Mic Hoe:
Now that you point it out, yes. Upon reflection I find it very easy to hear what I want to hear in his teachings ;) But whilst he is certainly talking in terms of the 'what' of things, what he is pointing to cannot be resolved within the same paradigm, except in fantasy.
And this is my whole point, Mic. It seems to be a "metaphysical mystery" type thingy that he's playing around with here, and from any standpoint that supports the Buddhadhamma, this is pure and simple "wrong view." At the very worst, it is ambiguous, which can be dangerous to untrained minds used to seeing things in terms of substantial entities. To even be playing in this neighborhood is anathema to the Buddha. If you read the discourses, he shut down many an enquirer when they wanted to corner him about metaphysics. (Read the Vacchagotta suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya --
MN 72 and 73.) When it comes to attempting to explain these subtle points in the teaching, there's no need to reinvent the Wheel. Gotama did a fine job of inventing it all by himself. It's up to us to figure out the innovation he gained insight into (
paticca samuppada or dependent co-arising) by following the path he laid out and observing our own experience of it in verification.
Mic Hoe:
I'd be surprised if he didn't know this with his zen background. But any teacher knows they have to use the language of the student to communicate.
Well, you see, I'm not so certain that he
does know the difference. If he does, he certainly doesn't talk like he does.
Nor does he write like he does. I've been taken in by this kind of "reasoning" myself, which is why I'm so sensitive to its being preached. Until one truly has insight into dependent co-arising and how it works, such talk will always be enticing. When you know dependent co-arising thoroughly, you see through the smoke and mirrors of the mysterious and the metaphysical explanations of phenomena.
And with all due respect, I have to disagree somewhat with your second sentence. While a teacher may "need to use the language of the student" at times in order to communicate, if he truly understands what the Buddha taught, he generally won't use the same definitions that the student assumes of those terms, especially if they do not apply to what he is teaching. And the perfect example of this is Gotama himself. Gotama redefined the terms he borrowed from Brahminism in order to present his own insightful innovation. A perfect example of this is the word
kamma (karma). Rather than to define
kamma in terms of spiritual retribution (as it is commonly misunderstood to be), the Buddha defined it in terms of the psychological process which he saw taking place: "It is volition, monks, that I declare to be kamma. Having willed, one performs an action by body, speech, or mind."
Mic Hoe:
However, now that you've brought it up, I'm filtering all my memories of teachings via this process/whatage split, and it's much more common than I'd ever realized. Just imagine if teachers refused to do the 'what' thing, and spoke only of process. I imagine it would bring the students' real condition (and our mistaken 'problems') into sharper focus immediately, and a lot of current misunderstandings wouldn't be possible. At the same time a process approach can still provide people with waypoints to help them find their way, and it's the 'whatage' teachings that really have no choice but to become all or nothing teachings if they are to remain effective. Or am I getting carried away?
My exact point. Now you're starting to see how insidious this kind of reification of an object can be when it is misunderstood in light of the teachings of early Buddhism. People remain caught in its vicious cycle while fruitlessly endeavoring to figure out what it is they are doing wrong. It all comes back to "wrong view." Follow the path (Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Contemplation/Concentration) as you are learning to discern and see the truth and you won't go wrong.
Mic Hoe:
Ian And:
Gombrich states correctly that: "Consciousness is, for the Buddha, a process which illuminates objects. So when there is nothing to illuminate, there is no illumination: 'consciousness has no attribute' (anidassanam)." That last statement, "consciousness has no attribute" really nails the point.
And this point is why, is it not, that there can be 'no self nature', or 'emptiness' at all? And where we finally see no difference between 'the transcendent and the ordinary', or 'between source and the daily life that's born from source'? So then, the same thing is being said, no?
No. The same thing is
not being stated. That is, if I am understanding correctly what you are saying here. It seems to me that first sentence is attempting to conflate what the Buddha taught (
not self and
emptiness) with what Shinzen is saying about the terms "source" and "transcendence" juxtaposed against "ordinary" and "daily life" as these terms are commonly understood to be defined by untrained minds. I think one walks a fine line when one tries to get too cute here using other terminology in order to communicate. It provides a space for ambiguity to creep in.
Now we are seeing Shinzen using terms in which the Buddha never spoke, putting words in his mouth. I'm speaking of the juxtaposition of the concepts proposed in the phrases "the transcendent and the ordinary" and "source and the daily life." People like Shinzen use those terms (perhaps because he has an incomplete understanding of them in relation to what the Gotama of early Buddhism taught), but Gotama did not. Gotama spoke in terms of "not self."
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.' But because form is not-self, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not-self. . . . Perception is not-self. . . . Volitional formations are not-self. . . . Consciousness is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is not-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'
"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" — "Suffering, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" — "No, venerable sir."
"Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form (feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness) whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near,
all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.Gotama never brought up concepts in terms like "source" or "the transcendent." There is no source but the mind; nothing transcendent other than the mind (although he is not recorded as ever having spoken using such terminology). He spoke
only about the processes of the mind and how to recognize them in action in order that people would begin to see that these processes themselves were the cause, the source, if you will, of the problems they created for themselves. I don't discern that Shinzen is talking at all using this outlook.
Mic Hoe:
Curiously though, 'no self nature' and 'emptiness' also (albeit negatively, but nevertheless) belong to the category you are objecting to, or highlighting at least.
Only if you read them in that way. The category I am objecting to is the reification of "Self," and the misunderstanding that such phrases as "no self nature" and "emptiness" can become attached to as the mind attempts to find a "self" of which it is "empty" of "self nature." There is no such thing
in existence; only in conceptions. The differences in meaning is so subtle here that it goes over most people's heads the first time they are exposed to it.