by Tang Huyen

One enters the absence of thought (wu nian) by negating thought (fei nian), or rather by abstaining from thought (bu nian), until the absence of thought becomes the status quo. It is no longer an activity, a transition, but a stable state.

It is not clear whom the commentary belongs to, but I take
it that it is by a westerner, what with the knee-jerk attack
on "analytic and discriminatory thought" (pensée analytique
et discriminatoire), or at least that it is translated by a
westerner with an ax to grind (on western civilization).

As I wrote recently to David Kotschessa, thought is thought,
whether it is analytic or synthetic. Indian Buddhism makes
a slight distinction between vikalpa and samkalpa, the former
tending toward analysis and the latter toward synthesis, but
the distinction is blurry. All thought is measure (liang, Ryō),
and the Chinese translation for anumana "inference" is
pi-liang "comparing measuring", "compared quantity". The
Chinese translation for pratyaksa is xian-liang "present
measure", "present quantity", as it is present in front of one.
The liang is badly placed here. There is no measuring in
direct, raw cognition. What is present is just present, sans
plus.

As you recall, Sautrantika doctrine distinguishes direct,
raw cognition (pratyaksa) and inference (anumana), which is
conceptual thought. By the way, anumana comes from the
stem man- "to think, to mentate" which is profusely present
in the second long quotation below. So direct, raw cognition
(pratyaksa) is shorn of thought or mentation, and inference
is thought or mentation. Direct, raw cognition without
inference is the absence of thought. It is the ultimate
standard (pramana) of knowledge. It is Nirvana.

The absence of thought entails the absence of thought,
analytic and synthetic, and whatever other kind of thought.
Analytic thought is not a particularly loathsome kind of
thought, it is just like any other kind of thought, and
without it there could be no synthetic kind of thought. And
all thought is discriminatory, otherwise thought could not
proceed.

I don't know Japanese, and have to look up a book on
Dōgen, Pierre Nakimovitch, Dōgen et les paradoxes de la
bouddhaité, Genève: Droz, 1999, and there Fu corresponds
to wu in Chinese, Hi to fei, Shiryō to si-liang, "to think, to
cogitate, to ponder, thought, cogitation, pondering", where
si is to think and liang is to measure. Shiryō/si-liang being
somewhat clumsy, I'll revert to nian (Japanese nen) "to
think, thought" which is more usual in Chinese Chan.

To me, wu is mere absence, in the passive, it is something
that one merely cognises as being there (constate), without
doing anything to make it happen, whereas fei is active,
one does something to make it happen, and in this case
one actively does not think, one actively abstains from
thinking (bu nian). Absence of thought (wu nian) is a mere
cognisance of a state already there, one simply takes it as
it is. It may well be a result, but a result that has stabilised.
The negation of thought (fei nian) is an activity, one is
actively bringing it about. It may well be already effective
(wirklich), but it is perhaps new and one still is aware of its
newness. Perhaps the abstention from thought (bu nian) is
a better foil for the absence of thought (wu nian). Both
the negation of thought (fei nian) and the abstention from
thought (bu nian) are activities, but fei is more active, the
negation is more patent, whilst bu is a soft negation. Bu
nian has the connotation that one does not extend thought,
does not further thought, whilst fei nian has a rather active
connotation of negating thought, of sublating thought.

The famous original nothingness (ben wu) of Daoism is
something there, one cognises it or hypothesises it, and in
Chinese Buddhism emptiness (kong) is often taken to be
such an original nothingness from which all things arise.
Nobody would however say ben bu, because bu implies
an activity, and ben "original" negates the activity that
would bring it about. And fei wu (as a noun) would be
unthinkable, given the very active connotation of fei
(though fei you fei wu is common for neither existence
nor non-existence, where fei functions as preposition).

There is a similar distinction, in which Dōgen was much
involved, between ben jue "original awakening" and shi
jue "awakening in its inception, beginning awakening"
(Nakimovitch translates éveil originaire and éveil
inchoatif). Original awakening is by right (de jure), every
living being is entitled to it, without the need to do
anything to acquire it, it is their inalienable birthright,
beginning awakening is by fact (de facto), it occurs in
those living beings who work for awakening, for example
by practicing Buddhism (which needs not occur within
Buddhism proper, for they can perfectly reintuit
Buddhism without external help, Buddhism itself
belonging to the category "original", "existent on its own
side regardless whether it is cognised or not", and being
in fact discovered by the Buddha as an accident and
potentially discoverable to others who never hear of the
Buddha and Buddhism).

All the fancy and subtle talk above and below is just to
say that one enters the absence of thought (wu nian) by
negating thought (fei nian), or rather by abstaining from
thought (bu nian), until the absence of thought becomes
the status quo, un état de fait. It is no longer an activity,
a transition, but a stable state. Yet even after it is become
habitual, it still has to be entered from a state with
thought, as we have to use thought to move in the world.

The Buddha tells the layman Potthapada about the
"conscious entry into the gradually obtained complete
cessation of notion (abhisañña-nirodha, where the
emphatic prefix abhi- qualifies nirodha)." The monk
enters the four form meditations, then the first three
formless places, and in each of the latter he ceases
the notion of the previous stage. In the third formless
place, which the Buddha calls the "summit of notions"
(saññagga), he thinks: "To mentate at all is bad
(cetayamanassa me papiyo), it would be better not
to mentate (acetayamayum), but other gross ones
would arise (añña ca olarika sañña uppajjeyyum). So
I will not mentate and compose (na ceteyyam na
abhisamkhareyyan)." So he no longer mentates and
composes (so na ceva ceteti na abhisamkharoti), and
to him no longer mentating and composing (tassa
acetayato na abhisamkharoto), the notions cease (ta
ceva sañña nirujjhanti), and other gross ones do not
arise (añña ca olarika sañña na uppajjanti). So he
touches cessation (so nirodham phusati). This is how
the "conscious entry into the gradually obtained
complete cessation of notion"
(anupubbabhisañña-nirodha-sampajana-samapatti)
comes about. DN, I, 184 (9); Chinese Dīrgha-Āgama,
28, 110b.

So it is by refraining from mentating and composing
that one "touches cessation" (nirodham phusati),
which is Nirvana. There is a distinction between the
obtention (samapatti) of the state (nirodha, cessation)
and the state itself.

In the Scripture on the Analysis of the Six Modalities, at
the fourth form meditation, after concentrating on
equanimity, the meditator can reflect: "If I move this
equanimity, purified thus, into the place of infinite space
[and so on for each of the other three formless attainments]
and should develop my thought in accordance with it,
leaning on it, supported by it, standing on it, taking it as
object, attached to it, this equanimity, purified thus, leaning
on the place of infinite space, is therefore composed
(sankhatam etam). What is composed is impermanent,
what is impermanent is suffering; if it is suffering, I know
suffering; after knowing suffering, from the equanimity I
do not move into the place of infinite space [and so on]."
If the monk with regard to the four formless places
contemplates them with wisdom as they are, he does not
accomplish them, does not move into them. He therefore
neither composes nor mentates (neva abhisankharoti
nabhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or un-becoming
(vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought (maññita, Skt.
manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti) is a thought,
"I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor not be" is
a thought, "I will be with form" is a thought, "I will be
without form" is a thought, "I will be with notion" is a
thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I will be
neither with notion nor without notion" is a thought; the
monk thinks: "If there is none of these thoughts,
agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced." The Pāli says:
"when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is said
to be at peace" (sabba-maññitānam tveva samatikkama
muni santo ti vuccati). Chinese Madhyama-Āgama, 162,
692a; MN, III, 246 (140).

So one attains the state of non-mentation and
non-composition by — not mentating and not composing.
Not by force (fei would have this connotation), but by
gently stopping producing more mentation and composition
(the fourth aggregate), by abstaining from furthering
mentation. Just that is liberation, and there is no higher
state in Buddhism.

By the way, of the above two texts, the former concentrates
on notion (sañña), the second aggregate, whilst the latter
focuses on volitions and the compositions, altogether the
fourth aggregate. The implication is that these two aggregates
make up the domain of mentation, and that to quiesce either
one is also to quiesce both, that they implicate each other
and go up and down together.

Thus to get into the absence of thought, one exerts some
efforts, efforts that deactivate thought, gradually, as
thought thins out, until thought stops (the third aggregate,
notion, and the fourth aggregate, the compositions, stop).
Again, when thought stops, all kinds of thought stop,
analytic or synthetic, or any other kind of thought. Analytic
thought is not any more culpable than other kinds of
thought. They all drop out at the same time. What remains
is direct, raw cognition (pratyaksa), which is free of thought.

Nothing mysterious, nothing mystical.

Colophon

Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on June 18, 2004, in reply to a thread on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō and the distinction between fu-shiryō (non-thought) and hi-shiryō (negation of thought). Interlocutor: Ulrich Topf, who brought the discussion to Tang Huyen's attention via Yoko Orimo's French translation of Dōgen. Author: Tang Huyen (Laughing Buddha, Inc.). Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

Tang Huyen was a scholar of Buddhist studies with deep command of Pāli, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan sources. This post is among his most technically precise: starting from Dōgen's Sanscrit/Sino-Japanese three-term analysis of "thinking non-thought," Tang Huyen maps each term to Chinese Buddhist vocabulary (wu nian, fei nian, bu nian), then anchors the analysis in two Pāli sutta passages that demonstrate the same threefold logic — the "summit of notions" from DN I,184 and the "gone beyond all thoughts" from MN III,246. The method shows that liberation is not mystical attainment but a simple, gradual abstention from furthering mentation. Dōgen's paradox dissolves: one thinks non-thought by gently not extending thought further.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲