沒有事了，還要一直修行下去？悟沒有開始？那我就不要悟了，本來就是悟嘛。一下子就搞糊塗了，用思想去想佛講的正法， 佛傳的真正的東西，要命呀！
Being clear of oneself as the jewel mirror is already realization, why should there be practice after realization? "There is no end to practice", this is Soto Zen's hardest point to understand. It has led many learners to leave the school for the Rinzai Zen or Pure Land sect. Once a person hears "there is no beginning to realization, there is no end to practice", they cannot endure such a statement. Practice is without end? Then what is the point of realization? I thought after realization there is nothing else, but practice has to go on? Realization has no beginning? Then I shouldn't have gotten realization, since realization always already is. All of a sudden one gets utterly confused. Using one's conceptual thinking to conceptualize the Buddha's teachings - the real thing transmitted by the Buddha, very dreadful!
死時坦然死，絕無延生之念，故解脫安樂。另有譯為「不受」，因受無受者故。何以如此？甜瓜徹蒂甜，苦瓜連根苦。
When dying, fearlessly die, never giving rise to the thought of (desire for) life-extension, that is liberation, peace and joy. It is also explained as "not experiencing", for there is no experiencer in the experience. How is this so? Sweet melons are sweet to the base, while even the roots are bitter in the bitter melon.
他用另一個說法來說明「與緣合一」，『死時坦然死，絕無延生之念，故解脫安樂』。臨終死的時候坦然死，這個時候絕沒有延生之念，想多活一天也好，多活兩天也好，這樣的話就苦了。這是與緣合一的道理，所以解脫安樂。
He explains "being one with conditions" in another way, "When dying, fearlessly die, never giving rise to the thought of (desire for) life-extension, that is liberation, peace and joy". At the time of death, fearlessly die, at this moment there is never a thought for life extension, a desire to live one more day, or two more days, otherwise there would be suffering. That is being one with conditions, that is liberation, peace and joy.
還有一個三昧翻譯成「不受」，因為沒有受與受者，寶鏡嘛！能受所受沒有的關係，所以 叫不受。三昧正受有時翻譯成不受，何以如此？『甜瓜徹蒂甜，苦瓜連根苦』，這上頭有沒有道理？苦瓜吃下去的時候，根也苦，葉子也苦；甜瓜整個都是甜，哪有 這裡甜，那裡不甜？或是這裡甜多一點，那裡甜少一點？有這事嗎？這是什麼意思？沒有能所的意思。本來沒有能所，為什麼？因為都是一枚寶鏡。
There is one more translation of "samadhi" as "not experiencing", because there is neither the experienced and the experiencer, as (it is just) a Jewel Mirror! Due to the absence of an experiencer and the experienced, therefore it is called "no experience". The true experience of samadhi is sometimes translated as the absence of experience, how is this so? "Sweet melons are sweet to the base, while even the roots are bitter in the bitter melon." Is this reasonable? When you are eating a bitter gourd, the roots are bitter, the foliage are also bitter. The sweet melons are entirely sweet, how can there be sweetness at this part but not at the other parts? How can it be sweeter at this point but a little less sweet at another point? What does this mean? There is no subject nor object. There never was a subject nor an object, why? Because it is just a single Jewel Mirror.
大家剛才聽到鐘響了，下課了，平常我們都是「我自己聽到鐘響」，有沒有分開來？有沒 有一枚寶鏡？不是嘛！處處都是分開來。我是我，鐘響是鐘響，這是不回互。因為徹底的不回互，所以是回互。
Everyone just heard the bell ringing, class has ended. Normally we are in the position of "I myself have heard the bell ringing", is there separation here? Or is there only a single jewel mirror? That is not the case! Always in a state of separation. I am I, bell ringing is bell ringing. ...
聲音在我這裡響，還是在那邊響？我這邊沒有響，聽 不見；如果只有我這邊響，那就不要鐘也可以響，我想要響就響就好了，不行！一定要鐘動才行，大家動起來才有，有緣才有。
Is the sound reverberating over here, or is it reveberating from over there? If there is no reveberation at my location, then it would not be heard. But if it is only reverberating at my location, then there would not have been a need for a bell for the sound to be. If I only wanted the reveberation itself, it wouldn't work! There needs to be the vibrating bell, along with all the conditions working/moving together. Only with those conditions can it manifest.
比方講，我在這裏照鏡子，鏡子上有沒有我的影子？有啊！如果沒有我，鏡子上有沒有顯 出我的影子？沒有！
As an example, I am using the mirror here, does the mirror contain my reflection? Yes! If I were not around, would the mirror display my reflection? No!
一定要有鏡子，也要有我。也許有人說拿鏡子的人把這個影子照出來的，那叫拿鏡子的人走開，鏡子擺在那裡就好了，行嗎？不是拿鏡子的人把 影子照出來的，那麼是虛空把影子照出來嗎？那影子是誰照的？不是鏡子照，也不是中間的虛空照，也不是拿鏡子的人照，但是，沒有我不行，沒有鏡子也不行，沒 有空間也不行。
There needs to be a mirror, and there also needs to be me. Perhaps some people may say that the person who carries the mirror is causing the reflection to appear on the mirror. In that case if you ask the person to go away and just let the mirror stand there by itself, would it work? Since it is not the person carrying the mirror that is causing the reflection, could it be the empty space that is causing the reflection to appear? In that case who is reflecting the reflection? Not the mirror, not the empty space in between, not the person carrying the mirror. And yet, it wouldn't work without me, it wouldn't work without the mirror, it wouldn't work without empty space.
像這樣用頭腦去 理解的話是這樣子，那麼實際的情況還是希望大家多多盤腿，盤腿放鬆六根，六根讓它放鬆，就是回到自然的規律。
This is the way of using one's brain to understand and talk about it. Then, in actual situations, I wish everybody still sits often in the lotus position, sitting in the lotus posture and relaxing all six senses, letting the six senses relax, that is to return to the natural law.
「哦！這是自然的規律…」，你不要又加進了自 己的意見了。擺在那裡，思想動來動去也不是你動的，也不是你趕走它，你不趕它，它也走掉啊。念頭動的時候，你不要再加一個「我在想」就好了嘛！飯田禪師整 個序言講了半天就是一個重點：整個都是一個寶鏡三昧在顯，上頭沒有你、我、她，實際的生活怎麼相應？就是和你所看到、所聽到、所接觸到的情景、情況合一， 「與緣合一」這是實際生活用功很好的方法。
"Oh! This is the natural law..." You should not insert your own views/opinions. Just assume your position there. If thoughts move they are not moved by you, neither is it chased away by you. Even if you do not chase them away, they will go away. When thoughts move, it will suffice if you do not add "I am the one thinking"! Zen Master Lida's whole lengthy preface is only about one important point: the entirety is the manifestation of a jewel mirror samadhi, in it there is no you, me, her. How do we actualize this in daily living? That is to be one with all scenes and situations that you see, hear, sense and encounter, "being one with conditions" is the best and most realistic/practical method to put your effort in daily living.
Labels: , , , 2 comments | | edit post
Precious Mirror Samadhi
I wish I could translate this to English for sharing... but too long. Well expressed by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.

Update: translated some excerpts here - Excerpts from the Jewel Mirror Samadhi

Here is a compilation of articles by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang, who is very clear: https://app.box.com/s/ceb9i7wsk0lkfl2sjex97ai56l1k52pf 



http://tradewhat.blogspot.sg/2013/12/blog-post_11.html

《寶鏡三昧》洪老師講於金馬侖

寶鏡三昧歌拾唾
飯田禪師著〔日〕
少拙中譯
2005年11月金馬侖高原禪修
洪文亮老師指導和開示


這次向大家介紹寶鏡三昧歌，「歌」是指寫成文章或詩偈，「寶鏡三昧」即是阿嗕多羅三 邈三菩提。【寶鏡三昧歌】是洞山禪師所作，石頭希遷寫了【參同契】，這兩篇文章是姊妹品，這一篇比參同契說明更詳盡，但寫法相同。這一次的解釋是從日本的 飯田禪師翻譯過來的，上次講的參同契也是採用飯田禪師的解說。註解寶鏡三昧的文章很多，飯田禪師寫的這篇簡明扼要，另一篇是面山老師在八十六歲高齡所作， 因為時間有限，這次禪修我們只能講飯田禪師的這篇解說。這兩篇在曹洞宗的寺院中為早晚課必頌，可見其重要。

寶鏡三昧是牆壁瓦礫，是行住坐臥，是生死去來，是苦樂升沉。

『寶鏡三昧是牆壁瓦礫，是行住坐臥，是生死去來，是苦樂升沉』，這一句把重點都講完 了；牆壁也是，石頭也是，各位打噴嚏、走路、睡覺，一切行住坐臥皆是寶鏡三昧。那還有什麼可以講呢？我們最擔心的是生死去來，中陰生到哪裡去？有沒有六道 輪迴？有沒有地獄？有沒有淨土可以去？有沒有天堂可以上？這些生死去來的問題很重要，而其答案都可以以一句「寶鏡三昧」來解答。各位會覺得奇怪嗎？「苦樂 升沉」包括痛麻癢…這些都是，這表示不是特別有一個三昧，各位修了就可以進入，未修就不能進入；或是說有所成就的人才有寶鏡三昧，不是！不管是佛還是凡 夫，有情、無情、饅頭、鑽石、唱歌、走路…皆是，到底什麼意思？

以正眼看，全宇宙是一枚寶鏡三昧。因是一枚故，無能見與所見。

「正眼看」就是沒有糊里糊塗。我們往往是戴著有色眼鏡看東西，就覺得東西是紅色、綠 色、白色…「正眼看」就是沒有加一個偏差去看，整個宇宙是一枚寶鏡三昧。正因為整個宇宙是一副寶鏡三昧，所以當然行住坐臥、牆壁瓦礫、生死去來都是一副寶 鏡三昧。因為「一枚」就是「一副」，只是一副，「整個」就是「一副」的關係，沒有能見所見。整個身體都是你自己，有可能左腳是我，右腳不是我嗎？右腳看左 腳不是你，或左腳看右腳不是你，會這樣嗎？整個都是自己。你站出來外面一看的話，就分開了，既然整個都是，那能分嗎？不能分吧！水能分做這邊的水看那邊的 水嗎？整個水都是水。可以領略得出來嗎？

我們平常這樣看，你、我、他就分了，其實我看你、你看他，他和我及你通通是一個東 西，一枚寶鏡！這樣說我們就搞糊塗了，你是你，石頭是石頭，石頭不是我，那石頭和我怎麼是一個東西？你同意嗎？老虎現前了，老虎是我嗎？不是吧？老虎怎麼 是我？這在參同契中是「回戶」與「不回戶」的道理。「回互」是整個宇宙是一副寶鏡三昧，「不回互」是指對方是老虎，我是我，這是「不回互」。參同契強調的 是我們的世界，我們的念頭都認為老虎是在那邊要吃我，我要逃開等等…，各個獨立的，不回互。但是正眼看，原來整個都是一個法界、法性的顯現。那要怎麼樣契 合呢？用道理講了半天不如你一盤腿上坐，簡單講就是這樣，不是你覺得「啊！對了！」那是你的意識思維覺得對了。

若解會為鏡，則入地獄如矢。不見言，山河不在鏡中見，山河草木即鏡。

『若解會為鏡』假如你把他解釋為一面鏡子，那就『入地獄如矢』。你把他當作一面鏡子 解釋，是解釋哦，一解釋的話，你就把他當作是對像去解說，那當然奇怪了，一面鏡子照的當然是影子，這樣分開來的話就完全錯了。「入地獄如矢」就是馬上錯掉 了，不可以把他當作這樣去解釋。『不見言』是沒有聽說過嗎？『山河不在鏡中見，山河草木即鏡』，你聽到「全宇宙是一枚寶鏡三昧」，就把三昧當作是一副鏡 子，這樣就很容易錯掉了。所以他強調「山河草木不在鏡中見，山河草木就是鏡子」。千萬不要把你所看的、所覺受的當作是鏡中的影子，不可以這樣講，山河大地 本身都是鏡子，不是鏡中的影子。

虎關禪師曰，莫啟吾手其人如玉，莫啟吾足脫體現成，看取，看取。

虎關禪師這句話的意思就是你不要多加一個，手腳一動就不是了，等於說在意識境界裡去 想這個道理的話就錯掉了，「當下就是圓成」，不需要動手腳，整個都是。所以各位看到的、聽到的，你千萬不要以為是大圓鏡智所現，有一面法界法性的鏡子所現 的，隨你的因緣果報不同而現出的影子，這樣解說就完全錯掉了。看到、聽到、摸到、想到的通通都是鏡子，包括你自己，整個都是鏡子！這點不要誤會了。

熱戀中之情侶，即使孤枕夜眠，猶若二人同衾，霧散山隱(日本短歌)。此歌自古難解，道也須臾不可離，夫妻元一體，獨眠不異兩人同寢，如此親蜜。誰敢愧對共枕情。

接著是取一首日本的短歌，熱戀中的情侶就算是一個人睡覺，如同和對方一起睡。『霧散 山隱』，霧散掉了，山就看不見了。此歌自古難解，霧散掉了，山怎麼反而看不見了？一個人睡覺等同於兩個人睡，到底是說什麼？飯田解釋說『道也須臾不可 離』，道一刻也不能離。你本身就是，你自己把他分開來，所以求道，你不知道自己本身就是道，你本身就是道的話，怎麼離？怎麼分開？當然是片刻不可離。『夫 妻元一體，獨眠不異兩人同寢，如此親蜜』，這表示我們自己或是外面的石頭瓦礫，通通都是寶鏡，因此是這樣親密。『誰敢愧對共枕情』是指難道說你不是道嗎？

霧是我見，看山時，山入眼，眼變山。

「霧散山隱」要特別注意，有了霧就看不清楚了，霧就是「我見」，我的想法、見解都 是。我們看東西、聽聲音，馬上有「我見」加進去，好像霧生起來一樣。『霧是我見，看山時，山入眼，眼變山』，看山時，山的影子進入眼睛，眼睛裡有山的影子 現在網膜裡，網膜上整個現山的影子，眼睛就是整個山。看到什麼，眼睛就變成所看的像。『能見所見雙泯』，對到了，還有能見所見嗎？我看到山、樹、雲、太 陽、月亮，看到時，眼睛就變成一朵雲或一座山，這上頭有沒有能見所見？有能見所見是你動個念頭：「我眼睛看到山」，你意識加進去了才有，當下都是影子，都 是像，眼變成花，眼變成麥克風，有沒有能見所見？能見所見是你去想他、講他，所以他說是「看山時，山入眼，眼變山」。

能見所見雙泯，本應解釋為相容，恐被誤解為二元之說，故曰山隱，此為隱之道理。

『能見所見雙泯，本應解釋為相容，恐被誤解為二元之說』。有一個能見的，有一個所見 的，有你和被你看見的山，兩個東西溶解在一起，很容易被誤解為二元，本來是兩個東西，後來變成是一個東西，融入了，不是這樣子。『故曰山隱，此為隱之道 理』，所謂「山隱」，眼睛對到山的時候，眼睛變成山，眼和山變成一個東西，能見所見沒有了。「山」是「我見」，你說「山」即是「我見」加進去了，思維一 動，我見有了，山和你就分開了。現在知道能見所見相容的關係，能見所見都是一張寶境的變化而已。
 
天地同根，萬物ㄧ體，最親者無過於一，故寶鏡三昧亦可說為大愛。

『天地同根，萬物一體，最親者無過於一』，還有比一更親密的嗎？不是「一」的話，就 有彼此相對關係了，所以寶鏡三昧也可以說是大愛。整個都是一張寶鏡本身在那裡動，不是寶鏡所現，所以這是大愛。如果沒有這樣，大愛生不起來的，你是你，我 是我，他是他，講了愛、慈悲，都是以我的立場講，我可以愛他一點，我可以同情他一點，那是你在施捨，大愛不是這樣，大愛不是從這裡來的。

只管打坐看，與公案打成一片看，必有不覺拍手大笑之時。

這個道理講了很難瞭解，所以他說『只管打坐看，與公案打成一片看』。飯田老師多少還 是受臨濟宗的影響，贊同參公案，不像擇木興道或是道元主張一直都是打坐，只是飯田是指參公案時與公案打成一片。那麼『必有不覺拍手大笑之時』，講了半天都 不必動腦筋了，只管打坐看。如同我們講鹹是什麼、甜是什麼，講了半天，一放入口中便知，所以只管打坐看。

寶鏡三昧實為洞山之作。關於作者古來眾說紛紜，恐過於穿鑿。蓋由於會元十三洞山章記有「師因曹山辭，遂囑曰，吾在雲巖先師處親印寶鏡三昧事究的要，今付於汝」。乃認此為雲巖之作，源自於藥山。

『寶鏡三昧的作者是洞山禪師，自古以來關於作者眾說紛紜，恐過於穿鑿』。原因是在會 元十三洞山章記裡有『師因曹山辭，遂囑曰，吾在雲巖先師處親印寶鏡三昧事究的要，今付於汝』。曹山是洞山的學生，離開的時候，洞山告訴曹山：「我在雲巖先 師那裡，親印了寶鏡三昧是究的要」。「是究的要」參禪最要緊的那個。「今付於汝」，現在付給你了。『乃認此為雲巖之作，源自於藥山』，因為看到這段文字， 很多人以為寶鏡三昧不是洞山寫的，而是雲巖之作，洞山把雲嚴給他的寶鏡三昧交給曹山，而雲嚴是從藥山那裡一路傳過來的，此為後人的誤會罷了。

蓋此處所謂寶鏡三昧非為書名，而是直指的的相承，「箇」之正法眼藏，或為「師資相契」之意。

【寶鏡三昧】並非書名，這點要特別注意。釋尊拈花，迦葉尊者抬頭一看，對到了，破顏 一笑，傳過去了，這是寶鏡三昧。所以寶鏡三昧並非如武術家傳的密笈，也不是什麼奧秘。而是直指滴滴相承，就是要把這個東西傳下來。能夠用文字寫嗎？文字寫 的只是代號，不是它本身。『箇之正法眼藏』，「箇」包含的意思很多，有人用「麻三斤」、「庭前柏樹子」、喝、棒…等等，釋尊是用「拈花一笑」。『或為師資 相契之意』，一對到，相契了，那是寶鏡三昧。這個有了就對了，不管你叫他舌頭或是鼻子、耳朵、舌頭都可以。

晦然稱此書為寶鏡三昧歌，傳燈也加歌字以示分別。此歌確為洞山大師將佛祖密付之三昧，筆之成文，願不分真俗，皆得以傳誦證入佛道。

晦然禪師說此書為寶鏡三昧歌，傳燈禪師也加一個「歌」字以示分別，這首歌確為洞山大 師將佛祖密付的三昧「筆之成文」，寫成文章的。他希望不分僧俗，無論是在家出家都能傳頌這一首歌而證入佛道，單靠傳頌就可以幫你忙，得到釋尊真正希望你做 到的，不是叫你理解背頌，注意是「證入」。

不然「五位」之作者（洞山）亦必失其所據。面山之吹唱，痛批世謬，學人不妨參閱。

五位是正中偏、偏中正、正中來、偏中至、兼中到，這是洞山禪師最有名的五位君臣，他 的根據即是寶鏡三昧，由此可見如果寶鏡三昧不是洞山寫的，那五位君臣是怎麼來的？另一篇面山禪師的吹唱，痛批世謬，糾正世人誤傳的認為此篇是由藥山傳到雲 嚴再傳給洞山，洞山再交給曹山是錯誤的，他說的很詳細，大家不妨參考。

此歌與參同契和韻，將之綿密佈演。文中意旨廣略稍異，仍沿用虞語之韻，然知音者幾稀。若先讀參同契，再讀此書，自然會發現兩書虛靈相通。

『此歌與參同契和韻』，這首歌和參同契是合韻而成，連押韻都相同。『將之綿密佈演。 文中意旨廣略稍異』，只是比參同契說明的更加綿密仔細，說明稍有不同而已，其實兩篇要旨皆為佛要傳的滴滴大意。所以參同契中的第一句「竺土大僊心」就是 「寶鏡三昧」，就是釋尊傳的「涅盤妙心」，亦即達摩傳的「面壁打坐」；文字不同，表現不同，都是指「箇」。「箇」如果容易講的話，明說就好了，這個「箇」 不能用文字講，難以描寫，也無法用感情、感覺加以意會「哦！對了！豁然開朗。」那是覺受。所以說它難，很難！但也不難，因為當下你本身即是，只是自己總不 肯承當！那如果肯了之後就沒事了嗎？

如果肯了，但是認為自己對的那一唸放不掉，自肯的毛病上來，掉進悟病，此悟病最難除。但是讓你「覺得對了」的經驗一定要親驗沒有親自經驗那不算，但是這個經驗太美妙、太高興了，過去的習氣又上來抓住不放。所以自肯還是毛病，我們講「真常之毛病」。

這一篇仍沿用「虞語之韻」，用的韻為虞國的韻。『知音者幾希』，知道的人太少了。瞭 解是必須的，修行方向才不會錯，但瞭解不是充分的，不是瞭解了就代表你是對的。『若先讀參同契，再讀此書，自然會發現兩書虛靈相通』，希望大家把此次講解 的寶鏡三昧歌和上次講的參同契對照著讀，自然會發現兩書是相通的，相通在何處？

忘己時無非己，視宇宙為一枚鏡，則事事物物無一非鏡，胡來胡現，漢來漢現。

他用一句話說明『忘己時無非己』，忘己的時候無非通通都是己，自己沒有忘掉，就有 你、他、有情、無情就分了。己是妄想建立起來的，「我是我」的那個念一直在，我在聽，我在修道..那個我要忘掉！忘掉就不能做事嗎？忘掉就不能生活嗎？還 是一樣喝茶，還是一樣呼吸、心跳，還是一樣思想！不要把思想當作是自己就對了。思緒、思潮來了，想要止也止不住，因為它不屬於你呀！『忘己時無非己』這是 出自曾肇法師寫的「聖人無己無非己」，石頭希遷就是讀到此句，有感而寫成參同契。

忘己的時候沒有一個不是自己，這不是聽過去就算了，你親自反照一下自己看，有沒有體 會出一點味道？就算有一點，也是一下子就過去了，剎那又回到那個我，這就是習氣的力量很強。這個習氣你用道理想的，想不出來；用拜的，拜不出來，怎麼辦？ 只管打坐！佛傳的，一上坐，擺在那裡，整個宇宙就是你，你就是整個宇宙，當下現前！以凡夫的身，馬上能夠證成聖體，只有這個方法。不易凡身，頓成聖體。因 為你本來就是一張寶鏡三昧，擺在那裡就是一張寶鏡。不要坐在那裡又搞自己的事，想要成佛，想要把煩惱去掉，想著要打通任都二脈…那就冤枉了！

『視宇宙為一枚鏡，事事物物無一非鏡』，這要徹底在打坐時證驗。本來是這個樣子，你不要想歪就對了。『胡來胡現，漢來漢現』思想來有什麼關係？思想也是法界的動，念頭來、念頭去或是心理想到的都是「胡來胡現，漢來漢現」誰說打坐的時候念頭來、念頭去就不好？誰說的

能照是鏡，所照亦鏡，無他無自，莫能憎愛，元是一空。

『能照是鏡，所照亦鏡』，能照的是鏡子，所照的也是鏡子，重點來了！這叫做「忘己時 無非己」，說法不同，意義一樣。『無他無自』沒有自己也沒有他，這東西弄錯了就變成假平等。不回互是獨立，我和你不同，我和石頭不同，這是不回互，這個弄 不清楚的話，結果把回互也誤會了，誤會變成假平等。真的獨立弄不清楚，就以為通通一樣，結果就變成假平等、假的回互。這樣的話，你的錢都是我的，無自無他 嘛，你的東西我通通搶過來，因為你的就是我的，我的東西當然不是你的。這就是我們意識分別很難弄清楚回互與不回互，獨立又平等同時存在，你怎麼說呢？各個 不一樣，但是各個相同，同時成立嗎？我們用腦子想，怎麼想也想不通，其實原來各個都是這樣子，我們搞不清楚。這一道最難打通了，打通的最好方法還是多多盤 腿比較好，因為盤腿是回互與不回互同時現。兩個同時現？你不要用腦筋想獨立的就獨立，不能平等；平等了就不能獨立，這是廢話，自圓其說的。你上坐盤腿，讓 六根自在，這時說回互與不回互都是多餘的，閒話。

『無他無自的關係，莫能憎愛』，沒有自、沒有他，還能愛還能恨嗎？但是千萬不要又掉 入假平等、假的回互去了。徹底的不回互才能徹底的回互，不能徹底不回戶的話，你能回互嗎？不能嘛！好比房屋的基石和柱子，各安其位，各顯其用，各個盡其本 分才能變成一個屋子。如果柱子不像柱子，地基不像地基，你能完成一個房子嗎？不能！各個要盡其本分，你才能完成一個房子，所以「不回互」徹底了，才能完成 「回戶」的樣子。『莫能憎愛，元是一空』請看信心銘的解說。

忽焉在前，剎時在後，初如處女，終如脫兔。始為巨賈，極盡奢侈，終致零落，在巷間行乞而不知恥。

『忽焉在前，剎時在後，初如處女，終如脫兔。始為巨賈，極盡奢侈，終致零落，在巷間行乞而不知恥』，都是指無窮無限的變換多端，都是空，指無限的那個能變的東西在變，整個是一副寶鏡在那裡動。有時一下子富貴，沒有過一年半年又變成叫化子了，這整個是一張寶鏡在那裡顯。
 
要能隨所為主，轉處實能幽。寶鏡為己，己為寶鏡。寶是萬能自在之義，寶鏡為喻，三昧為法

『要能隨處為主，轉處實能幽』，安分在自己的本分上就是「實能幽」，徹底的不回互才 能「轉處實能幽」。『寶鏡為己，己為寶鏡』，所以不要分做我是寶鏡或是我是寶鏡裡現出來的影子，不對！寶鏡本身就是你，你就是寶鏡，那鏡子上頭有很多的變 化，通通是你自己，無非己嘛！『寶是萬能自在之義，寶鏡為喻，三昧為法』，寶鏡三昧這首歌用寶鏡和三昧勉強分為兩段的話，寶鏡是比方，三昧是法，三昧是正 受，正受是什麼？沒有自我的意見加進去，沒有莫名其妙的邪見、偏見加進去，三昧就是正受。好了，講了這麼多道理，那實際的用功是什麼？

三昧即正受，老實承受與緣合一而忘己。

『老實承受與緣合一而忘己』，只有這一句，大家要記住。寶鏡是比方，三昧是正法，無 己非己…這些是道理，實際上呢？各位現在坐在那裡聽我上課，你的緣是什麼？你聽到我說的內容，腦筋因此在動，在思考、判斷，這都是緣，你有沒有和緣合一？ 無時無刻都在動腦筋，我聽到你在講，講的好、講的不好，馬上有一個跑出來在那裡動，合一了嗎？沒有！那合一的人是不知道你在講什麼嗎？沒有意見嗎？或是糊 塗了嗎？這是合一嗎？聽到後在上面動腦筋在思量，你要知道「思量本身究竟是不思量」。「我」在想，那個「我」不要插進去就對了，沒有「我」插進去，你就不 能分別我在講什麼嗎？所以「妄想畢竟是法性」，懂嗎？你說與緣合一，難道你就變成聲音，所以只有聲音在響，聽到的內容，什麼都都不懂？佛、大禪師不是教你 這樣。

把一個澈悟的禪師的牙齒拔掉，但是不上麻藥，認為不痛才是與緣合一，合不合道理？很 多人認為修行是這樣，我修行很到家，所以我拔牙都不上麻醉，真的嗎？就是忍也是「你」在忍，是忍的功夫好。「與緣合一」是「痛就是痛」，會大叫，怎麼不 痛？就是不想痛還是會痛。釋迦牟尼佛拔牙齒不上麻醉，可以不痛嗎？不痛才怪呢！
「老實承受與緣合一而忘己」，這並不是說你覺受都沒有了，思想都不動了，不曉得你在說什麼，不是這樣。清楚你在說什麼，但是上頭沒有一個分別的叫作「我」的妄念，沒有！只是這樣而已，所以「思想本身究竟不是妄想」。所以永嘉禪師【證道歌】裡有「無明實在是佛性」。

最要緊是時時刻刻「老實承受與緣合一而忘己」，能一直不偏離這個就是悟後起修。並不 是澈悟後就絕對不會跑掉、偏離，因此隨隨便變都可以，不是這樣，處處時時「與緣合一而忘己」都不偏離就對了。弄清楚自己就是寶鏡，就是悟了，悟後還要修行 嗎？「修行沒有終止」，這就是曹洞宗最難使人瞭解的地方，使得學人轉學跑到臨濟宗或是淨土宗那裡去。「悟沒有開始，修行沒有終了」一聽就受不了！修行沒有 終止？那我要悟作什麼？我以為悟了就沒有事了，還要一直修行下去？悟沒有開始？那我就不要悟了，本來就是悟嘛。一下子就搞糊塗了，用思想去想佛講的正法， 佛傳的真正的東西，要命呀！
 
死時坦然死，絕無延生之念，故解脫安樂。另有譯為「不受」，因受無受者故。何以如此？甜瓜徹蒂甜，苦瓜連根苦。

他用另一個說法來說明「與緣合一」，『死時坦然死，絕無延生之念，故解脫安樂』。臨終死的時候坦然死，這個時候絕沒有延生之念，想多活一天也好，多活兩天也好，這樣的話就苦了。這是與緣合一的道理，所以解脫安樂。
還有一個三昧翻譯成「不受」，因為沒有受與受者，寶鏡嘛！能受所受沒有的關係，所以 叫不受。三昧正受有時翻譯成不受，何以如此？『甜瓜徹蒂甜，苦瓜連根苦』，這上頭有沒有道理？苦瓜吃下去的時候，根也苦，葉子也苦；甜瓜整個都是甜，哪有 這裡甜，那裡不甜？或是這裡甜多一點，那裡甜少一點？有這事嗎？這是什麼意思？沒有能所的意思。本來沒有能所，為什麼？因為都是一枚寶鏡。

大家剛才聽到鐘響了，下課了，平常我們都是「我自己聽到鐘響」，有沒有分開來？有沒 有一枚寶鏡？不是嘛！處處都是分開來。我是我，鐘響是鐘響，這是不回互。因為徹底的不回互，所以是回互。聲音在我這裡響，還是在那邊響？我這邊沒有響，聽 不見；如果只有我這邊響，那就不要鐘也可以響，我想要響就響就好了，不行！一定要鐘動才行，大家動起來才有，有緣才有。

比方講，我在這裏照鏡子，鏡子上有沒有我的影子？有啊！如果沒有我，鏡子上有沒有顯 出我的影子？沒有！一定要有鏡子，也要有我。也許有人說拿鏡子的人把這個影子照出來的，那叫拿鏡子的人走開，鏡子擺在那裡就好了，行嗎？不是拿鏡子的人把 影子照出來的，那麼是虛空把影子照出來嗎？那影子是誰照的？不是鏡子照，也不是中間的虛空照，也不是拿鏡子的人照，但是，沒有我不行，沒有鏡子也不行，沒 有空間也不行。沒有這些東西，就沒有影子，那這個影子是從哪裡來的？你看，鏡子和我是獨立的，但是這個影子呢？不回互有影子嗎？沒有影子。像這樣用頭腦去 理解的話是這樣子，那麼實際的情況還是希望大家多多盤腿，盤腿放鬆六根，六根讓它放鬆，就是回到自然的規律。「哦！這是自然的規律…」，你不要又加進了自 己的意見了。擺在那裡，思想動來動去也不是你動的，也不是你趕走它，你不趕它，它也走掉啊。念頭動的時候，你不要再加一個「我在想」就好了嘛！飯田禪師整 個序言講了半天就是一個重點：整個都是一個寶鏡三昧在顯，上頭沒有你、我、她，實際的生活怎麼相應？就是和你所看到、所聽到、所接觸到的情景、情況合一， 「與緣合一」這是實際生活用功很好的方法。
Labels: , , , 0 comments | | edit post