Samadhi, meaning the cessation of distractions and the attainment of mental tranquility, pursues a state of “concentration,” often referred to as “dhyana” or “meditative absorption.”
The state of “concentration” may have different approaches and interpretations for different individuals, but the pursuit of “concentration” is a common understanding among practitioners.
The state of “samadhi” is the state of “concentration,” the state of “awakened” consciousness, and the state of “no-self.”
Putting aside the descriptions from various (religious) practice perspectives, and discarding the convoluted descriptions of terms, samadhi actually refers to the “truth” that transcends human thinking.
To understand samadhi, and to pursue samadhi, is to seek this “truth.”
Mindfulness and Zen
Regarding “concentration” and the practice of “concentration”, Buddhism calls it “zazen,” Daoism calls it “sitting meditation,” and Indian yoga calls it “meditation.” Western psychological science, based on the commonality of the above names, has refined a new term: mindfulness.
Mindfulness is a psychological concept. It is often used to treat emotional and stress problems and their related psychological disorders. This concept originally evolved and was understood from practices like zazen, meditation, and contemplation.
Its main meaning is:
Purposefully, consciously observing and being aware of everything in the present moment, and not making any judgments or analyses about what is perceived, but simply being aware of and observing them.
With a deeper understanding of this behavior, people have found that “mindfulness” has a very significant effect on solving emotional and stress problems.
Therefore, it has been developed into a systematic psychological therapy, namely “mindfulness therapy”.
This unique thinking experience and training is not only a key research object in psychology and neuro medicine, but also favored by many outstanding entrepreneurs.
Steve Jobs often practiced zazen and meditation when he was young; Jack Ma’s private yacht is codenamed “Zen.”
It can be seen how important it is for people to maintain a certain constant awareness.
Because people are too easily lost, there are too many temptations in this colorful world, and the appearances are complex. If you are not careful, you may fall into illusion. Therefore, if it is important to effectively perceive yourself and maintain constancy.
However, this wisdom (in the author’s personal understanding), often does not seem to be obtained simply through learning; rather, it requires thinking like a practitioner to naturally emerge.
The wisdom of liberation does not come from books and lectures, but from a restructuring and sudden change in the structure of thinking. Without the latter’s full transformation, we will certainly not be able to attain the Tao.
The most important form of this transformation process is meditation, that is, engaging in “mindfulness.”
In mindfulness, breaking the illusion of self, breaking what the self thinks, and finding breakthroughs in the absence of a path, self-consciousness can awaken.
Two Characteristics of Spiritual Wisdom
Before discussing these mystical studies, we must clarify its two major characteristics:
Characteristic 1: The explanation of these contents seriously violates the principle of Occam’s razor: “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.”
Whether it is wisdom or enlightenment, it should actually be explained clearly at once. People have limited brainpower, so wouldn’t it be more convenient to get to the point directly? However, the characteristic of mystical studies is that it can’t be easily understood, so they repeat and repeat. Even if there is some truth, it is lost.
Characteristic 2: In order to explain this so-called truth and brilliant insights,
The explanations of these concepts and theories do not follow the fixed path of hypothesis – proof – conclusion. Instead, they adopt a “putting the cart before the horse” logic, first recognizing that this is the truth, and then generalizing and misusing this truth-like viewpoint with various realities.
This is equivalent to cleverly using the philosophical connotation of “the world is universally connected” to collect all evidence that is conducive to their own viewpoint. In fact, there may not be much real valid evidence. Therefore, the acceptance of conclusions is still polarized. Those who believe it, no matter how others refute them, always believe it deeply; those who do not believe it, no matter how it is proven, are not interested.
In the end, it is still a problem of persuasiveness.
Another possibility is that the content being discussed is not within the scope that humans can (fully) understand. It belongs to concepts of other dimensions. It is because we humans are not good enough, and it has nothing to do with the truth.
If the above two characteristics cannot be eliminated from the description of truth and wisdom, then for the time being, any so-called insightful words and supreme mental methods have the necessity and possibility of being questioned and denied.
Why didn’t the author put this part in the first part for explanation first, but shared “mindfulness” as the first part?
The reason is that, in a strict sense, “mindfulness” already belongs to a scientific method at the psychological level. It has broken away from those ancient and original methods.
In other words, we have stripped away many connotations of the original methods, and the remaining part has formed a relatively complete and evidence-based method of mental and psychological awareness training (i.e., “mindfulness”).
This training method itself can withstand scrutiny, can be accepted by the public, and has certain regulatory and therapeutic effects.
Therefore, the author shared the concept of “mindfulness” from a psychological perspective, or rather, this kind of way of thinking and training. It is a training method in itself, and it does not involve the supreme Tao and wisdom (these “goals”). From the perspective of mental training methods, this has nothing to do with the description of wisdom, so it is put at the front.
Now, let’s move on to metaphysical wisdom…
.jpg)
Illusion and Reality
Whether it is scientific truth or spiritual wisdom, there must be a “distinction” at its core.
The core of the distinction is to distinguish between what is “illusion” and what is “reality”?
The development of science itself is a process of constantly breaking through original understandings (this is a kind of “illusion”) and establishing new scientific understandings (this is the truth).
Spiritual wisdom is more radical. It directly tells us that everything we think is an illusion; the reality we understand is not reality either; it’s still an illusion. The real “reality” requires us to break all understanding and cognition, to abandon all affirmation and proof, to let go of the thoughts and imaginations of the brain, and to directly “enter the heart” to experience the “truth” with a selfless mindset. This is the truth.
Spiritual wisdom adopts a negative type of statement; it is not A, not B, not C… not everything. After everything is denied, there is “true knowledge” in what remains.
The whole process is that it does not give you an affirmative answer. Even if very little remains after the negation, it still does not give you an affirmative answer. This kind of description does not belong to the category of logical description.
This is the most magical and the most difficult to understand aspect of all spiritual wisdom.
When it comes to the explanation of spiritual wisdom, the strict logic that you can understand is fallacious, not the truth; the truth cannot be spoken of by human language – the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao; the truth does not conform to dualistic logical thinking – all living beings have no appearance of self, no appearance of person, no appearance of living beings, no appearance of an old person. There is no appearance of the Dharma, nor is there an appearance of no Dharma.
How to get the truth, whether it is the truth or not, let’s put it aside for the moment, there is definitely a difference in logical explanation between the two.
Science is always a gradual understanding, following a continuous correction method of progress. Although there are concepts such as truth, laws, and axioms, in a sense, if evidence appears that can overturn axiomatic affirmation, everyone will recognize it.
Metaphysical wisdom is different, it always tries to solve problems once and for all through the description of viewpoints. Because it always claims that it has already glimpsed the truth and the truth. It has achieved a kind of “eternal philosophy” of the universe, nature, and all things in the world.
In other words, metaphysical wisdom is not bound by so-called classifications and logic. Science cannot, although it also has to use real-world material to organize the evidence for its viewpoints. But it must act within a fixed pattern and norm. Beyond this track, it is not science, and it cannot prove the correctness of the truth.
The biggest skill that metaphysical wisdom adopts is: it denies all statements, and denies all language materials, but at the same time (paradoxically) it uses these materials that it denies to prove its own viewpoint. The reason is that this is a “convenient way of speaking”, which, using Buddhist terms, is the distinction between “conventional truth” and “ultimate truth.”
Therefore, in the description of truth, metaphysics can be reckless and switch tracks at any time. From idealism to materialism, it can be adopted as long as it is conducive to the explanation of its ideas.
In the self-understanding of “metaphysics”, it may not recognize the positioning of its idealism (ideological theory) by people with a materialistic perspective.
It is like a unique person. Although there is a distinction between male and female, it is actually meaningless to him (or her) if he is simply and generally identified as a man or a woman.
In the positioning of this self-category and the positioning of others’ perspectives, metaphysics and science can actually be regarded as two different systems.
This gives metaphysical wisdom a very unique “gap.” With the help of this “gap”, it can escape the paradox of some kind of logical argumentation.
Let’s explain in detail:
In strict logical argumentation, if you want to prove that a proposition is correct, you need to prove it; if the proof is successful, the proposition is established; otherwise it is not established. According to the above logic, when metaphysics denies all this reality (which is illusory in its view), it should provide more powerful proof, otherwise it is not enough to prove its viewpoint. But metaphysics uses the intersection of its ideological system and the real system, that is, the “gap.” It avoids the process of providing this strong proof. And it also uses this “gap” to explain that the so-called proof is also false and unnecessary.
It uses this negated discourse system and statement to escape the rigorous argumentation system and discourse system it criticizes. It does not need to prove its high-dimensional content itself, and it still uses this low-dimensional discourse to explain it with justification (for the sake of argument, we use high and low dimensions to refer to the intended direction of the statement).
Isn’t this a kind of “domineering”?
Let me use an inappropriate analogy:
Metaphysics is like a “thug,” and science is more like a “police officer.” The former is unscrupulous and has many more methods than the latter, and can even be bottomless and unprincipled. But the latter cannot, and is subject to more restrictions.
The focus of the former is actually the “viewpoint” (metaphysics believes this is the ultimate truth). It always revolves around its so-called core truth and makes various concentric circle-like cyclical explanations, without having to care about the process of proof;
The focus of the latter is actually the “process.” Just as the spirit of science emphasizes “the question is much more important than the answer,” it reflects the importance of the process. Science needs to recognize and describe the process repeatedly. It expects to obtain an answer that is closer to the truth.
The focus of these two is different, so the world’s materials and language materials that need to be mobilized are completely different. The latter is obviously “thankless.”
Let’s get back to reality. Maybe the reality described by metaphysics exists.
But its biggest weakness and inadequacy is that it still lacks a truly effective “obvious target” and “sharp corner” that can reveal this illusion.
Let’s use a group of curves in a two-dimensional plane world as an analogy. When a three-dimensional being takes out the smartest line segment in the two-dimensional world, takes it to the three-dimensional world, and then puts it back, the smartest being in the two-dimensional world cannot use all its cognition to interpret this life experience. It can only describe it as a “miracle” or the “hand of God.”
This description is exactly the same as the description of the so-called reality or “true nature” in metaphysics. But this level of description and reference (even if the truth of the universe is really like this) is far from enough to convince everyone in the two-dimensional world.
The root cause is that you only have two superficial words, “miracle” or “hand of God.” There is no stronger or more concrete description and understanding. These missing and more concrete contents are what the author calls the “obvious target” and the “sharp corner.”
This “corner” that can pierce the illusion of reality is still not sharp enough. Because there are too few of these things, and it cannot pierce the so-called reality, it is not enough to fully convince people. Therefore, in the story of Flatland, the final statement of truth is not a noun such as “miracle”, “God”, or “Tao.” Rather, it is a verb, a verb-like description: “upwards rather than north.” As long as you adhere to this belief, you will eventually cross the two-dimensional world and enter the three-dimensional world.
In metaphysical wisdom, there are too many nouns similar to miracles, God, Tao, and ultimate… There is a great lack of verb-oriented descriptions and guidance. Therefore, it can only persuade a part of the people.
This is why these contents are called “mystical talks.” Because it can satisfy some kind of need in people’s spirits and consciousness. As for whether it is the reality in the real world, people don’t care much about it. The brain’s satisfaction with the infinite pursuit of mysticism through mystical talk is enough – people are just short-sighted and indifferent like this.
If this set of “logic” that escapes (scientific) reasoning logic represents a description that is closer to the world, and a reality that is closer to the origin of the world. Then we can only admit that the world is indeed mysterious and not easy to perceive. This does not fully prove that this description and intended meaning beyond language is necessarily “real.”
To try to summarize and explain a high-dimensional, profound, and indescribable truth with low-dimensional simple language, is a contradiction in itself. It carries a posture of forcing the impossible.
Using a method that cannot solve a problem to solve a problem, isn’t this a paradox?
But human beings seem to be particularly fascinated and addicted to these convoluted things and contents with a labyrinth-like character.
People seem to like to play in a field with many complex branches and paths, and they are happy about it.
For this behavior, they also invented a set of words “illusion” and “reality” to describe it. It seems that their obsession is not purely for obsession and fun, but for seeking some kind of “reality.” Playing is still with a purpose, still seeking truth and enlightenment.
It seems that they understand the surrounding world with a mentality that can see through everything but still indulge in it, and to remind themselves, they name this experience “illusion.”
What is real and what is false?
When the false is taken as real, then the real becomes false. The only thing that comes to mind is this seemingly relevant but irrelevant sentence.
Where am I When There is No-Self?
There are different understandings of whether the “self” exists from different perspectives.
The reason why the “self” is important is that the word represents and points to a vehicle of life. Each of us exists because of the “self.”
Therefore, whether the “self” exists and how it exists is very important.
Speaking of the profundity of spiritual wisdom, in addition to emphasizing negative statements and gap techniques, there is another important point. That is, these statements are always descriptions after deconstructing time and space.
We live in three-dimensional time, and time and space are shackles we cannot get rid of.
When a theory and imagination get rid of this shackle, it is a great “curiosity” and “temptation” for us humans.
A description that adopts the method of deconstruction suddenly becomes magical. No matter what theory it is, as long as you can achieve this description, it will have a feeling of supreme wisdom (whether it is the truth is another matter). This feeling is tempting for people, representing the possibility of a new experience.
From the perspective of brain neuroscience, the current understanding is that consciousness exists, and the “self” does not exist. Consciousness is an attribute of the brain. It is a phenomenon in which billions of neurons are constantly connected and discharged, achieving the emergence of the “self.”
Interestingly, spiritual wisdom also emphasizes that the “self” does not exist. The goal of human practice and awakening is to achieve “no-self.” “No-self” is the true nature (this is another product of a “combination punch” description of “negative logic” + “transcending time and space”).
Before no-self, I don’t exist; after no-self, I am even more non-existent.
So, where am I?
I am not anywhere, I have never existed at all; or, to put it more mystically, I am not anywhere, but I am everywhere (think about it carefully, isn’t this nonsense? How profound).
Finally, let’s describe the state of “no-self.”
In metaphysical wisdom, the description of this state will always have a series of objectified expressions. For example, heaven, pure land, bliss, and Shangri-La, etc.
Even the bridge connecting me and no-self is described with some symbols and images.
For example, the lotus flower symbolizes a feeling of life constantly extending and blossoming, and it also represents a bridge to transcend real time and space and reach a state of eternity. The operation of the bridge is like the blooming of flowers, repeating itself over and over again. (Therefore, the lotus flower symbol is often used in Buddhism).
The Western world likes to use a symbol based on hexagons, which consists of a circle and connecting lines, which also expresses a shift in perspective from two-dimensional to three-dimensional. Its purpose is also to reveal a change of state to the public.
The purpose of all this is to point to “no-self.” Or to eliminate the “small self” and realize the “big self” (these words are too exaggerated, and the author actually doesn’t care much for such descriptions).
This is still not specific enough (this is what metaphysics is not good at; it is always vague and does not explain clearly. It seems that being vague and dizzy is the purpose, in order to understand wisdom. Actually, this is not the case). Let’s be more specific –
It is to experience a “true face” that you have never experienced. With this feeling, you can get a glimpse of the realm of “no-self.”
If you have an awareness of this true face, and you have a feeling of gradually moving from absolute ambiguity to relative clarity, then you have experienced the realm of “no-self.”
Since the Tao is everywhere, and metaphysical wisdom also declares that after attaining the Tao, one still “sees mountains as mountains and water as water.” It shows that delusion and clarity are just a fine line.
In that case, we don’t need to learn and understand with hardship. It is better to feel at ease with the situation. It may be easier to get closer to and realize the truth through feeling.
In quantum physics terms, it is not to seek.
The more you intentionally seek, the farther away it will be. If you don’t seek, and don’t be intentional, then the Tao is actually by your side, and it will be with you at any time.
When a person can understand and experience this “no-self” and “self” in parallel, it is the day when a person is reborn and awakened.
This state cannot be achieved intentionally; it requires a gradual process, and natural waiting.
Ignorance, Not Knowing, Not Not Knowing
Finally, let’s talk about some personal “foolish opinions” (not correct views) on the path of “awakening” and the realm of “no-self.”
In fact, many times, the more judgmental people are, and the more they hate this and that, the more they like to pursue these so-called states, and the more they want to seek a so-called “great Tao.”
People who are truly immersed or fascinated by the vast world do not cling to the Tao or wisdom. These people live a more carefree and easy life.
Some people will ridicule and say that this is stupidity and unawareness. But in a sense, as soon as this perspective and idea of laughing at fifty steps for a hundred steps arises, you are already on the path again. People are again bound by their own discriminatory mind.
Therefore, instead of transforming ourselves so hard and seeking some kind of wisdom, it is better to truly insist on being ourselves. No matter what your philosophy of life is, even if it is to eat, drink, and wait for death, or to lie flat… these are not the key; the key is how long can you persist? The longer you persist, until death, the existence of life will be sublimated into philosophy. Any bit of giving up halfway is not acceptable.
Did you notice?
The difficulty of life is not seeking wisdom or attaining wisdom, but how long one can adhere to a certain value and epistemology?!— The obsessed performance of those who are deeply trapped in pyramid schemes and cults is the reason behind this view.
Even if life is truly a prison built by self-thought, and we cannot be liberated, if we do not seek liberation and try to wear the bottom of the prison, it may not be the same as the path to Nirvana. Since the Great Tao is conceived in all that is tangible, it is not impossible to achieve a breakthrough at the limits of attachment.
Here, the author thought of two examples (which can be considered jokes):
One is that Kumārajīva uses the Little Formless Skill to drive the Shaolin special skills, and it is just as impressive. If this can only be regarded as a disguise and a fake, then the latter example is more famous and appropriate.
Ouyang Feng, the Western Poison, practiced the Nine Yin Manual in reverse order, causing his qi and blood to flow in reverse, but finally he still opened up the Ren and Du channels and obtained supreme skills.
It can be seen that whether it is right or wrong is not always important. The key is that you have to be calm and have the ability to resist all kinds of backlash.
In the practice of life, seeking wisdom is secondary; it is more important to acquire these patience and toughness. Perhaps, if you really have these qualities, then wisdom will be easier to attain, and you will not care about attaining or not attaining it.
The many contradictions and wonders of life lie in this.
When you don’t have it, you seek it; when you have it, it is just that.
After going back and forth, it is still the same.
When people are born, they are actually ignorant of the outside world, of others, and of themselves. Later, when they become a little aware, either they start to be arrogant and feel that they know everything; or they become prudent and become ignorant. Then later, after several rounds of setbacks and exploration, they begin to not know what knowledge is, and not know how people know. Again later, they begin to negate knowledge, deconstruct knowledge, see through knowledge, and see through knowledge.
In the end, what we really want to study is not the outside world, but the “self”—humanity itself is a mystery, a puzzle, and a maze.
All our knowing, not knowing, not knowing everything, and knowing everything, is to solve this problem of ourselves.
And one possibility about the self is that the “self” may not be real, it may not exist.
So, to subjectively study something that does not exist, what kind of situation is this?!
If this continues, how can this person be OK?
The pursuit of wisdom should become clearer and clearer, but it is becoming more and more chaotic.
It can only show that we are still thinking too much and overthinking what we shouldn’t think about. The real clear feeling should be a refreshing awareness, it should be a simple state of “the clouds in the blue sky and the water in the bottle.”
Rather than pursuing complex wisdom, it is better to pursue simple clarity.
Perhaps in simple clarity, we can see the Tathagata.
Based on the author’s definition of “wisdom”: based on the feasibility of actual operation, the more operable it is, the closer it is to the truth. We still have to do our best to give some specific suggestions on these “mysterious and mysterious” states.
In fact, regarding the description of the state of no-self, masters have already described and distinguished it by saying, “Don’t use your brain to think, use your heart to feel.”
This analogy is indeed very accurate, but if we delve deeper, since the vehicle of the “self” of consciousness does not exist, then where does the “heart” come from? Frankly speaking, the feeling of the heart is probably still a product of brain consciousness.
Maybe this is not correct. The essence that the great virtues and sages want to express is not the heart, but a feeling and image that transcends the limits of brain thinking, but they just use the word “heart” to replace it.
In other words, they are referring to a genuine content that is stripped of the interference of brain thinking.
The understanding and feeling of this content is similar to the feeling of using the heart (not necessarily human sensibility, this feeling is more likely to be a combination of sensibility and content beyond feeling).
We have unraveled wisdom to this degree, which is actually enough.
The rest is to cultivate our feelings and disposition. Therefore, we need mindfulness to observe the inner self through thinking training, to be sensitive to capturing internal changes, and to be aware of that indescribable but repeatedly described supreme state.
Because, once we gain a heart/new feeling, we will definitely change. It can be either earth-shattering changes or small achievements.
In terms of its attractiveness, it is still worth a try.
Finally, let me emphasize two points:
Everyone has their own set of belief systems and thinking systems. Once you accept a certain system, you often like to use this system to analyze and judge everything (this is what metaphysics calls “attachment to form”). However, this system is often not enough when dealing with the complexities of the world. Once people are proficient in a certain rhetoric, they always like to use this rhetoric to explain the world and arrange their lives. But this is not enough.
Therefore, people with high wisdom always absorb and retain several different kinds of cognition and ideas. They are always making up for deficiencies and enriching their insights.
From the perspective of the completeness of this thought reserve, in order to better respond to challenges and the world, we also need to comprehensively absorb science and metaphysics.
Whether you believe it or not, you still need to understand it. Only in this way can we maximize our approach to the truth. And this is the ultimate goal and original intention of the author to analyze these viewpoints and share these feelings.
In a word: It is truly for “truth.”
Of course, diversification of choices does not mean that we should abandon science and focus on metaphysics. The author’s attitude toward metaphysics is basically for the purpose of entertainment and the completion of thinking.
People who truly understand scientific research, that is, people who truly put some effort into reading and studying mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and psychology, will not take metaphysics too seriously. The reason is that all the insights of the social sciences have more profound and accurate descriptions and answers in the natural sciences.
It’s just that most people didn’t understand it at school, and it is even more impossible to understand the natural sciences after they leave school.
In contrast, rather than choosing the masters’ interpretation of metaphysics, the author is more willing to share scientific insights and new knowledge. Because metaphysical viewpoints are sometimes vulnerable to the corresponding scientific interpretations, and they instantly become slag and worthless. This is the reason why the author prefers science.
Whether or not you can attain samadhi is not important; what is important is that you have to stick to the path you have chosen. Whether you can achieve the state of no-self is not important; what is important is that you can maintain your own freedom.
Everything, whether through awakening, through self-deception, or through scientific understanding, is just the simple hope that your own feelings can be better. Apart from that, there is nothing else, nothing at all. content_copy download Use code with caution.
English 
简体中文