The mystic's smile...

Check out this Tricycle Magazine Q&A with Jack Kornfield ...

Q: What did Ajahn Chah mean by original mind; is it the same as Buddha-nature?

A: "Yes, definitely. Ajahn Chah describes, 'The original heart-mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. To know this we must go beyond self and no-self, birth, and death. This original mind is limitless, untouchable, beyond all opposites and all creations.' This is his description of Buddha-nature. He goes on, 'When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to anybody or any history. The Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind. So the Buddha was not enlightened in India. In fact, he was never enlightened and was never born and never died, and this timeless Buddha is our true home, our abiding place.' The scholars tend to argue. The mystics look at each other and smile." (emphasis mine)

That last point hit me pretty hard. I tend to take a scholarly attitude toward view and practice, and always have. I have a religious studies degree, for crying out loud. The majority of those programs teach are courses that teach students to interpret ancient texts.

But, "The mystics look at each other and smile." That's something I should tattoo to the inside of my eyelids.

-awouldbehipster

P.S. I still love me some Thai Forest tradition. Deeply resonant with my experience and understanding.

To be fair Jackson, I don't really think that "scholar" jab really fits you. I think it is more about the pure religious scholar who never practices, who just tries to figure out and codify everything intellecually/academically. You've practiced your ass off and are a true mystic. A mystic with a bit of a scholarly bent that needs to be put in check sometimes for sure.

I like that quote too because it reminds me that all the words and history and sutras and instructions and "teachings" are just something to use as a sprinboard to one's own and original discoveries. Guidposts to be discarded as soon as possible. I love to use the term "reckless" to describe how I think we should practice. Learn a bunch of shit and then jump off the end of the 100 foot pole and forget you ever knew anything. (this isn't advice, just me going on and on about me)

I love to use the term "reckless" to describe how I think we should practice. Learn a bunch of shit and then jump off the end of the 100 foot pole and forget you ever knew anything. (this isn't advice, just me going on and on about me) [emphasis mine]

-michaelmonson

Hey Mike, I'm glad you are able to make the distinction between how you engage in practice and what you may or may not recommend for others. My libertarian leanings have me all for individuals doing whatever the hell they want with their own minds, so long as no one else is being harmed in the process. I get concerned when people recommend potentially harmful practices and approaches to others without a proper warning or disclaimer.

Note: It's pretty obvious that my practice and approach to dharma are very influenced by contemporary Western psychology, so I won't ever try to hide that when participating in discussions here.

Good, then I'm glad I added that. And note that that is ALWAYS what I'm doing when I post messages about this stuff, just saying what works for me and what my opinion may be about truth. Except of course when I am directly addressing a person's practice questions.

Still still still, - just a question! - how can one get to "original mind" if they never take that leap? I don't see how.

I think there are a number of ways to realize "original mind," some reckless, and some not so much. If there is a key factor at work in all of the ways of realization, I think it must be some kind of profound letting go. Whether that means leaping from the 100 ft pole, or simply relaxing fully into the depths of unknowing as one relaxes to float above water, the result tends to be the same - or at least similar.

"simply relaxing fully into the depths of unknowing as one relaxes to float above water" - I don't know, that seems to describe what I'm talking about just as well as "jumping off the pole." For many of us, especially starting out, any kind of exploration into "unknowing" can feel a little reckless, you know?

Anyway I like "simply relaxing fully into the depths of unknowing" ,or "profound letting go" -- these activities are necessary to get original. (I believe)

A side note on this - a lot of the mystical things I've experienced or especially seen or heard about with Christian groups are possible, I think, because the added faith in God or Jesus (if it is there) allows many people a way into the experience of fully letting go and seeing where that takes them. Which, often is to a place of great light, great freedom, and, sometimes, freaky behavior.
If one is a strong cultural Christian and really believes in God and Jesus and what the preacher is saying then it can be okay to nearly fully let go because one knows that Jesus is there to catch them if need be.

True faith is no different from "letting go." From Alan Watts:

"Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float. And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be." ( On FAITH ).

So yeah, I think that the Christian tradition and other theistic tradtions could make a great vessel for making progress in insight. That is, if one can remain free from fundamentalism and dogmatism. "The scholars tend to argue. The mystics look at each other and smile."

Yes and what can be beautiful in a theistic community setting is when people are truly letting go together into an, open place based upon this faith and what can arise is a feeling a sacredness, a sense of healing, and a true feeling of love for one another.

Where it gets weird though is when the very same people also start interpreting their texts in a way that create or strengthen ugly divisions and judgements, and, often, just plain hate (why I'm not really a christian any more).

Now I think that that positive, loving, open comunal space can also happen in dharma communities, though, yes, I think at least American "convert" type practitioners (people at SFZC come to mind and Spirt Rock) tend to be a little too stiff and "scholarly" to let go together in this way.

I know that kuan yin in her many forms is used throughout the buddhist world in a way that is very like Christ - as an anchor to attach one's faith to to enable a real letting go. This doesn't seem very dualistic I guess, but I'm sure here is more to that subject that I could learn.

Also, buddha mind, original mind, big mind -- having faith in the very place you may want to reside can be the very thing to get one to that place.

There is a line somewhere in Zen Mind, Beginners Mind (I'll try to find it) that says something like, in regards to worries, fears, or anxieties -- "let the Buddha take care of that."

"I know that kuan yin in her many forms is used throughout the buddhist world in a way that is very like Christ - as an anchor to attach one's faith to to enable a real letting go. This doesn't seem very dualistic I guess, but I'm sure here is more to that subject that I could learn." -Mike

You're making some really great points. I think we should explore this 'faith' idea in another thread...

-Jackson

EDIT: http://dharmarefugees.lefora.com/2010/12/03/the-role-of-faith-on-a-path-of-insight/

"A side note on this - a lot of the mystical things I've experienced or especially seen or heard about with Christian groups are possible, I think, because the added faith in God or Jesus (if it is there) allows many people a way into the experience of fully letting go and seeing where that takes them. Which, often is to a place of great light, great freedom, and, sometimes, freaky behavior.
If one is a strong cultural Christian and really believes in God and Jesus and what the preacher is saying then it can be okay to nearly fully let go because one knows that Jesus is there to catch them if need be.

-michaelmonson

I have a Zen student and friend named Paul who used to be a Christian minister.

While studying for the ministry in a Bible college, Paul had some amazing mystical experiences. His denomination was strict and fundamentalist. His mystical experiences were almost entirely the result of his individual practice; that is, solitary prayer.

Paul eventually left the church when he was about to take over as pastor of a congregation. The discrepancy between his own experiences and the church dogma had become too great.

Perhaps he might like to join this group. I'll talk to him about it.

- Mike Gozen

Gozen, your friend is more than welcome here. I attended Bible college for three years prior to switching gears and going for a religious studies degree instead, which came after discover Buddhadharma on a whim. Fate was on my side Anyway, I'd love to meet your friend.

-Jackson

Q: What did Ajahn Chah mean by original mind; is it the same as Buddha-nature?
A: "Yes, definitely...


-Jack Kornfield

Isn't it funny how students of the same teacher understand the teacher in different ways? Kornfield learns to see Buddha-nature after studying under Ajahn Chah ... Thanissaro learns to avoid seeing any innate nature, whether good or bad. (See Freedom from Buddha-Nature )

Isn't it funny how students of the same teacher understand the teacher in different ways? Kornfield learns to see Buddha-nature after studying under Ajahn Chah ... Thanissaro learns to avoid seeing any innate nature, whether good or bad. (See Freedom from Buddha-Nature)

-brian_ananda

I didn't know Thanissaro was a student of Ajahn Chah. He practices in the Thai tradition, but he studied with Ajahn Fuang Jotiko, who was a student of Ajahn Lee. I really don't know how much different their dharma was from Chah's, so it could be a moot point.

What I find interesting about the "Freedom From Buddha Nature" article is that one of Thanissaro's arguments against the idea of Buddha Nature is similar to arguments used when arguing for the reality of Buddha Nature. Specifically, this:

"How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?"

It's a good point. But, the Buddha Nature schools contend that if there is no inherent nature, than all of the saintly qualities of a Buddha (the "perfections") are conditioned. Attributing conditioned qualities to someone who is supposed to have gone beyond the conditioned all together is somewhat problematic.

Personally, I think it's a matter of perspective and pedagogy. Describing the Dharma in these various ways seems to be a way to inspire a wide variety of spiritual temperaments. As Kornfield points out, arguments about what the Buddha did or didn't say is more the activity of scholars than of mystics. That's not to say that there aren't scholarly mystics out there. As I've said before, I think Thanissaro is that rare combination of scholar-practitioner that is so beneficial to others.

I didn't know Thanissaro was a student of Ajahn Chah. He practices in the Thai tradition, but he studied with Ajahn Fuang Jotiko, who was a student of Ajahn Lee. I really don't know how much different their dharma was from Chah's, so it could be a moot point.


-awouldbehipster

Belay my last...I was confusing Brahm & Thanissaro when I wrote that.

Not a moot point, though. The Thai Forest tradition is very eclectic...the fact that many groups within it adopt the Buddha-Nature idea, which is inherently Mahayanic, speaks volumes. The mantra-style meditation is also at odds with the Theravada population at large. (I say "at odds" meaning only that it is very different...I know of no one that considers the practices heresy or anything.)

It's a good point. But, the Buddha Nature schools contend that if there is no inherent nature, than all of the saintly qualities of a Buddha (the "perfections") are conditioned. Attributing conditioned qualities to someone who is supposed to have gone beyond the conditioned all together is somewhat problematic.

It depends...are we speaking of the Historical Buddha or the Transcendental Archetype of the Buddha? (i.e., Theravada's Gotama that gives lectures or Mahayana's more symbolic, more god-like Buddha that flies through the air and shoots beams of lights from his hands.) This is where I think everything gets a little too hypothetical...and everyone drowns themselves in arguments that aren't even applicable to the philosophy or practice of Buddhism [as defined in the Pali Canon].

I think Kornfield--and many other Westerners--bring up the "none of us really know what the Buddha said" to support their picking & choosing of what to believe and what not to. The idea that the heart of Buddhism is just meditation (no dogma req'd) can only be accepted by one that hasn't dug deep enough.

Taking Kornfield (& his contemporaries) side, I would say that one need not accept the dogma to benefit. One can even achieve an awakening...but I hesitate to attribute this Western Awakening to the exact awakening of the Historical Buddha. One would have to toss out at least 1/3 of the Canon to reconcile the two.

In fact, I don't see why all Westerners are hell-bent on attributing their interpretation of the Dhamma as the "essence" of the Buddha's message. Maybe they feel that the reconciliation of Buddhist/Western beliefs is not authentic unless it is sold as Gotama's view, too?

From the Pali Canon's POV, one comes to the Dhamma because one sees the futility of life as it is normally lived out...over & over, again. Everyone in the East accepts this doctrine of rebirth, even if they are not religious--just as most everyone in the West accepts a one-life theory, regardless of whether or not they are religious.

The Buddha does not speak of nanas...he simply says one sees the rise & fall and develops dispassion & disenchantment..with continued watching (of the rise & fall) and development of the Eightfold Path, one realizes insight after insight, all the way to the Final Awakening. This ties in directly with the feelings of samvega that brought one to the practice.

However, the Western approach is usually different. Unless one was raised with Eastern influences, or has already experienced the insights related to kamma/rebirth, the approach is most often to enhance or refine one's enjoyment of life...one life. It is never to develop dispassion for it...yet this is spoken by the Buddha over & over. I don't see how one can get around it...it is part of Early Buddhism...it is the philosophy of the Historical Buddha. (We all know the philosophy & practice evolved as the teaching migrated to new regions & was reconciled with the culture/beliefs of the societies it spread to...but the core teachings are rarely disputed.)

This is where the more Taoist (or Chan/Zen, due to the Taoist influence) goals of accepting things as they are...learning to go with the flow (or Tao!)...come into play. It falls more in line with the American approach to Buddhism. The Mahayanic the approach to, and understanding of, dependent origination that is more geared towards acceptance of things as they are...a stark contrast to the Pali approach to dependent origination.

IMHO, it seems that most Americans...due to their educational style learning. backgrounds, & cultural beliefs...are often drawn to the Theravada mode of practice, yet have more Zen-ish worldviews & goals. I see nothing wrong with this...but I do see something wrong with Americans trying to pick apart the Pali Canon & say the parts that don't fit their approach "were probably never uttered by the Buddha anyway". (This is not my interpretation of what you said, Jackson...you just brought this to light.)

It is true--we cannot prove much. We can only say that the Pali Canon is most likely the closest to what the Buddha uttered. Knowing the Theravada as I know them, they are allergic to change. They believe personal opinion/interpretation is the most unreliable source of information to be cited. However, most of the philosophy can be proven through direct experience. In fact, a LOT more than one would initially think--I can say that from experience.

So I say of that to say this:

Buddhism has evolved many times in the past...from Early Buddhism (incl. Theravada), to Chan/Zen, to the Mantra/Vajrayana schools of Tibet. Each time, the philosophy changed so a compromise could be reached between the beliefs of old & the new.

It is making a major change as it moves into the West where a one-life belief system & a primarily hedonistic life-style is adopting the Dhamma...initially for its ethics, now for its approach to applied psychology.

Should we, however, say that we're the ones that are "Finally getting it right"? Or can we simply say that there are some beliefs & ways of life we are simply not willing to give up...regardless of how irrational they may be?

It is what it is. There is nothing innately good or bad about it. But then again...this is merely my perspective.

I think Kornfield--and many other Westerners--bring up the "none of us really know what the Buddha said" to support their picking & choosing of what to believe and what not to. The idea that the heart of Buddhism is just meditation (no dogma req'd) can only be accepted by one that hasn't dug deep enough.

In fact, I don't see why all Westerners are hell-bent on attributing their interpretation of the Dhamma as the "essence" of the Buddha's message. Maybe they feel that the reconciliation of Buddhist/Western beliefs is not authentic unless it is sold as Gotama's view, too?

I see where you're going with this. I think it's true that there's a danger in re-designing and re-packaging historical/classical Buddhism, and then saying "This is what the Buddha REALLY meant" in order to spread it to a Western audience. That isn't really fair to Buddhism as a religion, now is it?

I guess it would be better to come out and admit that, "I disagree with these particular teachings of the Pali canon. I think these other teachings in the canon are useful, and so I teach them." Even if that doesn't work for everyone, it's at least more honest.

Personally, I am not opposed to revising the message of any religion/spiritual tradition, so long it is for good reason. It's only nature for worldviews to change as we discover more and more about our world, our universe, our bodies, our minds, etc. For example, world transcending messages in religious literature often arise out of ancient cultures that met a certain criteria based on things like economics, agriculture, gender roles, etc. One specific exmple is the way worldview changes as gender roles change. In agrarian societies (like the Buddha's time, or the time of Jesus), men did most of the work. Most of the work involved large animals and heavy plows. Women were more likely to miscarry when engaged in that kind of work, so they tended to stay home with the young children. Societies like this tend to be patriarchal in response. Whereas industrial societies, which provide labor that both men and women can do without reproductive consequences, tend to be more egalitarian.

Because worldview is such a malleable 'thing' (for lack of a better term), it's hard for me to believe that liberation from suffering can only fit within one specific worldview. The human brain*, however, hasn't really evolved in the last 10,000 years or so (due to our unstable environment. Evolution requires stability over VERY long stretches of time). So, I tend to think of the psychology of awakening as something the transcends worldview in many regards. Obviously, the teachings can't be completely change. But it is possible to conceive of there being a core structure to the teachings that transports through worldview changes and other factors that differ from some of the original literature. I think this is where all of the talk about the "essence" of Buddhism comes into play.

Of course, if you believe that the Buddha had perfect wisdom, and knew everything he knew absolutely, more than anyone else ever has, than sticking to every little thing the Pali canon teaches will be very important. I'm not personally sold on this idea. But I certainly realize that I could be wrong about this.

As usual, Brian, I very much appreciate your opinion. I learn a lot from our exchanges.

-Jackson

*I don't think that the brain is all there is to "mind", by the way. But it is an important aspect to consider.

Of course, if you believe that the Buddha had perfect wisdom, and knew everything he knew absolutely, more than anyone else ever has, than sticking to every little thing the Pali canon teaches will be very important. I'm not personally sold on this idea. But I certainly realize that I could be wrong about this.

-awouldbehipster

I wrestle with this a lot. Given, the deeper I discern the Dhamma, the more I realize that Siddhatha Gotama was a genius...a real, true genius. I believe he was more than just another religious leader. I believe he was much more than that. I have "directly experienced" a lot of things which have led me to accept Buddhism as a religion.

Yet, in the past...and from time to time even now...I stutter when reciting "Iti 'pi so--". Why is it so difficult for me to accept that he truly was special. Something above the rest? Is there something lacking in His doctrine or realization? Or is it that I am simply burnt out on false proclamations by religious leaders?

The more deeply I look, the more I find that He was something more. I do not see Him as a god that denies the laws of physics. Though I find it hard to believe He simply stumbled onto so many views that we are proving objectively with our modern scientific instruments.

In the end, I revert to faith. Not the cold, blind faith of my Southern Baptist upbringing, but a different kind...
As knowledge advances my mind towards a higher aptitude, so does this faith open my heart to a deeper inner-peace.

…this faith of ours
is maintained less by our dialectical skill as by the virtues of patience and
courage. For we must be willing to wait patiently until we are spiritually
ripe for the emergence of the knowledges [gained through meditative insight],
however far off that might seem to be. And secondly, we must be willing to take
risks. Life nowhere offers a one hundred per cent security, and for our
convictions least of all. Employed in gaining wealth a merchant must risk his
property. Employed in taking life, a soldier must risk his own life. Employed in
saving his soul, the spiritual man must risk his own soul. The stake
automatically increases with the prospect of gain. Of course, we may be
mistaken. I sometimes wonder what I would think if, on dying, I would not, as I
now fondly imagine, wake up on the Bardo plane, but find myself confronted
with Acheron and the three-headed Cerberus, or, worse still, were ill-treated
with fire and brimstone in a Christian hell. The experience would, I admit, be
rather disconcerting. All that I can say in the face of such uncertainty is
that I am willing to take the consequences, and that I hope that my fund of
boldness, audacity and good humor will not run
out...

-Edward Conze

That says "confidence" to me, not faith. Yes? No? I say that because "faith" is such a loaded term in the west.


-cmarti

Well, we are all free to interpret words as we see fit...but generally speaking, "no" would be the answer you'd most likely receive at the Temple.

It is more than a mere confidence. I can have confidence in you without a single drop of positive emotion, motivation, or any other feeling towards you. Confidence is part of faith/saddha, no doubt. So is conviction. But I would not reduce it to that.

I think it has more to do with a Westerner's aversion to the word "faith" because of the bad history with "faith-based" religions...the word "faith" in the West seems to equate to "blind, irrational faith".

As previously stated, we're all open to interpret words however we see fit. I have faith...er..."conviction" that the more one qualifies his/her statements, the less ambiguous they become.

LOL...I would even disagree that there is that much ground between conviction/confidence and faith.