Hi Guillaume~ appreciate your response! Please bear with mine, I speak to a great audience even should it be a solitary one.
It's not obvious to me that you may be a student of Jung's work(?), but Jung's over-arching body of work in the field of psychological methodology led him to be of the mind that he may have had single-handedly discovered the field of "deep psychology." Of course, he was only a few thousand years late on that account.
The reason Thomas Cleary acknowledges a profound gratitude to Jung is that his commentary (by his well-earned celebrity) brought this ancient material to a massive range of scholarship, not to mention a genuine spiritual hunger that was ripe for such elucidation, regardless of its provenance. The point (in terms of Cleary's expression of gratitude), is that there are so many thousands of such transmissions, treatises and manuals in the combined ancient Chinese buddhist and taoist canons, that it would have never been possible to stumble upon one such as significant as The Secret of the Golden Flower
, much less have it brought to the attention of so many anonymous and influential students, scholars and spiritual explorers in the West, had it not been for the notoriety and genuine insight that Jung brought to the subject matter, however biased it may have been and still is.
As for proposing that demonstrating the existence of something beyond the individual mind
was the thrust of Jung's work… he made no figurative or allusive insinuations in that regard in his entire career, nor did he have any such direct experience himself as a basis for doing so. His sphere of study and influence was the collective consensual human consciousness of all time in terms of the various culturally historical, mythological and psychologically analytical premises he had developed and was in the process of building upon. What he was building his system of inquiry upon is what is alluded to in the ancient buddhist term "Storehouse Consciousness." Specifically, taoism summarizes the extent of this field of study (in terms of the person) as the psychological apparatus
of the being that is going to die.
Jung himself was very reticent about subscribing to a bonafide entry into the western projections of popular notions pertaining to Asian mysticism. Even Jung lacked the temerity to insist on what you call the basis for demonstrating
even a pedantic treatment into the (then) psychologically stereotypical popularization of Asian mysticism, much less anything so profound as realizing the source
of all authentic teaching oneself.
Even this is not beyond your own mind, in that it's you; you're not it
Why harp on Jung's demonstrating anything relative to the ****** document? The OP is relevant to the AUTHENTIC transmission of the document itself, in terms of turning the light around
. Just this is precisely what I am writing about. I wish to clarify for those so qualified to enter upon this notion of "turning the light around" Let us not dwell on a spurious and shallow off-topic debate such as whatever might be relevant to Mr. Jung's circumstantially historical brush with a profound spiritual teaching. How about just forgetting Jung in terms of the topic of this thread? I only mentioned it to introduce the document to our readers (in the first place) in terms of its historical place in the West, and (secondly) to further inform those interested in the authentic transmission of its transcendent teaching. Are you with me? If so, do endeavor to obtain a copy of The Secret of the Golden Flower
Let's forget Jung— the real SECRET is not historical, it is perpetually nonoriginated in terms of the transcendent nature of your own mind right now. The secret of the Golden Flower teaching is relevant to recognizing one's incrementally spontaneously insightful awakening to, prolonged nurturance of and its endless development by the inherent nonpsychological
(spiritual) capacity of mind which you are calling something beyond
mind. It's your own mind right now, you just don't know it. It's alright though, because there is nothing you can do about it other than arrive at the practice of subtle self-refining activity which slowly devolves the karmic habit-energy which perpetuates the idea that you exist as a separate individual knower, thinker and liver of life. Reality has no such pattern. It is up to you to realize (actualize) this truth beyond the zazen seat.
Just this is the universal jumping-off point of all saints, sages, wizards, buddhas and all prior illuminates of all times and places. Mind itself is the real teacher.
There is no beyond
the "individual" mind. Why? Mind is one. There is no other mind. What you are calling beyond
the individual mind is not beyond it. It IS already Suchness by virtue of your cavernous skull and your pointy nose. No one is beyond this. No one is different in this regard. This is the truth. Just this much is already entry into inconceivability. All told, it is as easy as turning over your hand. But one must realize this for oneself, alone.
We are inconceivable beings, and it is possible to discover this for yourself in reality. As for
everything will be unveiled progressively to the one who just sits and meditate without expectations
, this is all very well and good, but why not put the formalities of such entry-level reformative and potentially renunciatory activities out where they belong (in private practice) and address the reality of the teaching in an audaciously direct way by adapting impersonally to the spiritual potential inherent in everyday ordinary situations?
Turning the light around is not a matter of "just sitting." Formal meditation regimens are fine for beginners who are happy to "just sit" in quiet isolation. The authentic teaching of turning the light around is to be carried out in public, without anybody knowing.
Formal quiet zazen practice is just reformative practice for real
practice, I'm afraid. Don't stop, but don't think it's the well-spring of reality. It's not. It is a viable touch-stone for some people (even me).
No one can fault you for writing what I quoted in terms of the small realization relative to a personal method of comfort. Yet those with the will to enlightenment have to be audacious. I'm sure it is possible to ascribe a couple of the two most profound dictums of transcendent "methodology" as pertains to quietly "just sitting" void of anticipatory consciousness relative to the person, but it would be terribly short-sighted to insist on such self-satisfaction. One of the sayings is attributed to the last patriarch of Chan, who said, "Activating the mind without dwelling on its contents exhausts the entire buddhist canon in one sentence."
This is to be carried out in all times and places, not just the zazen cushion.
The directive which is the eye
of the Golden Flower teaching (and is NOT found in the Richard Wilhelm translation) is, "See through phenomena without denying their characteristics."
In terms of Taoist spiritual alchemy, the heir of the Golden Flower teaching, "seeing through phenomena without denying its characteristics" is mastering the Science of Life
, which can be taught. This is the relative realm of yang. "Activating the mind without dwelling on its contents" is mastering the Science of Essence
, which cannot be taught. Why? It is already your own mind right now, which is the realm of karmic evolution (Creation) as well as the Absolute, the solitary experience of nonorigination. This is the absolute realm of yin.
Both in terms of actual enlightening practice beyond formal meditation and one's personal experience of one's Absolute nonoriginated nature, such is fulfilling the teaching of "turning the light around." The light to be "turned around" is one singularity. Followed along by creative duality, one treads the path of birth and death; in turning this very same light of creation around, one shines this light on its source, and enters its spiritual (nonpsycholgical) functionality in terms of nonorigination on the spot in broad daylight. Wouldn't that be wonderful?