Cultivation in Zen

Does this mean that you will realize it if you do not aim the mind and do not develop intellectual understanding? Far from it— you will fail even more seriously to realize it. Even understanding does not get it, much less not understanding!

-Foyan

I have asked several people about these lines from the Xinxin Ming but with no response:

Using mind to cultivate mind/Is this not a great mistake?

...

Develop a mind of equanimity,/And all deeds are put to rest./Anxious doubts are completely cleared./Right faith is made upright.

Sengcan implies that cultivating mind with mind is a great mistake, then instructs one to develop a mind of equanimity if one is to have these things listed.

I was reminded today of this when mortonslast posted about Huangbo who says:

[After discussing how practices solve practical problems in Samsara] ...they have nothing to do with the real Buddha-Mind. Since Mind is the Buddha, the ideal way of attainment is to cultivate that Buddha-Mind. Only avoid conceptual thoughts, which lead to becoming and cessation, to the afflictions of the sentient world and all the rest; then you will have no need of methods of Enlightenment and suchlike.

I am wondering what is developing a mind of equanimity?

Other Quotes

Huangbo

1.34. ...This is not something which you can accomplish without effort, but when you reach the point of clinging to nothing whatever, you will be acting as the Buddhas act. This will indeed be acting in accordance with the saying: ‘Develop a mind which rests on no thing whatever. For this is your pure Dharmakāya, which is called supreme perfect Enlightenment. If you cannot understand this, though you gain profound knowledge from your studies, though you make the most painful efforts and practise the most stringent austerities, you will still fail to know your own mind. All your effort will have been misdirected and you will certainly join the family of Māra.

...

2.26. Q: How, then, does a man accomplish this comprehension of his own Mind?

A: That which asked the question is your own Mind; but if you were to remain quiescent and to refrain from the smallest mental activity, its substance would be seen as a void—you would find it formless, occupying no point in space and falling neither into the category of existence nor into that of non-existence. Because it is imperceptible, Bodhidharma said: ‘Mind, which is our real nature, is the unbegotten and indestructible Womb; in response to circumstances, it transforms itself into phenomena. For the sake of convenience, we speak of Mind as the intelligence; but when it does not respond to circumstances, it cannot be spoken of in such dualistic terms as existence or nonexistence. Besides, even when engaged in creating objects in response to causality, it is still imperceptible. If you know this and rest tranquilly in nothingness—then you are indeed following the Way of the Buddhas. Therefore does the Sūtra say: ‘Develop a mind which rests on no thing whatever.'

Foyan

Sandwiched into a criticism of meditation:

Also, Yantou said, “These who cultivate purification must let it come forth from their own hearts in each individual situation, covering the entire universe.” How can this be quiet sitting and meditating?

...

Later they say:

This is not a matter of longtime practice; it does not depend on cultivation. That is because it is something that is already there. Worldly people, who do not recognize it, call it roaming aimlessly. That is why it is said, “Only by experiential realization do you know it is unfathomable.”

It might be that these are two different "cultivate"s or it may be, like Huangbo says, that there is cultivating for samsara but not for realizing the Buddha. The Yantou quote seems to suggest cultivation after enlightenment. Foyan also says:

...It is simply a matter of reaching the source of mind.

People say that to practice cultivation only after realizing enlightenment is in the province of curative methodology, but Zen also admits of using true knowledge and vision as a curative. In terms of a particular individual, however, this may not be necessary.

Later they say:

People who attain study the path twenty-four hours a day, never abandoning it for a moment. Even if these people do not gain access to it, every moment of thought is already cultivating practical application. Usually it is said that cultivated practice does not go beyond purification of mind, speech, action, and the six senses, but the Zen way is not necessarily like this. Why? Because Zen concentration is equal to transcendent insight in every moment of thought; wherever you are, there are naturally no ills. Eventually one day the ground of mind becomes thoroughly clear andd you attain complete fulfillment. This is called absorption in one practice.

I think when Foyan says that Zen knowledge is a natural curative is similar to how meditation never fully cured my anxieties, but seeing wanting to be like ZMs as a branch of a deeply rooted delusion did. But what is developing the mind of equanimity?

Matsu

Matsu has a rant about how gradual cultivation can not attain enlightenment, but I am hardly concerned about the illusion of "being enlightened" at the moment, but what it is that is being developed. They say:

Originally it exists and it is present now, irrespective of cultivation of the Way and sitting in meditation. Not cultivating and not sitting is the Tathagatas pure meditation.

Is this the practice of Enlightened direct experience? Is this development of the mind of equanimity?

Submitted September 15, 2020 at 03:42AM by surupamaerl https://ift.tt/3c22lVY