Seeing mountains is not mountains, seeing water is not water-when you enter the stage of doubt and criticism, you are full of doubt and fantasy.
Look at the mountain or the mountain, look at the water or the water-after verification and analysis, I understand, prove and solve the puzzle.
For the "three views" of Tao, mountains are just mountains and water is just water.
Just a mountain, not a mountain, but a mountain, these are the three realms of Zen. The original sentence is, the first realm: "Seeing mountains is just mountains, and seeing water is just water." The second realm: "Looking at mountains is not mountains, and looking at water is not water." The third realm: "Look at the mountain or the mountain, look at the water or the water." The words "see" and "mountain" and "water" in the three sentences are the same; But "just", "not" and "still" are all visions. Let's talk separately.
"Seeing the mountain is just a mountain, and seeing the water is just water." "Look" here refers to observation, not only with eyes, but also with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and various parts of the body. Touch it with your hands to see if it is smooth or rough, hot or cold. This is also observation. This intuitive observation is the direct meaning of "seeing". Then, this "mountain" and "water" are also representatives, representing everything in the material world.
The words "only mountains" and "only water" here only illustrate a limitation. Where is the limit? Be confined to the surface. Some people say that the first meeting is called the first impression, which is a superficial impression, and the first impression appears occasionally. So it is superficial, and it can also be said to be one-sided. Because no matter from your eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body, no matter how you look at things, no matter what angle you look at things, you can't observe everything. So this can only get a superficial phenomenon. When observing, there are often misunderstandings and dead ends. Some people say that you can't see your nose, which is a blind spot; There is another saying: "The hair on the back of the head can only be touched, but not seen." This is also the limitation of the eyes.
It can be seen that no matter how you look at it, it is "seeing mountains is just mountains, and seeing water is just water". It's actually a mountain. Is it water? This is just an illusion. Why is it illusion? I have talked about it in the previous class. Because it's just a name and a photo. As a subject, you can observe mountains, water, trees, thunder and lightning, clouds and the sun and moon in the sky. No matter how you observe them, you can't see everything, so it's just an illusion, so it's just "just"
If you ask: Is all the knowledge in the book true? Actually, it has its function. It can introduce some useful things to us and provide you with some reference, that is, directions. Pedestrians want to find a restaurant and ask the shepherd boy, who just points to walk. Are the words in these books knowledge? It is knowledge. But this knowledge only plays a guiding role, just a "pointing" shepherd boy. Really speaking, it is not the ontology of things. The noumenon and truth of things cannot be expressed in words, so Lao Tzu said, "Tao can be Tao, not surprising." Tao refers to the noumenon of things. What you can express in words is not Tao. What you express is not true, just the way you mean it. Here is just the word "just".
Seeing mountains is not mountains, and seeing water is not water.
Seeing mountains is not mountains, and seeing water is not water. The "no" here is just the opposite of the "just" in front. The front is affirmative, but it is negative here, and it is negative at the stage of being Tao. Why? Where is this negation manifested? It is characterized by doubt and criticism, and puts forward its own assumptions and opinions through doubt and criticism; Then through reasoning, through thinking and argumentation. Can that hypothesis hold? Goldbach conjecture is Goldbach conjecture, and Chen Jingrun proved that it is only one step away from the crown; There is also a French physicist, Ampere, who put forward a hypothesis: "The current formed by the movement of electrons between molecules or atoms is the origin of the magnetism of matter." He put forward this hypothesis, and how many physicists later proved his hypothesis to be correct?
There are some mistakes, errors, prejudices and defects in the previous books. On this basis, I put forward my own views and even new discoveries. The "no" here is a kind of negation, a kind of criticism, a kind of denial of mistakes, a kind of one-sided correction, a kind of realistic exploration of the essence and whole of things, which is more comprehensive and profound than the stage of "just a mountain" and "learning" The "no" here means that it is not the truth and essence of things.
Seeing mountains or mountains, seeing water or water is the "three views".
See the mountain or the mountain, the water or the water. Is the "or" here a return to the previous knowledge? No, it didn't fall to the level of "no" in the second stage. This "or" is to see the true essence of things, to see that they are "just" by observing the surface of things, and then to reason, analyze, imagine and guess through experience, and then to form a unique concept and see the other side of things, that is, the deeper side. But even this would not be enough We should further observe on this basis. If we observe at a certain height, we will find the original "or" thing.