Logic and Superlogic
The terms 'illusory' and 'unreal' are traditionally applied to the artificial ego, and even to all phenomena, but it is questionable whether such terms may not be misleading to the literal mind of the modern man. Such words have only relative value here - for nothing can be absolutely unreal. Since only Reality IS, whatever exists - though it BE not - must partake of Reality. Phenomena, as has been said, are reality inaccurately apprehended - a choice expression of the translator of Huang Po.
I do not often make positive statements here, though it may not be possible or convenient to convey the tentative character of every statement made, but I am disposed to make one now:
There is no difference between Reality and Unreality, between the real and the unreal.The apparent difference is a factor in our tridimensional apprehension. As such it exists on the plane of seeming, but it is not in Reality.
It should be salutary to bear this in mind.
In this matter we touch upon the unviability of the logic of the tridimensional mind when transcending the limits of three dimensions.
According to our logic we can say, 'He is friendly', of 'He is unfriendly', but not both together. But the quadridimensional mind can say both together, using our language, without illogicality.
Mind is Not Mind
The method of instruction of Huang Po for the benefit of P'ei Hsin was to lead almost every concept to that of Mind-only. Then, suddenly, he mentions almost casually, 'In fact, however, mind is not really mind.'
This was the method employed by the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra on many occasions. To the positive logically-conditioned mind of modern man this treatment is apt to appal; the reader is distressed and discouraged. Yet, later, the effect can become salutary and refreshing. The reiteration of 'Universal Mind' as the only thing that is, can be increasingly distressing, because it may appear as having less and less verisimilitude with every reiteration. In such case the sudden rejection of the concept may come with a welcome sense of relief.
The explanation of the method is obvious enough. In order to teach anything a concept is necessary, but if the concept comes to be taken as something that is, as something concrete, the teaching itself is thereby nullified. Therefore the concept just created has to be immediately destroyed.
Terms like 'The Void', 'Pure Consciousness', are perhaps as unpalatable as 'Universal Mind', and have the same disadvantage. That is why one may prefer 'Non-Manifestation' on which the image-making imagination has little hold, and which seems to be in the nature of a bridge between tridimensional concepts and quadridimensional knowledge.
* * *
The contradictions (enunciation and refutation of conceptions) of the Sages are probably not essentially different from the illogicality of the koans and mondo of the later Masters. It is inevitable, and perhaps necessary, that seekers struggle to find a logical answer to them, strive to find a means of according them, or of effecting a synthesis. They must pass by there.
When a seeker no longer looks for a logical explanation he probably has understood something - whether he be aware of the fact or not.
When he is actually shocked and offended by a logical solution, and dismisses it from his mind in disgust, he has probably understood a good deal.
When he intuitively apprehends the real meaning - then he has presumably arrived.
The first stage represents a realisation of the insufficiency of tridimensional intellection. The second stage represents a realisation of the existence and validity of quadridimensional knowledge. The third stage represents its apprehension.
Hard Words
De-bunking Time. Since phenomena depend upon Time, all human ideas that are based on phenomena necessarily depend on the time-factor, and must partake of the illusory character of that. One and all may be recognised as nonsense.
We talk of de-bunking this and that, but all our conceptions are necessarily bunk that do not discount time as a reality. The only de-bunking that has any meaning is one which disposes of every notion dependent on Time.
That which remains, if anything, might be the Truth.
* * *
The Eye that Cannot See Itself...1
'Reality is too clamorous to be heard', as Jehan Dufresne de Gallier suggested. Yes, indeed; sounds, colours, flavours, all those sensations which are above or below the limited range of our senses, escape our apprehension.
But nothing is beyond the apprehension of our direct cognition, of our buddhi; and Reality, for all that it seems to be nowhere, is nevertheless everywhere.
We have said it already: Reality is the act of every action, the percept of every perception, the being of each existence. We cannot perceive it, we cannot conceive it - but what prevents us from knowing it?
Reality is too clamorous to be heard; it is too ubiquitous to be seen; it cannot be taken hold of because we are it; but what is there to prevent one from realising that one IS?
Our identification with our mind, by any chance?
* * * * *
