Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by PeterB »

Dan74 wrote:In meditation, it is so easy to either get distracted by thoughts or some relatively calm and blissful state or slip into dullness. Great Doubt is a sense of inquiry that keeps meditation focused and intense.

_/|\_
I am not sure about the advisability of "intensity" ....but a commonly encountered way of dealing with distraction and dullness in meditation as found in the Theravada is the development of viriya, or as Ajahn Sumedho puts it "putting forth energy ". I am sure sure how doubt would help that. Even if promoted to the rank of Great Doubt. Unless something quite different is meant and its a translation issue.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by PeterB »

I'm afraid that I have only just read Pannasikharas excellent post on the previous page.

:anjali:
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by Dan74 »

Intensity is being fully alert and present, not half-asleep as it were. Great Doubt signifies an ongoing investigation of experience, something vital as yet obscure, like the huatou "What is it?" "Who is reciting the Buddha's name?" or "What is my Original Face".


_/|\_

PS There is a talk by Chi Kwang Sunim given at Bodhinyana (Ajahn Brahm's monastery) I believe on the relevant subject.



PPS Edit: After a more careful reading of Panasikkhara's post I removed a comment above. Apologies!

PPPS.
Panasikkhara wrote:It is mainly with regard to the notion of not apprehending the object in the manner that one commonly thinks that it exists, the lack of letting the mind fully take up the objects of cognition. This leads to an absence of grasping on one hand, and also of conceptual proliferation, both about the object in question. Taken to its fullest, it is probably very akin to the notion of the mind which does not take up any object (cf. AN 11:9), totally unsupported mind.
Thank you for this - I haven't seen it put this way before. If I may ask - a totally unsupported mind sounds like quite a lofty aim, doesn't it? In meditating on a huatou (word-head) the Great Doubt stops the meditator from settling on a mental object, is that what you are saying? But I guess the mind is still supported (in the sense of "abiding") by a notion of a self and all the consequent reification?
Last edited by Dan74 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
_/|\_
DontKnow
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by DontKnow »

Sanghamitta wrote:So what Dontknow would be the response to the statement in the Samyatta-Nikaya when the Buddha approves of the following statement, that indicates that Dhamma is a result of " Saddha" , faith ? ( faith not is the sense of a belief, but a willingness to trust until we know first hand ) What is actually cited as being necessary for the furthering of Dhamma is " Faith in the Tathagata ( another title for the Buddha ) unshakeable and well established ".
Or to his proclamation in one of his very first teachings.
"Wide open is the door of the immortals to those who have ears to hear and who then send their faith ( Saddha ) to meet it." ?
Hi Sanghamitta

Are you asking that my interpretation of original statement is in contradiction to Buddha's statement? If so I have no problem with that. Whole my being is contradiction. If Buddhas of all time say that I (and everything else included) have Buddha nature but I see not such a nature that is contradiction already. If the reality is not what I see then that's contradiction. I live in contradiction. For me this is not a matter of liking or disliking it. And yes I believe 100 % faith is what I need. How do I get that faith though? By saying that I need 100 % faith? Or by adhering to some prescribed plan of action? Sometimes I have faith and sometime I do not. For me it is enough to be aware of it. Be aware all the time. "Correct" interpretation of scriptures is not my intention at all. I take from scriptures what I take.

Metta
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by Sanghamitta »

I was asking what your response to those words of the Buddha is Dontknow. Is it then just a simple rejection of the Buddhas words or do you have another interpretation ?
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by Ben »

Dear Venerable
Paññāsikhara wrote:The term 疑情 (yiqing) is really not to be translated as "doubt", although...
[...]
So, from this example, we can see that the "yiqing" is not at all any sort of absence of confidence / faith (asaddha).
Thank you for bringing your knowledge, wisdom and clarity to this and other discussions here at Dhamma Wheel.
metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by PeterB »

Ben wrote:Dear Venerable
Paññāsikhara wrote:The term 疑情 (yiqing) is really not to be translated as "doubt", although...
[...]
So, from this example, we can see that the "yiqing" is not at all any sort of absence of confidence / faith (asaddha).
Thank you for bringing your knowledge, wisdom and clarity to this and other discussions here at Dhamma Wheel.
metta

Ben
Seconded.

:anjali:
User avatar
catmoon
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by catmoon »

Paññāsikhara wrote:

So, from this example, we can see that the "yiqing" is not at all any sort of absence of confidence / faith (asaddha).
Uhhh, we can? I don't see how this follows at all.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Dan74 wrote:
PPPS.
Panasikkhara wrote:It is mainly with regard to the notion of not apprehending the object in the manner that one commonly thinks that it exists, the lack of letting the mind fully take up the objects of cognition. This leads to an absence of grasping on one hand, and also of conceptual proliferation, both about the object in question. Taken to its fullest, it is probably very akin to the notion of the mind which does not take up any object (cf. AN 11:9), totally unsupported mind.
Thank you for this - I haven't seen it put this way before. If I may ask - a totally unsupported mind sounds like quite a lofty aim, doesn't it? In meditating on a huatou (word-head) the Great Doubt stops the meditator from settling on a mental object, is that what you are saying? But I guess the mind is still supported (in the sense of "abiding") by a notion of a self and all the consequent reification?
Hi Dan :)

My phrasing above was mainly in the light of the fact that this is in a Theravada Forum, and it appeared that there was a fair amount of confusion, mainly about reading 疑情 yiqing as "doubt" which was mistakenly considered the opposite of 信 xin "faith / confidence". If I was just responding to a Son (Zen / Chan) practitioner such as yourself, I might have phrased it differently.

Thus, the "unsupported mind" is a term straight from the Pali Canon. In Chan, I'd rather saying "non-abiding mind" 無住心, which is mentioned by the Sixth Patriarch Huineng. Or, for a Son practitioner, (not that I know much about Son per se), I'm thinking that the now common English term "don't know" may be in order.

Anyway, like a lot of terms, we may use that term as both the practice, but also the result. (But personally I don't like to use "practice is realization" in the sense that Soto does.) Rather, like "emptiness" (even in the Pali canon), we can use this term to indicate a practice - the emptiness samadhi, the emptiness abiding, etc. - and also the result, the empty mind (empty of afflictions / conceptual proliferation). So, only part is a "lofty aim".

At first, one really needs to settle / abide the mind with some sort of samatha, calm it down. Then, pull up the object in question, and raise the word-head. eg. classic Chan would be to use recitation of Amitabha until one has some good Amitabha samadhi going on, and then ask - "Who is reciting Amitabha?" These "who" word-heads are great, because they then turn the subject ("me" / "I" and "what pertains to I") into the object of the "yiqing".

Most people would just say "I", "I recite Amitabha". But, then one begins to 參 (can) "investigate" this, deeper and deeper. For those who haven't much theoretical training in Buddhism, especially the notion of "not self", they may ask: "So, what is this I?" "Is this consciousness I?" "But this consciousness changes..." and so on. For those with the background, then the simple question "Who recites Amitabha?" Will be enough to raise the strong "yiqing". Rather than identifying as "I recite", "the name Amitabha is recited", and "this is recitation", one "empties the three aspects" and cuts off the basis of "self".

At first, this will be a kind of reified "not self". ie. rather than the usually conceptually proliferated idea of "me" and "mine", one instead overlays a different conceptual antidote of "not self". This is still concept versus concept, removing the false with the true. But, this conceptual "not self" is still merely a concept, one is still abiding in the antidote, still abiding in the word-head, so to speak, one needs to go deeper.

While it is still conceptualized, it isn't really "yiqing", but just rational thought. Only when it cuts out this inner verbalization, inner talk, does it fully develop into the yiqing. One may merely raise the word-head just enough to sustain this. For some, the raising of the word-head once, may be enough to sustain the yiqing for an hour, or hours, or even days. This takes some serious gongfu, however. For most beginners, maybe they'll have to raise it up every few minutes or so at least. haha! Just don't babble away and recite it like a mantra or something - totally, totally different kettle of fish!

Only when one removes the actual basis of "self" and "mine", will the conceptual proliferation end. It may take a lot of time. This is the first break through. Examples could be such as Master Hsu Yun, who in his six year "three steps and one prostration" pilgrimage, entered into deep samadhi while walking and on pilgrimage. He maintained the investigation and yiqing for a long, long time before he had his realization at Gaomin si in Yangzhou.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by Dan74 »

Thank you, Ven Huifeng! :smile:

A great synopsis that reminded me of Master Hsu Yun's talks in Luk's Zen and Chan Teachings.

These kinds of pithy summaries are priceless and I wish we had them for all the major practical and sutric underpinnings in ZFI. I may take on getting something like a library happening over there and if you could poke around, that would be very much appreciated.

_/|\_

PS. The little that I know of Son has been from Kusan Sunim. I don't recall him using the "don't know." In fact reading his talks to me sounds remarkably like reading Chan masters.
_/|\_
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Great doubt, great enlightenment...

Post by christopher::: »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
My phrasing above was mainly in the light of the fact that this is in a Theravada Forum, and it appeared that there was a fair amount of confusion, mainly about reading 疑情 yiqing as "doubt" which was mistakenly considered the opposite of 信 xin "faith / confidence". If I was just responding to a Son (Zen / Chan) practitioner such as yourself, I might have phrased it differently.

Thus, the "unsupported mind" is a term straight from the Pali Canon. In Chan, I'd rather saying "non-abiding mind" 無住心, which is mentioned by the Sixth Patriarch Huineng. Or, for a Son practitioner, (not that I know much about Son per se), I'm thinking that the now common English term "don't know" may be in order.

Anyway, like a lot of terms, we may use that term as both the practice, but also the result. (But personally I don't like to use "practice is realization" in the sense that Soto does.) Rather, like "emptiness" (even in the Pali canon), we can use this term to indicate a practice - the emptiness samadhi, the emptiness abiding, etc. - and also the result, the empty mind (empty of afflictions / conceptual proliferation). So, only part is a "lofty aim".

At first, one really needs to settle / abide the mind with some sort of samatha, calm it down. Then, pull up the object in question, and raise the word-head. eg. classic Chan would be to use recitation of Amitabha until one has some good Amitabha samadhi going on, and then ask - "Who is reciting Amitabha?" These "who" word-heads are great, because they then turn the subject ("me" / "I" and "what pertains to I") into the object of the "yiqing".

Most people would just say "I", "I recite Amitabha". But, then one begins to 參 (can) "investigate" this, deeper and deeper. For those who haven't much theoretical training in Buddhism, especially the notion of "not self", they may ask: "So, what is this I?" "Is this consciousness I?" "But this consciousness changes..." and so on. For those with the background, then the simple question "Who recites Amitabha?" Will be enough to raise the strong "yiqing". Rather than identifying as "I recite", "the name Amitabha is recited", and "this is recitation", one "empties the three aspects" and cuts off the basis of "self".

At first, this will be a kind of reified "not self". ie. rather than the usually conceptually proliferated idea of "me" and "mine", one instead overlays a different conceptual antidote of "not self". This is still concept versus concept, removing the false with the true. But, this conceptual "not self" is still merely a concept, one is still abiding in the antidote, still abiding in the word-head, so to speak, one needs to go deeper.

While it is still conceptualized, it isn't really "yiqing", but just rational thought. Only when it cuts out this inner verbalization, inner talk, does it fully develop into the yiqing. One may merely raise the word-head just enough to sustain this. For some, the raising of the word-head once, may be enough to sustain the yiqing for an hour, or hours, or even days. This takes some serious gongfu, however. For most beginners, maybe they'll have to raise it up every few minutes or so at least. haha! Just don't babble away and recite it like a mantra or something - totally, totally different kettle of fish!

Only when one removes the actual basis of "self" and "mine", will the conceptual proliferation end. It may take a lot of time. This is the first break through. Examples could be such as Master Hsu Yun, who in his six year "three steps and one prostration" pilgrimage, entered into deep samadhi while walking and on pilgrimage. He maintained the investigation and yiqing for a long, long time before he had his realization at Gaomin si in Yangzhou.
Wow... Brilliant and clear, Venerable.

Thank you!

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Post Reply