Seeing Into Real Nature

I have been musing quite a bit over what Huang Po means in this passage. So I have attached my commentary (attempts at paraphrasing) along the way here to clarify where the confusion arises. Any notes, comments, and clarifications are welcome.

1. Q: What is implied by ‘seeing into the real Nature’?
   

A: That Nature and your perception of it are one. You cannot use it to see something over and above itself. That Nature and your hearing of it are one. You cannot use it to hear something over and above itself.

Ok, so far so good, but let me paraphrase to see if I got him. "Your Intrinsic Present Awareness¹ and your perception of it are one. You cannot use your Intrinsic Present Awareness to become aware of something outside of your Intrinsic Present Awareness."

If you form a concept of the true nature of anything as being visible or audible, you allow a dharma of distinction to arise.

"The sights, sounds, and ideas you have about anything or person are simply just that. You do not get the true essence of their present existence from a thought about them or a picture of them."

Let me repeat that the perceived cannot perceive.

WHAT??? I think most of my confusion comes from here. I am pretty sure Huang Po isn't arguing for some kind of solipsism. My best guess is that he is referring to the empty, void, formless, and imperceptible nature of present consciousness and is arguing that any attempt to define present consciousness or Mind as being something perceptible is entirely erroneous.

Can there, I ask you, be a head attached to the crown of your head?

A nod to Linji, "Blind men! You’re putting a head on top of the one you already have. What do you yourself lack?"

I will give you an example to make my meaning clearer. Imagine some loose pearls in a bowl, some large globules and some small. Each one is completely unaware of the others and none causes the least obstruction to the rest. During their formation, they did not say: ‘Now I am coming into being’: and when they begin to decay, they will not say: ‘Now I am decaying.’ None of the beings born into the six forms of life through the four kinds of birth are exceptions to this rule.

My best way to paraphrase this is that he means "Things in nature do not act from a place of conception, they act directly from intrinsic present instinct"

Buddhas and sentient creatures have no mutual perception of each other. The four grades of Theravādin adepts who are able to enter Nirvāņa do not perceive, nor are they perceived by Nirvāna. Those Theravādins who have reached the ‘three stages of holiness’ and who possess the ‘ten excellent characteristics’ neither perceive nor are perceived by Enlightenment. So it is with everything else, down to fire and water, or earth and sky. These pairs of elements have no mutual perception of each other. Sentient beings do not ENTER the Dharmadhātu, nor do the Buddhas ISSUE FROM it.

Another very confusing spot. My best attempt to paraphrase it would be "Buddhas and sentient creatures, holy and unholy, nirvana and samsara, fire and water, are all made-up distinctions and labels in your mind, as such, they do not exist in any objective sense, and therefore have no intrinsic awareness of their own outside of your mind and thus do not perceive each other since they exist merely as false distinctions or labels in your mind"

There is no coming and going within the Dharmatā, nor anything perceptible (etc.).

"Phenomena come and go within your Intrinsic Present Awareness, but the Awareness itself is imperceptible and never goes anywhere."

This being so, why this talk of ‘I see’, ‘I hear’, ‘I receive an intuition through Enlightenment’, ‘I hear the Dharma from the lips of an Enlightened One’, or of ‘Buddhas appearing in the world to preach the Dharma’? Kātyāyana was rebuked by Vimalakīrti for using that transitory mentality which belongs to the ephemeral state to transmit the doctrine of the real existence of matter.

What transitory mentality is he referring to?

I assure you that all things have been free from bondage since the very beginning. So why attempt to EXPLAIN them? Why attempt to purify what has never been defiled? Therefore it is written: ‘The Absolute is THUSNESS—how can it be discussed? You people still conceive of Mind as existing or not existing, as pure or defiled, as something to be studied in the way that one studies a piece of categorical knowledge, or as a concept—any of these definitions is sufficient to throw you back into the endless round of birth and death. The man who PERCEIVES things always wants to identify them, to get a hold on them. Those who use their minds like eyes in this way are sure to suppose that progress is a matter of stages.

"Those who look outward and perceive of enlightenment are sure to believe that it is reached in stages and not already intrinsically present"

If you are that kind of person, you are as far from the truth as earth is far from heaven. Why this talk of ‘seeing into your own nature’?

"The eye does not see itself"

— The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind by Huang Po

​

1. The term Intrinsic Present Awareness is borrowed from the book Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness by Padmasambhava which is not from the Zen record but I felt that the term was most appropriate and concise here.

Feel free to criticize, reinforce, or clarify any of the notes or share your own understanding of the passage.

Submitted February 18, 2023 at 03:24AM by mslotfi https://ift.tt/PTj6hFU