Thank you for writing.

I think I understand your position on this. If so, it seems to be pretty much in accord with western philosophical Idealism (with a leaning toward Solipsism). My own experience with the great philosophers of these various schools of thought have been and continue to be inspirational.

There are a number of important differences between them and Zen. While there are some contemporary individuals, teachers, and communities that identify themselves as “Zen” Buddhists, that do seem to hold similar positions, these are relatively new off-shoots and diverge widely from the classic Zen records.

I hope to post something soon on the “thinking, not-thinking, and nonthinking” teachings of Dogen. I hope you continue to participate and share your experience and viewpoints here; I have found you comments to be sincere, thoughtful, and insightful.

Thanks again.

Peace,
Ted

Well, I understand duality as dividing nonduality and naming, labeling and assuming relationships between named objects for the purpose of practical thinking and planning… It is both very useful and important in daily life. In fact, we would be animals without it. The problem arises when we believe those names to be true and assume ourselves to be an independent entity – a thing among things – which is simply false…

You wrote: “Perceiving the forms and images (the myriad things) of the world via sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and thought actualizes the self.”

I would say that what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell, is nondual. We live in nonduality, it is our direct experience in every moment. We do not see forms and myriad things. We have to label them first for forms to arise. We have to ‘think them’. Originally, there are no things, only a big chunk of stuff, coming in through senses. When we analyze it and focus on some particular portion of it and name it, only then the ‘dual thing’ manifests.

Of course the moment I assume one thing as being separate, the assumption of myriads of separate things arises with it. But that one thing is not empty because it is dependent on others, but because it is only an image in my head. The image is real, because there is an awareness of it in the moment of thinking.

You wrote: Another issue concerning your post is that it seems to proclaim a view of Solipsism. This difficulty is overcome by Buddhism’s recognition of “not-thinking”, and “nonthinking” as well as “thinking.”

Actually I don’t find Solipsism to be an issue… I am not familiar with those other terms (“not-thinking”, and “nonthinking”), I will try to learn about them. Maybe you could write something about it or point out possible sources for study?

Thank you for your comments, and your encouraging words.

First, let me say that your comments make it clear that you are sincerely commited to right understanding. Your points are clear and your manner of expression is articulate.

While I am uncertain about your precise meaning of some of the terms you use (thinking, conciousness, and reality), I think I get the gist of your position. I do have a couple of questions though.

You write of the “difference” between our viewpoints, saying, “I explain emptiness of things as them being dependent on the process of thinking.” Do “not-thinking,” and “nonthinking,” have position in your viewpoint?

Where does “duality” fit in with your understanding of “nonduality”?

In order to clarify some of the issues concerning what seem to be some important points between us. These seem mainly to center on the absence of any role for “duality” (other than providisional) in your view. I will try to clarify some of my views, and to offer a bit of an explanation of my present understanding.

Buddhism asserts that there is no eternal, unchanging self, no fixed, invariable, objective reality—reality flows. Examined in light of nonduality, the self’s “fashioning” of things from the material world reveals the dynamic interaction of the self and the world. The manifestation of “things” by and through the “self” is exactly proportionate to the manifestation of the self by and through things. Perceiving the forms and images (the myriad things) of the world via sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and thought actualizes the self. That is, the forms and images produced by the continuously ongoing activity of perception animate the self. The role of temporality, or time is essential to this process–that is, the “true self” is realized activity, in Dogen’s terms, the active Buddha. The “active Buddha” is the moment to moment “arrival” of “now” as the entirety of existence-time totally exerted, cast off, exerted, cast off in the never-ceasing ever-changing actualization of the self.

It is in keeping with this that “each thing, time, and event” is at once a real, particular, dharma (thing, being) and “the one.” Moment by moment particular “things” are exerted (manifest) and are cast off (cease). This is what gives each particular “thing”—including reflected mental images—its true significance. At the moment of its coming to light (exertion) everything else is “dark” (unseen, yet established). This is illumined, for example, in the Huayen teaching, “Non-Obstruction of Concealment and Disclosure, by the Huayen ancestor, Ch’eng Kuan. A passage from the prologue on this teaching reads:

On the eighth day of a [lunar] month, half of the moon is bright and the other half is dark; the very appearance of the bright part [the disclosed] affirms but does not negate the existence of the hidden part. Likewise, the manifestation of something always implies the existence of the unmanifested or concealed part of the same thing (italics mine). At the moment when the bright part of the moon is disclosed, the dark part also “secretly” establishes itself. This is the reason for the so-called simultaneous establishment of concealment and disclosure… (Trans. Garma C. C. Chang)

It seems to me that you are leaving out the “duality” side of the nonduality of “nonduality/duality.” In other words, the outline you give of your position accounts for the “emptiness” of “form is emptiness” but does not account for the emptiness is emptiness. Here is how Dogen puts it (quotation as Hee-Jin Kim translates it in his “Dogen On Meditation and Thinking”):

The “emptiness” in question is not the “emptiness” of “form and emptiness.” [The true meaning of] “form is emptiness” is not that you forcibly make “form” into “emptiness” or that you split “emptiness” so as to fabricate “form”; it is the “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness.” This “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness” is a single piece of rock in emptiness.
Hee-Jin Kim, DOMT p.71

This elucidation on how the realization of emptiness illumines the true existence of particular things (dharmas).

Another issue concerning your post is that it seems to proclaim a view of Solipsism. This difficulty is overcome by Buddhism’s recognition of “not-thinking”, and “nonthinking” as well as “thinking.” Also, in Buddhism’s recognition of more than one “kind” of mind. “Reality,” in Buddhism, at least in my understanding, does not hold “One Mind” above, beyond, or as more essential than “Many minds.”

In this vein, I would add that, in my understanding, “thinking” is not somehow less valuable than an absence of thinking. For example, Dogen writes:

In general there are three kinds of mind. The first, citta, is here called thinking mind. The second, hridaya, is here called the mind of grass and trees. The third, vriddha, is here called experienced and concentrated mind. Among these, the bodhi-mind is inevitably established relying upon thinking mind. Bodhi is the sound of an Indian word; here it is called “the truth.” Citta is the sound of an Indian word; here it is called “thinking mind.” Without this thinking mind it is impossible to establish the bodhi-mind. That is not to say that this thinking mind is the bodhi mind itself, but we establish the bodhi-mind with this thinking mind.
~Eihei Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu-Bodaishin, Nishijima & Cross

What I have been trying to say that ‘non-dual’ in Buddhism means, empty of duality, which does not mean that “the particular” and “the universal” are one (undifferentiated). The particular and the universal in Zen are always two real aspects of one reality. It is important to understand that though they always go together, they each maintain their distinctive qualities.

Okay, I hope that helps clarify my own understanding a bit.

Thanks again! I look forward to hearing from you again, and to future discussions.

Three Full Bows.

Peace,
Ted

You give reality to ‘things’, which those images point to. I say there are no such things. They are not existing at all. What is real, is the pointing (thinking). It is a real process going on presently in the brain and I am aware of it in my direct experience. Therefore emptiness (concept) is a form (brain activity). Consciousness is a mirror. We can see only reflections. Reflections are real images, but they are not the things they reflect. We only see and work with reflections. That is why you cannot talk about nonduality. The moment you start thinking, you already seemingly divided the non dual.

Right now I am looking at a brick wall in front of me. Is it real, or is it an image in my head? The moment I think about it, I am working with an image created in my mind. Therefore I am not talking anymore about the thing which that image refers to. I can only talk about images. Reality itself is a concept and can be the property of concepts only. I find this explanation of shunyata to be very practical – it gives focus on the awareness of the process of thinking going on in the present moment rather than the content of it…

You are welcome. Thank You!

Peace,
Ted

Thank you.

And a Happy New year to you too!

Peace,
Ted

Regards,

Harry.