Wei Wu Wei

[Guest guest]

The Mountain Path

Vol. 1 - July 1964 - No. 3

Seeing It Simply

By

Wei Wu Wei1

 

It is surely axiomatic that a phenomenon (an appearance, an object) cannot

perform any action whatever on its own initiative, as an independent entity.

In China this was illustrated by Chuangtze in his story of the sow who died

while suckling her piglets: the little pigs just left her because their

mother was no longer there. In Europe, even at that early date, the same

understanding is expressed by the word 'animus' which 'animates' the

phenomenal aspect of sentient beings, and this forms the basis of most

religious beliefs. But whereas in the West the 'animus' was regarded as

personal to each phenomenal object, being the sentience of it, in the East

the 'animus' was called 'heart' or 'mind' or 'consciousness', and in

Buddhism and Vedanta was regarded as impersonal and universal, 'Buddhamind',

'Prajna', 'Atman', etc.

 

 

When this impersonal 'mind' comes into manifestation by objectifying itself

as subject and object it becomes identified with each sentient object, and

the concept of 'I' thereby arises in human beings, whereby the phenomenal

world as we know it and live it, appears to be what we call 'real'. That,

incidentally, is the only 'reality' (thing-ness) we can ever know, and to

use the term 'real' (a thing) for what is not such, for the purely

subjective, is an abuse of language.

 

 

In this process of personalising 'mind' and thinking of it as 'I', we

thereby make it, which is subject, into an object, whereas 'I' in fact can

never be such, for there is nothing objective in 'I', which is essentially a

direct expression of subjectivity. This objectivising of pure subjectivity,

calling it 'me' or calling it 'mind', is precisely what constitutes

'bondage'. It is this concept, termed the I-concept or ego or self, which is

the supposed bondage from which we all suffer and from which we seek

'liberation'.

 

 

It should be evident, as the Buddha and a hundred other awakened sages have

sought to enable us to understand, that what we are is this 'animating' mind

as such, which is noumenon, and not the phenomenal object to which it gives

sentience. This does not mean, however, that the phenomenal object has no

kind of existence whatever, but that its existence is merely apparent, which

is the meaning of the term 'phenomenon', that is to say that it is only an

appearance in consciousness, an objectivisation, without any nature of its

own, being entirely dependent on the mind that objectivises it, which mind

is its only nature, very much as in the case of any dreamed creature, as the

Buddha in the Diamond Sutra, and many others after him have so patiently

explained to us.

 

 

This impersonal, universal mind or consciousness, is our true nature, our

only nature, all, absolutely all, that we are, and it is completely devoid

of I-ness.

 

 

This is easy enough to understand, and it would be simple indeed if it were

the ultimate truth, but it is not, for the obvious reason that no such thing

as an objective 'mind' could exist, any more than an 'I' or any other

object, as a thing-in-itself. What it is, however, is totally devoid of any

objective quality, and so cannot be visualised, conceptualised, or in any

way referred to, for any such process would automatically render it an

object of a subject — which by definition it can never be. That is because

the 'mind' in question is the unmanifested source of manifestation, the

process of which is its division into subject and object; and antecedent to

such division there can be no subject to perceive an object, and no object

to be perceived by a subject. Indeed, and as revealed by sages such as Padma

Sambhava, that which is seeking to conceive and to name this unmanifested

source of manifestation is precisely this 'whole mind' that is the

'animating' or prajnatic functioning which itself is the seeking, so that

the sought is the seeker thereof. Profoundly to understand this is Awakening

to what is called 'enlightenment'.

 

 

This reasoned visualisation, therefore, like all doctrine, is merely

conceptual, devoid of factuality, a structure of theoretical imagination, a

symbolical diagram devised in order to enable us to understand something

immediate that can never become knowledge. Yet that ultimate 'something',

which is no 'thing', is nevertheless what the universe is, and all that we

are.

 

 

The psychological 'I-concept' has no nature of its own, is no 'thing' and

could not possibly create genuine 'bondage'. There cannot be any such thing

as bondage at all, but only the idea of such. There is no liberation, for

there is no 'thing' from which to be freed. If the whole conceptual

structure is seen as what it is, it must necessarily collapse, and the

bondage-enlightenment nonsense with it. That is called Awakening, awakening

to the natural state which is that of every sentient being. Sri Ramana

Maharshi taught just that when he said that 'enlightenment' is only being

rid of the notion that one is not 'enlightened', and Maharshi might have

been quoting the T'ang dynasty Chinese sage Huihai, known as the Great

Pearl, when he stated that Liberation is liberation from the notion of

'liberation'. He might also have been quoting Huang-po (d. 850), of whom he

is unlikely ever to have heard, when they both used the same words, full of

humour, to someone asking about 'his' mind: each sage asked in reply, "How

many minds have you?"

 

 

How many minds had they, those two young men? Why, none at all. Not only not

two, but not one. Nor were they themselves a 'mind', for there could not be

such a thing as a 'mind' for them to be. Neither 'they' nor 'mind' ever had,

or ever could have, any objective being whatever, for never has any kind of

objective being been, nor will such ever be. All that, and every 'that' that

ever was thought up — and 'that' is the most purely objective of pronouns —

is the essence of the gigantic phantasmagoria of objectivity, which we spend

our lives building up, and in which we search desperately for some 'truth'

that could not possibly be there. The whole vast construction is a fantasy,

a dream, as the Buddha (or whoever wrote it in his name) told us in the

Diamond Sutra, and the truth that a dream represents or misrepresents, of

which it is a reflection or a deflection, is the dreaming source of it which

is all that it is. That source can never have a name, because a name denotes

a phenomenon and there is no phenomenal dreamer, but a functioning that is

called dreaming. Sri Bhagavan called it 'I-I': if it must be called

anything, no nominal form could ever come nearer, or be less misleading as

an indication, than his term.

 

 

All objectivisation is conceptual, all conceptuality is inference, and all

inference is as empty of truth as a vacuum is empty of air. Moreover there

is no truth, never has been and never could be; there is no thus-ness,

such-ness, is-ness, nor anything positive or negative whatever. There is

just absolute absence of the cognisable, which is absolute presence of the

unthinkable and the unknowable — which neither is nor is not. Inferentially

this is said to be an immense and radiant splendour untrammelled by notions

of time and space, and utterly beyond the dim, reflected sentience of

temporal and finite imagination.

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

Thanks for sharing this. It was very insightful, point to the truth.

I'm going to print this out, and will read it again thoroughly.

Thanks again for this worthy post, i'm waiting for your next wisdom posts.

 

Namaste,

Nasir

> ----------

> Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)[sMTP:hluthar]

> Monday, October 25, 1999 8:47 PM

> ; NDS; Advaitin (AT) Onelist (DOT) Com

> Wei Wu Wei

>

> "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

> The Mountain Path

> Vol. 1 - July 1964 - No. 3

> Seeing It Simply

> By

> Wei Wu Wei1

>

> It is surely axiomatic that a phenomenon (an appearance, an object) cannot

> perform any action whatever on its own initiative, as an independent

> entity.

> In China this was illustrated by Chuangtze in his story of the sow who

> died

> while suckling her piglets: the little pigs just left her because their

> mother was no longer there. In Europe, even at that early date, the same

> understanding is expressed by the word 'animus' which 'animates' the

> phenomenal aspect of sentient beings, and this forms the basis of most

> religious beliefs. But whereas in the West the 'animus' was regarded as

> personal to each phenomenal object, being the sentience of it, in the East

> the 'animus' was called 'heart' or 'mind' or 'consciousness', and in

> Buddhism and Vedanta was regarded as impersonal and universal,

> 'Buddhamind',

> 'Prajna', 'Atman', etc.

>

>

> When this impersonal 'mind' comes into manifestation by objectifying

> itself

> as subject and object it becomes identified with each sentient object, and

> the concept of 'I' thereby arises in human beings, whereby the phenomenal

> world as we know it and live it, appears to be what we call 'real'. That,

> incidentally, is the only 'reality' (thing-ness) we can ever know, and to

> use the term 'real' (a thing) for what is not such, for the purely

> subjective, is an abuse of language.

>

>

> In this process of personalising 'mind' and thinking of it as 'I', we

> thereby make it, which is subject, into an object, whereas 'I' in fact can

> never be such, for there is nothing objective in 'I', which is essentially

> a

> direct expression of subjectivity. This objectivising of pure

> subjectivity,

> calling it 'me' or calling it 'mind', is precisely what constitutes

> 'bondage'. It is this concept, termed the I-concept or ego or self, which

> is

> the supposed bondage from which we all suffer and from which we seek

> 'liberation'.

>

>

> It should be evident, as the Buddha and a hundred other awakened sages

> have

> sought to enable us to understand, that what we are is this 'animating'

> mind

> as such, which is noumenon, and not the phenomenal object to which it

> gives

> sentience. This does not mean, however, that the phenomenal object has no

> kind of existence whatever, but that its existence is merely apparent,

> which

> is the meaning of the term 'phenomenon', that is to say that it is only an

> appearance in consciousness, an objectivisation, without any nature of its

> own, being entirely dependent on the mind that objectivises it, which mind

> is its only nature, very much as in the case of any dreamed creature, as

> the

> Buddha in the Diamond Sutra, and many others after him have so patiently

> explained to us.

>

>

> This impersonal, universal mind or consciousness, is our true nature, our

> only nature, all, absolutely all, that we are, and it is completely devoid

> of I-ness.

>

>

> This is easy enough to understand, and it would be simple indeed if it

> were

> the ultimate truth, but it is not, for the obvious reason that no such

> thing

> as an objective 'mind' could exist, any more than an 'I' or any other

> object, as a thing-in-itself. What it is, however, is totally devoid of

> any

> objective quality, and so cannot be visualised, conceptualised, or in any

> way referred to, for any such process would automatically render it an

> object of a subject - which by definition it can never be. That is because

> the 'mind' in question is the unmanifested source of manifestation, the

> process of which is its division into subject and object; and antecedent

> to

> such division there can be no subject to perceive an object, and no object

> to be perceived by a subject. Indeed, and as revealed by sages such as

> Padma

> Sambhava, that which is seeking to conceive and to name this unmanifested

> source of manifestation is precisely this 'whole mind' that is the

> 'animating' or prajnatic functioning which itself is the seeking, so that

> the sought is the seeker thereof. Profoundly to understand this is

> Awakening

> to what is called 'enlightenment'.

>

>

> This reasoned visualisation, therefore, like all doctrine, is merely

> conceptual, devoid of factuality, a structure of theoretical imagination,

> a

> symbolical diagram devised in order to enable us to understand something

> immediate that can never become knowledge. Yet that ultimate 'something',

> which is no 'thing', is nevertheless what the universe is, and all that we

> are.

>

>

> The psychological 'I-concept' has no nature of its own, is no 'thing' and

> could not possibly create genuine 'bondage'. There cannot be any such

> thing

> as bondage at all, but only the idea of such. There is no liberation, for

> there is no 'thing' from which to be freed. If the whole conceptual

> structure is seen as what it is, it must necessarily collapse, and the

> bondage-enlightenment nonsense with it. That is called Awakening,

> awakening

> to the natural state which is that of every sentient being. Sri Ramana

> Maharshi taught just that when he said that 'enlightenment' is only being

> rid of the notion that one is not 'enlightened', and Maharshi might have

> been quoting the T'ang dynasty Chinese sage Huihai, known as the Great

> Pearl, when he stated that Liberation is liberation from the notion of

> 'liberation'. He might also have been quoting Huang-po (d. 850), of whom

> he

> is unlikely ever to have heard, when they both used the same words, full

> of

> humour, to someone asking about 'his' mind: each sage asked in reply, "How

> many minds have you?"

>

>

> How many minds had they, those two young men? Why, none at all. Not only

> not

> two, but not one. Nor were they themselves a 'mind', for there could not

> be

> such a thing as a 'mind' for them to be. Neither 'they' nor 'mind' ever

> had,

> or ever could have, any objective being whatever, for never has any kind

> of

> objective being been, nor will such ever be. All that, and every 'that'

> that

> ever was thought up - and 'that' is the most purely objective of pronouns

> -

> is the essence of the gigantic phantasmagoria of objectivity, which we

> spend

> our lives building up, and in which we search desperately for some 'truth'

> that could not possibly be there. The whole vast construction is a

> fantasy,

> a dream, as the Buddha (or whoever wrote it in his name) told us in the

> Diamond Sutra, and the truth that a dream represents or misrepresents, of

> which it is a reflection or a deflection, is the dreaming source of it

> which

> is all that it is. That source can never have a name, because a name

> denotes

> a phenomenon and there is no phenomenal dreamer, but a functioning that is

> called dreaming. Sri Bhagavan called it 'I-I': if it must be called

> anything, no nominal form could ever come nearer, or be less misleading as

> an indication, than his term.

>

>

> All objectivisation is conceptual, all conceptuality is inference, and all

> inference is as empty of truth as a vacuum is empty of air. Moreover there

> is no truth, never has been and never could be; there is no thus-ness,

> such-ness, is-ness, nor anything positive or negative whatever. There is

> just absolute absence of the cognisable, which is absolute presence of the

> unthinkable and the unknowable - which neither is nor is not.

> Inferentially

> this is said to be an immense and radiant splendour untrammelled by

> notions

> of time and space, and utterly beyond the dim, reflected sentience of

> temporal and finite imagination.

>

> > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

> subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

> different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

> nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

> It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

> Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

> Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome

> all to a.

>