The Great Way Is Not Difficult For Those Who Have No (Non Attachment To) Preference.

[rockyysdt]

The following was a summation of a Dhamma talk I recently listened to via podcast.

I thought I'd share the wisdom.

Feel free to comment if there are inaccuracies.

Our Relative & Ultimate realities live together.

The great way is not difficult for those who have no (non attachment to) preference.

There are two truths, the relative and the ultimate.

The Dhamma teaches of the partial (relative) truths of the world, and the truths which are sublime.

Without knowing how they differ you cannot know the deep.

Our relative reality has no solidity, its form being empty.

Through intuiting in the present of the moment the sublime reveals itself.

The path points us to here not there.

The naked reality reveals itself through us, as us in the moment, not in the past, nor the future.

Our practice is to be in the present. It is limitless, but limited by our mind, habits & ideas.

Be respectful of both relative and ultimate reality as they are both equally true.

Without relative you cannot have the ultimate.

The ultimate manifests through the relative.

If we idealize the ultimate, this can lead to pushing away the relative.

Pushing away the relative self has its place but it can be a pitfall.

Repetitive thoughts & feelings are good as they give you an opportunity to be mindful which then brings you to the present.

A deeper truth than knowing we are born & we will die, the sublime is freedom.

I think there are many examples in our posts , of mind, habits & ideas, indicative of the limits we place before us.

Does your self awareness allow you to see these?

Edited December 12, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Sounds a more Mahayana way of presenting these ideas but sounds like a pretty clear and reasonable way of understanding it, like all descriptions of understanding our reality beyond our normal conceptual framework they should be seen as a finger pointing at the moon I think. I'm wondering what "Pushing away the relative self has its place but it can be a pitfall." means, is he refering to an attitude of nihilism?

[AYJAYDEE]

it has some of the flavour of ideas ive seen expressed by buddhadassa

[christiaan]

I will not go into this too much for it seems people get tired to read more as half of an A4.

But the question should not be does selfawareness allow you to see this?

The question itself cannot even be made without selfawareness.without knowing you are the one who ask this question.

In another situation people can only ask this question as a copycat - without having even a simple clue about what they ask or when they are in trance, completely drunk, or drugged..

Awareness is not your boss, You are the boss of your awareness.

[rockyysdt]

I'm wondering what "Pushing away the relative self has its place but it can be a pitfall." means?

I think it has something to do with:

Letting go of the "I", or "ego", vs the usefulness of the "I", or "ego" for thought to arise which gives one an opportunity to be mindful.

Without thoughts there can't be mindfulness of these.

Also there can't be an intuiting or knowing of ultimate reality without relative reality to begin with.

[Brucenkhamen]

[/i]The question itself cannot even be made without selfawareness.without knowing you are the one who ask this question.

What is the difference between knowing you are the one who ask this question compared with just knowing the question?

Awareness is not your boss, You are the boss of your awareness.

If we were the bosses of our awareness then we would be capable of being 100% aware 100% of the time, except maybe when sleeping, we'd never lose focus, we'd never daydream, we'd never get lost in thought, we'd never have moments of inattention. If you've ever been on a meditation retreat one of the first lesson you'll learn is this mind is out of control and you being the boss is just a delusion.

[christiaan]

[/i]The question itself cannot even be made without selfawareness.without knowing you are the one who ask this question.

What is the difference between knowing you are the one who ask this question compared with just knowing the question?

There is no difference, knowing this question means you are knowing this question, (and maybe your neighbour does not know)

Awareness is not your boss, You are the boss of your awareness.

If we were the bosses of our awareness then we would be capable of being 100% aware 100% of the time, except maybe when sleeping, we'd never lose focus, we'd never daydream, we'd never get lost in thought, we'd never have moments of inattention. If you've ever been on a meditation retreat one of the first lesson you'll learn is this mind is out of control and you being the boss is just a delusion.

We are aware of everything we our self direct our awareness, our attention too, so when you direct your attention to meditation retreats you are aware of meditation retreats, when you direct your asttention to a certain concepts you are aware of a certain concept.

Being aware doesnot tell how deep we are aware of, just like being into sporting does not mean we are the worldchampion in running.

It is by directing our awareness with awareness and developing our awareness with awareness we can reach deeper awareness.

This is all Self activity, it is not your neigbour doing for you.

[Brucenkhamen]

There is no difference, knowing this question means you are knowing this question, (and maybe your neighbour does not know)

So the original point goes without saying then.

We are aware of everything we our self direct our awareness, our attention too, so when you direct your attention to meditation retreats you are aware of meditation retreats, when you direct your asttention to a certain concepts you are aware of a certain concept.

Being aware doesnot tell how deep we are aware of, just like being into sporting does not mean we are the worldchampion in running.

It is by directing our awareness with awareness and developing our awareness with awareness we can reach deeper awareness.

This is all Self activity, it is not your neigbour doing for you.

This doesn't address my point.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[IMA_FARANG]

The first line you qouted is well known to me. It is from a series of aboout 400 rhyming (in Chinese) verses traditionally written by the Third Patriarch of Zen in China about 600 A.D. (by the Christian calender, of course). It is often translated as,"Verses on the Faith Mind", and is considered one of the pivotal works of Zen.

======================================================

Verses on the Faith Mind

by Chien-chih Seng-ts’an

Third Zen Patriarch [606 AD]

The Great Way is not difficult

for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent (set aside)

everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction, however,

and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth

then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike

is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood (or, "the deep nature of things")

the mind’s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect like vast space

where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.

Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject

that we do not see the true nature of things.

Be serene in the oneness of things

and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.

=============================================================

Obviously I won't quote all 400 plus versus.

[rockyysdt]

The first line you qouted is well known to me. It is from a series of aboout 400 rhyming (in Chinese) verses traditionally written by the Third Patriarch of Zen in China about 600 A.D. (by the Christian calender, of course). It is often translated as,"Verses on the Faith Mind", and is considered one of the pivotal works of Zen.

======================================================

Verses on the Faith Mind

by Chien-chih Seng-ts’an

Third Zen Patriarch [606 AD]

Thanks IMA.

A very beautiful poem.

[lungmi]

I'm wondering what "Pushing away the relative self has its place but it can be a pitfall." means?

I think it has something to do with:

Letting go of the "I", or "ego", vs the usefulness of the "I", or "ego" for thought to arise which gives one an opportunity to be mindful.

Without thoughts there can't be mindfulness of these.

Also there can't be an intuiting or knowing of ultimate reality without relative reality to begin with.

The temporary nibbana, the satori or the Zen-flash is this intuition of ultimate reality, but without wisdom. Short flash, you know and you don't know what to do. The relative reality is the necessary background for this flash.

[rockyysdt]

The temporary nibbana, the satori or the Zen-flash is this intuition of ultimate reality, but without wisdom. Short flash, you know and you don't know what to do. The relative reality is the necessary background for this flash.

Although temporary and without wisdom, this flash of ultimate reality must be very powerful in fueling ones faith.

[lungmi]

The temporary nibbana, the satori or the Zen-flash is this intuition of ultimate reality, but without wisdom. Short flash, you know and you don't know what to do. The relative reality is the necessary background for this flash.

Although temporary and without wisdom, this flash of ultimate reality must be very powerful in fueling ones faith.

I don"t know. Tan Buddhadasa compared the temporary nibbana with the "unio mystica" of Master Eckhard, who was persecuted by the Inquisition for heretic teaching, his notion of "God" was nearer to the Dhamma than to a personal God)