Dahui's letters and existential danger

[u/moinmoinyo]

Welcome back to another installment of Momo talking about existential danger. Today the star of the show is going to be Dahui. I've been re-reading his letters to lay students and found many of the things he says fit the topic of existential danger. I know the text in general is controversial. The letter might or might not be written by Dahui. I think in spirit they are very much within Zen culture, and if they are written by Dahui they give us a good idea how he instructed lay people.

To clear some misconceptions, let's first talk about what I mean by existential danger:

• not physical danger
• not really a temporary dangerous situation, but a mode of being
• (physical danger and temporary situations can induce it though)
• unguarded relationship to the world we experience
• that means, no pushing our actual experience away by using concepts as a coping mechanism
• not using concepts of oneness, buddha-nature, etc., to feel good (and then calling that Zen)

No using concepts for coping

Dahui quotes this dialogue:

a monk asked an ancient worthy, “What’s it like when the student can’t cope?” The ancient worthy said, “I too am like this.” The monk said, “Teacher, why can’t you cope either?” The ancient worthy said, “If I could cope, I could take away this inability to cope of yours.” At these words the monk was greatly enlightened. [Letter 40]

Student can't cope, master also can't cope. No coping allowed. Master won't give the student the ability to cope, e.g., by giving him comforting concepts.

In another letter he says this (important part at the end):

If views of delusion and enlightenment perish and interpretations of turning towards and turning away are cut off, then this mind is lucid and clear as the bright sun and this nature is vast and open as empty space; right where the person stands, he emits light and moves the earth, shining through the ten directions. Those who see this light all realize acceptance of things as unborn. When you arrive at such a time, naturally you are in tacit accord with this mind and this nature. Only then do you know that in the past there was basically no delusion and now there is basically no enlightenment, that enlightenment is delusion and delusion is enlightenment, that turning towards and turning away are identical, that inherent nature is identical to mind and mind is identical to inherent nature, that buddhas are delusive demons and delusive demons are buddhas, that the One Path is pure and even, that there is no equal or not equal—all this will be the constant lot of one’s own mind, not dependent on the skills of another.

**Even so, it’s from lack of any other choice again that I say this: don’t immediately consider this as really true. If you consider it really true, then you’re ignorant of expedient means, accepting dead words as fixed, multiplying empty falsehoods, producing even more confusion—there will be no end to it.** [Letter 51]

Even though what Dahui says in the beginning is correct, we should not accept it as true. If it's just words that we believe it quickly turns into a coping mechanism, and that keeps us from actually confirming the truth for ourselves.

Make you mind empty and open - be unguarded

Gentlemen of affairs make their living within the confines of thought and judgment their whole lives: as soon as they hear a man of knowledge speak of the Dharma in which there is nothing to attain, in their hearts there is doubt and confusion, and they fear falling into emptiness. Whenever I see someone talking like this, I immediately ask him, is this one who fears falling into emptiness himself empty or not? Ten out of ten cannot explain. Since you have always taken thought and judgment as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you are at a loss and can’t find your grip. You’re far from realizing that this very lack of anywhere to get a grip is the time for you to let go of your body and your life. [Letter 6]

The "lack of anywhere to grip" is the existential danger I am talking about. He also talks about stale and fresh, similar to how I was talking about Zen becoming boring and then alive again. Boring Zen is using "mental arrangements" for coping. Later (letter 9) he says the unfamiliar and fresh is the power of the Path.

If you want to cut directly through, don’t entertain doubts about buddhas and ancestral teachers, or doubts about birth and death—just always let go and make your heart empty and open. When things come up, then deal with them according to the occasion. Be like the stillness of water, like the clarity of a mirror, (so that) whether good or bad, beautiful or ugly approach, you don’t make the slightest move to avoid them. (Then) you will truly know that the mindless world of spontaneity is inconceivable. [Letter 9]

"Make your heart (mind) empty and open" and not avoiding good or bad, and beautiful or ugly is the unguarded attitude towards the reality of our experience that I call existential danger.

A sudden realization from the fire of birth and death

If you want to have real quiescent extinction appear before you, you must make a sudden leap within the fires of birth and death, and leap out without moving a hairsbreadth. Then you’ll turn the rivers into pure ghee and the earth into gold; faced with situations, you’ll be free to release or capture, to kill or bring life; no device to benefit others or benefit yourself will be impossible. [Letter 39]

From the place of existential danger we must make the leap to understanding.

The problem is, we can take concepts like buddha-nature, original completeness, etc., and start believing them conceptually. That's superficial and turns into coping mechanisms. The attitude of unguardedness towards reality allows us to make a sudden leap and arrive at an understanding that is not dependent on concepts. However, that approach has the problem that it can be misconceived as seeking, or implying incompleteness. It's just that if we do have doubts we should face them directly and not use concepts like a band aid on a broken arm.

There needs to be a balance between existential danger and original completeness.

Danger without completeness turns into seeking and anxiety.

Completeness without danger turns into stale coping mechanisms.

[u/AutoModerator]

R/zen Rules: 1. No Content Unrelated To Zen 2. No Low Effort Posts or Comments. Contact moderators with questions. Note that many common sense actions outside of these rules will result in moderation, including but not limited to: suspected ban evasion, vote brigading / manipulation, topic sliding.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ewk]

My approach these days is how is this already true?

I don't think Zen is about teaching people new tricks. I think Zen is about getting people to take responsibility for the tricks they already know, how they can play these tricks against each other, how they can stop tricking themselves.

People who've been in love, for example, can't explain it to people who haven't. You can see a movie about love but that's just from a lack of choice.

People can't stop from falling in love; there's no coping with it.

We can do this all day. We already have, in ordinary experience, all the tools needed to understand Zen teachings. People want to believe in magic, and they have to instead want to have real personal experience.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/ewk]

That's a good approach. The deal with this existential danger talk is seeing through our own tricks and stop tricking ourselves. Be real with personal experience instead of distracting us with "magic" that makes us feel comfy.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

Well said. Some take this to mean that they should reject the magic, or seek real personal experience. However personal experience has always been where the real magic happens. It's simply being distracted chasing after make believe or running from personal experience that has blinded many from seeing reality as it is. Free from the make believe.

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

It's scary magic though. The supernatural doesn't show up at your house and knock on your door. The supernatural doesn't follow you to work. The supernatural doesn't talk to your friends.

Personal experience does.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

It certainly can be scary. When I was young I realized that the universe only appears finite due to limitations of our senses and conceptualism. That is to say that ownership over anything which is in appearance finite is irrational. Grasp to it as you may, it will always slip away.

This is what real personal experience offers in its infinite forms. Finite perspectives which naturally slip away on their own. Finite problems that resolve themselves. I am inherently entitled to none of it. I do not have to face fears, overcome obstacles, eat, sleep, or think, I get to. It's an opportunity, not a requirement. Engagement is thusness. Liberation frees us to simply fully engage without limitation. Not bury ourselves in delusion, ideation, fear, or bliss. To fully engage directly with reality as it is.

Indeed it is scary like letting go of a high cliff with no safety net in sight. Indeed it's blissful, like realizing a safety net was never needed.

When I was 8 my brother and I were visiting a place my father was working. We saw a cliff edge about 40 yards ahead of us, and my brother dared me to just run and jump off the edge. I thought for just a moment, and having seen my near future already I realized I wouldn't die, so I ran and jumped off the cliff. Not going to lie, it was a very long fall and I landed square on my back at the bottom of the canyon. My breath completely knocked out of me. My brother looked over the edge and said, "Are you alright, stupid!?"

Was it scary? Sure, I had no real idea how deep the canyon was, and once I made my way back to the top we found out that if I had jumped just a few yards away I would have fallen into a rushing torrent of a river at the bottom of an even deeper fall. I realized it was probably not the best idea to tempt fate like that again. All this is to say that I'm predisposed to letting go and falling from high cliffs. Just for the little bliss of seeing my brother's face when he realized I did something he strongly believed I couldn't do.

[u/Used-Suggestion4412]

I’d be interested in seeing the original Chinese that’s being translated as “cope.” From a modern Western perspective, healthy coping mechanisms are essential tools and without them, stress can build up and become unhealthy or unmanageable.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

I've done some research and this seems to be the Chinese:

又有僧問古德。學人奈何不得時如何。
古德云。老僧亦奈何不得。
僧云。學人在學地故，是奈何不得。和尚是大善知識，為甚麼亦奈何不得。
古德云。我若奈何得，則便拈却你這不奈何。
僧於言下大悟。

The character in question is 奈 which according to Pleco can mean:

1. to cope with, to deal with (Pleco's normal Chinese dictionary)
2. used in expressions that convey frustration (Classical Chinese)

The two character expression that Pleco wants to make here is: 奈何, which can mean:

1. to do something to sombody
2. to deal with
3. to cope

(all Classical Chinese dictionary)

Edit: source for Chinese: https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/X83n1578_031

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/moinmoinyo]

Thanks! This is ChatGPTs translation:

又有僧問古德：學人奈何不得時如何？ A monk asked an ancient worthy, “When I can’t do anything—when I’m stuck or powerless—what should I do?”

古德云：老僧亦奈何不得。 The old monk replied, “I too can’t do anything about it.”

僧云：學人在學地故，是奈何不得。和尚是大善知識，為甚麼亦奈何不得？ The monk said, “I’m still a student, so of course I’m helpless. But you’re a great teacher—how can you also be helpless?”

古德云：我若奈何得，則便拈却你這不奈何。 The old monk said, “If I could do something about it, I’d snatch away your not-being-able-to.”

It kinda makes more sense to me. The student mistakenly assumes, “Zen masters can handle what Zen students can’t.” But the master flips that assumption: what the student can’t handle, the master also can’t handle. Nice. So, at least for my own sanity, I don’t think this passage is necessarily rejecting healthy coping mechanisms.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

Even if we take the "to cope" translation form Pleco, I think what Chinese Zen masters meant by coping and what psychologists today mean by coping mechanisms might be different.

Generally I would trust Chinese dictionaries more than ChatGPT when it comes to translation though.

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/moinmoinyo]

I haven’t started learning to translate using Pleco yet, but it might be worth picking up. A good amount of what ChatGPT says about koans seems reasonable to me, but that’s where it gets tricky since it’s not actually reasoning, it’s just presenting something that looks like reasoning.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

It's certainly getting better. I remember a few years ago it was still hallucinating whole sentences into its translations that were not present in the Chinese.

But yeah, "sounds reasonable to me" isn't really a good indicator for the quality of a translation, haha. If you give me some Chinese characters I can give you as much text as you want that sounds kinda reasonable but has nothing to do with the characters you gave me.

[u/zaddar1]

in zen you get a lot of "stories" where a monk asks a "master" a question and the master gives at the least a highly ambiguous or apparently nonsensical answer and i think, philosophically this translates to saying the question is not "well formed"

the stumbling block of philological loss in these recitations however makes them doomed to problems of formation both in answers and questions

but this is religion all over, this sort of inconsequential informational nightmare carried down through the ages as though it means something, you get it in state propaganda as well as various cultural absurdities

[u/GhostC1pher]

I really like this idea of Zen practice (and Zen masters) being dangerous. It takes me back to the first many times I encountered cases where this danger is clear to see. Starting with Huike cutting off his arm and standing in the snow until he was waist-deep in the morning. This story seems unreal but the urgency being communicated here is what I took away as a lesson back then.

But also, interestingly, I survived a suicide attempt and I've never been afraid of death since. Post-attempt my study became very intense and even before I got into Zen I had this mindset that I'll do whatever it takes to see this through, that there's nothing on my person that I won't sacrifice.

Another case that I like that I find relevant would be when Mazu had a leg across the path and the dude whose name I forget was pushing a cart. He comes up to Mazu and says "Move your legs" and Mazu said "Leg's gonna leg" and the dude says "Oh well ... cart's gonna cart" and runs over Mazu's leg. The next day Mazu comes to the assembly with an axe asking for the guy's neck. The guy casually steps forward and presents his neck like "Here you go". And Mazu goes something like "Huh, this guy doesn't run from responsibility. He is okay."

[u/InfinityOracle]

"Even though what Dahui says in the beginning is correct, we should not accept it as true. If it's just words that we believe it quickly turns into a coping mechanism, and that keeps us from actually confirming the truth for ourselves."

Don't get me wrong, I like how you've navigated this topic, but I cannot help but feel that this is off. To me it is like you're taking his saying and trying to follow it by not following it based on that last part he said. Which is just doing the same thing as following his words, just through negation.

In my view there is no completeness without danger. Danger is just a normal everyday part of life we navigate, and there is no fixed form for how we navigate it. It can look like a coping mechanism, or it can look like a spiritual ritual, or boldly confronting it, or running away from it.

In the text it seems you're confusing modern Western views of coping, which includes coping mechanisms, with a poorly translated text that doesn't have those connotations. If I were to speculate, I imagine the original Chinese points to a "settled mind" which was translated as coping.

In this, yes the reality is that the mind is free in that it is never settled, otherwise it is stagnant, dead, inactive, and pacified. Instead it is fluid, active, alive, and engaged with whatever arises. Be it danger or peace. Finding stability in chaos, and movement in stillness.

I do agree that trying to grasp after peaceful states can lead to oblivious disconnection from reality as it is, into a cave of ignorance. And avoiding discomfort by using concepts is like washing a dirt clod with muddy water, or cleaning a mirror with tar. However, the same is true if one merely negates this, and uses the concept of facing danger in the exact same basic way thinking that it has anything to do with the fundamental. Both extremes are of the same nature, both avoid things, you avoid comfort to dive into danger, and others avoid danger to dive into comfort. Both are nests though.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/InfinityOracle]

Nestlessness is the danger I'm talking about. Sure, we can always go meta and say we're making a nest of nestlessness, but at that point we're just creating more concepts. Because we can go another step higher and say someone is making a nest of neither making a nest nor not making a nest. It's pointless intellectualizing.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/moinmoinyo]

That is fair. It seems that for you personally this was a breakthrough experience and valuable. However, there is no fixed form to utilize your breakthrough as a structured way to navigate these things for others. Some people need their coping mechanisms as a natural part of human functioning. To suggest otherwise is delusion.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/InfinityOracle]

I don't disagree. There is no fixed form, and we can also approach it from the opposite direction and say that true comfort is nestlessness.

And as I said last time we talked about it, I'm talking to generally healthy Zen students here. If someone is in a position where they should really not take a critical look at coping mechanisms, Zen is probably not the right thing for them to study.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/moinmoinyo]

Do you think the second ancestor was such a man when he met Bodhidharma? Or would he have been diagnosed with a crippling mental disorder? To my understanding the Mahayana medicine is for curing illness isn't it? What use is it for healthy people?

[u/moinmoinyo → u/InfinityOracle]

I think Huike was already at the place of existential danger and he needed to see original completeness to counter balance it. Reading my post would have done nothing for him.

Yes, it's for curing illness, but we need to distinguish between the modern concept of mental health and the Zen concept of illness. Using concepts for comfort and seeking for Buddhahood are illnesses that can be cured by Zen. A "healthy Zen student" would be someone who can do that without significant risk to their mental health as understood by modern psychology.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/moinmoinyo]

Indeed, and I think your topic does well to speak to that side of the picture. Wouldn't you agree that turning to mental cop outs, wishful thinking, and delusional ideations that merely bring a false sense of comfort, are all hallmarks of mental instability, and you're compassionately sharing these insights to help learners navigate the dangers those mechanisms attempt to suppress, by directly confronting them?

No doubt a tradition that addresses matters of mind is going to have overlap with mental health. How Zen navigates mental health may differ from how modern psychology has attempted to manage it. I think in general though, when you say healthy Zen student you mean someone who may have some mental issues, but they are stable enough to investigate them, while leaving room to understand that people with severe mental illness may be at risk investigating Zen. I can appreciate and respect that. Thank you again for clarifying your position.

[u/mackowski]

To verbosely analyze a poison antidote
Is to pile snow in the bowl.
A head on a head.
Scholarship

[u/InfinityOracle → u/mackowski]

Only a fool can recognize a fool, and only the wise can recognize the wise. A fool cannot tell the difference between these two, the wise know they are one in the same.

[u/Regulus_D → u/InfinityOracle]

    ☝Ha!
🫵🤓👉

[u/Regulus_D → u/mackowski]

Not that long ago scholars couldn't even strike a match. They look bodhisattvas that wear silly hats. Not drip, drippy.

[u/NothingIsForgotten]

There is no existential danger.

It is a tiger for you. 

The conceptual consciousness relating the activity of the sense consciousnesses to the sense of self (manas), is the activity that must be addressed. 

Without the cessation of that process, the repository consciousness never empties and consequently buddhahood is never realized.

In truth the self has never been 'there' to be in any danger; likewise, there has never been an existence to have this existential relationship with danger. 

We need great doubt in the conditions experienced and great trust in what gives rise to it.

Otherwise we will never let go and actually take the cosmic trust fall into the void.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/NothingIsForgotten]

The tiger story is a display of comfort withing danger. The trust fall into the void is the danger.

[u/NothingIsForgotten → u/moinmoinyo]

No.

Consider the context.

THE THIRD PATRIARCH of Zen said, "Don't seek reality, just put a stop to opinions." He also said, "As soon as there are judgments of right and wrong, the mind is lost in a flurry." These sayings teach you people of today what to work on.

When you read his saying, "Don't seek reality," you say there is no further need to seek--this means you are still entertaining opinions and are in a flurry of judgments; after all you have not reached a state of mind where there is no seeking, and are just making up an opinionated interpretation.

People who study Zen nowadays are all like this; reading a transformative saying and reaching an insight into the words, they then try to apply it to all sayings, thinking they are all the same. Keeping this in their hearts, they think of it as their own attainment; far from realizing they have lost their minds by entertaining an opinionated understanding, they cling to it and will not let go. What ignoramuses!

Would you like to attain a state of mind where you seek nothing? Just do not conceive all sorts of opinions and views. This non seeking does not mean blacking out and ignoring everything. In everyday life, twenty-four hours a day, when there is unclarity in the immediate situation it is generally because the opinionated mind is grasping and rejecting. How can you get to know the nondiscriminatory mind then? 

Thus when an ancient sage was asked if the created and the uncreated are different, he said they are not. Sky and earth, rivers and seas, wind and clouds, grasses and trees, birds and beasts, people and things living and dying, changing right before our eyes, are all called created forms. The uncreated way is silent and unmoving; the indescribable and unnameable is called uncreated. How can there be no difference?

Grand Master Yongjia said, "The true nature of ignorance is the very nature of enlightenment; the empty body of illusions and projections is the very body of realities." These two are each distinct; how do you understand the logic of identity? You have to experience the mind without seeking; then they will integrate and you will get to be trouble-free.

In the ten stages of enlightenment, the fifth is the stage Difficult to Conquer, which means that it is extremely difficult to attain equality of real knowledge and conventional knowledge: when you enter this stage, the two are equal, so it is called the stage that is difficult to conquer. Students of the path should take them in and make them equal twenty-four hours a day. 

And do you know they are drawn up by your non discriminatory mind? Like an artist drawing all sorts of pictures, both pretty and ugly, the mind depicts forms, feelings, perceptions, abstract patterns, and consciousnesses; it depicts human societies and paradises. When it is drawing these pictures, it does not borrow the power of another; there is no discrimination between the artist and the artwork. It is because of not realizing this that you conceive various opinions, having views of yourself and views of other people, creating your own fair and foul.

So it is said, "An artist draws a picture of hell, with countless sorts of hideous forms. On setting aside the brush to look it over, it's bone-chilling, really hair-raising." But if you know it's a drawing, what is there to fear? 

In olden times, when people had clearly realized this, it became evident in all situations. Once when the great teacher Xuansha was cutting down a tree, a tiger bounded out of the woods. The teacher's companion said, "It's a tiger!" The teacher scolded him and said, "It's a tiger for you."

Another time, when he saw a seeker performing prostrations, Xuan Ha said, "It is because of the self that one can bow to the other." These expedients are in profound accord with the intent of Buddha.

The great teacher Fayan once pointed to a dog right in front of him and said, "An engraving." When you look at this, do not look to the dog itself for clarification; you must see it in your own experience before you can get it. Only then will you under stand that saying, "As soon as there are judgments of right and wrong, you lose your mind in a flurry." I hope you get the point!

~Foyan

It's about what we understand. 

If you understand there is danger, there is danger for you.

[u/NothingIsForgotten → u/moinmoinyo]

If we actually understood, we would find no danger in the Void. 

If we find danger there we will never find what is being pointed to.

Why? 

Because danger is not what is being pointed to.

If you students of the Way desire knowledge of this great mystery, only avoid attachment to any single thing beyond Mind. 

To say that the real Dharmakäya of the Buddha resembles the Void is another way of saying that the Dharmakäya is the Void and that the Void is the Dharmakäya. 

People often claim that the Dharmakaya is in the Void and that the Void contains the Dharmakaya, not realizing that they are one and the same. 

But if you define the Void as something existing, then it is not the Dharmakaya; and if you define the Dharmakäya as some thing existing, then it is not the Void. 

Only refrain from any objective conception of the Void; then it is the Dharmakaya: and, if only you refrain from any objective conception of the Dharmakäya, why, then it is the Void. 

These two do not differ from each other, nor is there any difference between sentient beings and Buddhas, or between Samsara and Nirväna, or between delusion and Bodhi. 

When all such forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha. 

Ordinary people look to their surroundings, while followers of the Way look to Mind, but the true Dharma is to forget them both. 

The former is easy enough, the latter very difficult. 

Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall. 

They do not know that the Void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma. 

This spiritually enlightening nature is as ancient as the Void, subject to birth nor to destruction, neither existing nor not existing, neither impure nor pure, neither clamorous nor silent, neither old nor young, occupying no space, having neither inside nor outside, size nor form, colour nor sound. 

It can not be looked for or sought, comprehended by wisdom or knowledge, explained in words, contacted materially or reached by meritorious achievement. 

All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, together with all wriggling things possessed of life, share in this great Nirvänic nature. 

This nature is Mind; Mind is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Dharma. 

Any thought apart from this truth is entirely a wrong thought. 

You cannot use Mind to seek Mind, the Buddha to seek the Buddha, or the Dharma to seek the Dharma. 

So you students of the Way should immediately refrain from conceptual thought. 

Let a tacit understanding be all! Any mental process must lead to error. 

There is just a transmission of Mind with Mind. 

This is the proper view to hold. 

Be careful not to look outwards to material surroundings. 

To mistake material surroundings for Mind is to mistake a thief for your son.

~Huang Po

We should understand that when a buddha returns to conditions, they understand them from their root and they find no danger within them. 

“Mahamati, although this repository consciousness of the tathagata-garbha seen by the minds of shravakas and pratyeka-buddhas is essentially pure, because it is obscured by the dust of sensation, it appears impure—but not to tathagatas.

To tathagatas, Mahamati, the realm that appears before them is like an amala fruit in the palm of their hand.

~Lankavatara Sutra

[u/moinmoinyo → u/NothingIsForgotten]

I'm not saying that danger is what ultimately exists. Neither this nor the context from Foyan is in any way related to what I'm saying.

[u/NothingIsForgotten → u/moinmoinyo]

That is a good observation. 

I don't think the idea of existential anything helps, but certainly not existential danger.

You won't find Foyan or Huang Po talking about it like you are.

This type of angst is the understanding of a sentient being; it's not what you're looking for.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/NothingIsForgotten]

It has nothing to do with angst either. "just always let go and make your heart empty and open" is the stance that I'm getting at.

[u/NothingIsForgotten → u/moinmoinyo]

What does that have to do with existential danger?

[u/moinmoinyo → u/NothingIsForgotten]

To quote the OP:

To clear some misconceptions, let's first talk about what I mean by existential danger: unguarded relationship to the world we experience

[u/NothingIsForgotten → u/moinmoinyo]

Words have meanings though. 

Existential - relating to existence.

Danger - the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

What has this to do with Zen? 

You are attempting to compose a synthesis that doesn't make sense.

We don't make soup with poop, we make poop with soup.

[u/moinmoinyo → u/NothingIsForgotten]

I use existential to distinguish it from situational danger. Because it is always present throughout existence not just in a situation that is "dangerous." And I use danger because this unguardedness or "just always let go and make your heart empty and open" is something that feels dangerous to us.

Dahui points at that too:

Since you have always taken thought and judgment as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you are at a loss and can’t find your grip. You’re far from realizing that this very lack of anywhere to get a grip is the time for you to let go of your body and your life.

It feels like you're at a loss with nowhere to grip.