Here is a very important passage from 'nondual thinking' (the
rest of the passage are equally impt) regarding the spontaneous,
self-liberating and uncaused/unsupported nature of thoughts:
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Nietzsche relates the denial of a thinker to a denial of the
process of thinking. Why; after all, do we believe that there is an
act of thinking? Because that act is what the thinker does:
stringing thoughts together by creating new thoughts on the basis
of the old thoughts. If there is no such thinker, then there need
be no such act. That leaves only thoughts, but one at a time,
although the succession may be rapid.
The significance of Nietzsche's remarks for us is that we find the
same claim in the Asian nondual philosophies, particularly in Ch'an
Buddhism. In The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Hui Neng
explains what prajna is:
To know our mind is to obtain liberation. To attain liberation is
to experience the Samadhi of Prajna, which is ''thoughtlessness".
What is "thoughtlessness"? Thoughtlessness is to see and know all
Dharmas (things) with a mind free from attachment. When in use it
pervades everywhere, and yet it sticks nowhere....When our mind
works freely without any hindrance and is at liberty to "come" or
to "go", we attain Samadhi of Prajna, or liberation. Such a state
is called the function of "thoughtlessness". But to refrain from
thinking of anything, so that all thoughts are suppressed, is to be
Dharma-ridden, and this is an erroneous view. [20]
The term "thoughtlessness" would seem to recommend a mind free from
any thoughts, but Hui Neng denies this: rather, "thoughtlessness"
is the function of a mind free from any attachment. The implication
is that for someone who is liberated thoughts still arise, but
there is no clinging to them when they do. Why the term
"thoughtlessness" can be used to characterize such a state of mind
will become clear in a moment. But the question that arises first
is in what way one can ever be attached to thoughts if, as the
Siksasamuccaya says, a thought has no staying power, that like
lightning it breaks up in a moment and disappears. Hui Neng answers
this later in the Platform Sutra when he says more about "how to
think":
In the exercise of our thinking faculty, let the past be dead. If
we allow our thoughts, past, present and future, to link up in a
series, we put ourselves under restraint. On the other hand, if we
never let our mind attach to anything, we shall gain
liberation.
(my emphasis [21])
One clings to a thought by allowing the thoughts to link up in a
series, which means having one's next thought "caused", as it were,
by the previous thoughts, rather than letting each thought arise
spontaneously and nondually.
According to the autobiographical first part of the Platform Sutra,
Hui Neng became deeply enlightened and realized that all things in
the universe are his self-nature, upon hearing a line from the
Diamond Sutra: "Let your thought arise without fixing it anywhere".
[22] The passage just prior to this one-which Hui Neng must also
have heard-puts this in context. Edward Conze translates it as
follows:
Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an
unsupported thought, a thought which is nowhere supported, which is
not supported (apratisthiti) by forms, sounds, smells, tastes,
touchables, or objects of mind. [23]
A thought is "Unsupported" because it does not arise in dependence
upon anything else, not "caused" by another thought
("mind-objects") and of course not "produced" by a thinker, which
the Bodhisattva realizes does, not exist. Such an "unsupported
thought", then, is prajna, arising by itself nondually.
Hui Neng's grandson in the Dharma, Ma-tsu, reinforces Hui Neng and
the Diamond Sutra: "So with former thoughts, later thoughts, and
thoughts in between: the thoughts follow one another without being
linked together. Each one is absolutely tranquil". [24] That each
such "unsupported thought" is absolutely tranquil is a new point,
although probably implied by Hui Neng's term "thoughtlessness". So
when one loses sense of self and completely becomes an unsupported
thought, there is the Taoist paradox of wei-wu-wei, in which action
and passivity are combined: there is the movement of nondual
thought, but at the same time there is awareness of that which does
not change. That is why such an experience can just as well be
described as "thoughtlessness". The later Ch'an master Kuei-shan
Ling-yu referred to this as "thoughtless thought": "Through
concentration a devotee may gain thoughtless thought. Thereby he is
suddenly enlightened and realizes his original nature". [25]
"Thoughtless thought" is not a mind empty of any thought: "one
thought is thoughtless thought."
An important parallel to this is found in the writings of a modern
Advaitin, Ramana Maharshi:
The ego in its purity is experienced in the interval between two
states or between two thoughts. The ego is like the worm which
leaves one hold only after it catches another. Its true nature is
known when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts. You
should realize this interval as the abiding, unchangeable Reality,
your true Being... [26]
The image of the ego as a worm which leaves one hold only after
catching another might well have been used by Hui Neng and Ma-tsu
to describe the way in which thoughts are apparently linked up in a
series. The difference is that Mahayana Buddhism encourages the
arising of "an unsupported thought", whereas Ramana Maharshi
understands unchangeable Reality as that which is realized only
when it is out of contact with all objects and thoughts. This is
consistent with the general relation between Mahayana and Advaita:
Nirguṇa Brahman is so emptied of any attribute ("neti, neti,...")
that it becomes impossible to differentiate from Sūnyata. "It is
difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure
non-being as a category". (S. Dasgupta). [27] But there is still a
difference in emphasis. Mahayana emphasizes realizing the emptiness
of all phenomena, whereas Advaita distinguishes between empty
Reality and phenomena, with the effect of devaluing the latter into
mere maya.
The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a
personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from
Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was
before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what
Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was
taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing
the following diagram:
Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one
thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows
indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead,
we should realize that thinking is actually like this:
Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts
do not arise from each other but by themselves.
This understanding of thoughts-not-linking-up-in-a-series but
springing up nondually is consistent with D. T. Suzuki's conception
of prajna:
It is important to note here that prajna wants to see its diction
"quickly" apprehended, giving us no intervening moment for
reflection or analysis or interpretation. Prajna for this reason is
frequently likened to a flash of lightning or to a spark from two
striking pieces of flint. "Quickness" does not refer to progress of
time; it means immediacy, absence of deliberation, no allowance for
an intervening proposition, no passing from premises to conclusion.
[28][/b]
