Out of a Clear Sky …
What is troublesome about Truth is that, the moment you say something about Truth, or when you see something as Truth, that’s not Truth anymore; well, it IS still Truth, yet we wouldn’t be able to state this with confidence unless we clearly and experientially know what Truth is, and what is hindering our clear seeing of it.
In today’s Koan, Nansen, teacher of Joshu, converses with Joshu on Truth. Here, Joshu’s question is “What is the Way?,” which we could paraphrase into “What is Truth?” A simple but essential question to be asked, right? In reply to this, Nansen tells him that the “ordinary mind is Truth.”
Readers may be perplexed by the term “ordinary mind” as used by Nansen, but it could be as simple as crying, laughing, sleeping or eating. So, we could be a bit Nansen-ish and say that drinking Pepsi is Truth (I bet this remark will provoke a puzzled look from those unfamiliar with this kind of topic).
But hey, isn’t this all about Truth? Maybe I’m sounding too frivolous …
I keep telling people to look and observe the bodily sensations that are present in this moment, without any judgment added on them. They are quite ordinary; so ordinary that they are ordinarily being missed all the time. But just like the story of “Blue Bird of Happiness,” the bird, the juice of life, Truth, has been here, all the way through. We just don’t give enough attention to them, that’s all. The flip side of this is that we can practice actually giving attention to them, and reveal what they really are.
In the “how to” part, however, the next question of Joshu’s about whether he should inquire into the ordinary mind, Nansen gives an astounding reply: he tells Joshu that if he tries to inquire into them, that’s a mistake. What the heck is he talking about? We may share with Joshu the supposedly same thoughts about this crazy comment. Joshu goes on by asking him how he could even know Truth if he doesn’t inquire into it. Nansen kindly gives him further reply, and as I feel his reply is very much straightforward in pointing out Joshu’s problem, I quote it below:
“Truth doesn’t belong to knowing, nor does it belong to not knowing. Knowing is delusion, and not knowing is ignorance. If you have 100% trust in Truth, it is like a clear blue sky. Why say this or that about it?”
This can’t be more clearcut as a statement regarding this matter of Truth. Actually, Joshu got a sudden realization with this single utterance of Nansen’s.
Truth doesn’t care whether you look for it or not. Whether you exert effort or stay lazy, it is nonetheless perfectly True. But does that mean we just back off and say “Oh, good! It’s perfect and I don’t have to do anything about it, hallelujah!” No. That’s “knowing” in an intellectual level, and unfortunately, the more serious you are about self-realization, the more hunger you’ll feel with that level of understanding.
And even that experiential or visceral type of understanding (“Oh, yes, I had a no-self experience, the sense of self disappeared completely, and everything was felt to be vivid and so on and on …“) Nansen goes on to deny. It is, in a sense, the same “knowing” with a different taste. But again, Truth doesn’t care about what our experience is like. And there’s no point in keeping caring about Truth if we have completely relaxed in it.
Here we’re back to our basic protocol of the bodily sensations here and now. In doing so, we keep peeling off the layers of names given to them. When we observe the feet, we peel off the label “feet.” Then, they are color(s), shape, sensation, and thoughts and images about all these. But remember, the principle about direct observation says that they only occur one by one. So, we have a look at “shape.” Then, peel off the label shape, and that’s “something.” And if we peel off the label “something,” what is it? This is a good place where we come to the realm that is neither knowing nor not knowing.
Don’t be a wanderer, make yourself at home here and now, relax and observe. You’ll see Nansen and Joshu with a full smile there.