Emily, Many times the observation has been asserted that parents are the first guru, teacher the second but life itself is the ultimate guru. You prove the case.
Bravo. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > <snip> > Unless we realize that we can never "know it", we will never understand that we can only "be it," and that such "being it" will never be attained but only actualized when we realize  directly that we are already "being" itself. > > I like this a lot and I liked the story associated with it as well.  I have come to a similar conclusion (first two phrases at least as I have issues with acknowledging my existence) without any long-term meditative practice and without having immersed myself in theological and philosophical texts.  It is simply life that has brought me to this place.  > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: emptybill emptybill@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:19 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Iranitea and Xeno: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation > > >  > Reply to post #315421: > Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know > that you don't know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. > There is a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. > Iranitea and Xeno, >  This "don't know" mind is > difficult for TM trained people to comprehend. This is because MMY's whole > teaching presents itself as the practice of direct, non-conceptual sensory perception > resolving itself back into the field of awareness. Since that awareness is > described in TM as "all-knowing", these two types of teaching appear to > contradict each other. However, the reality is different. >  Back in mid 80's, I practiced > for a while at a Kwan Um Zen center. Later I practiced with Zen master Seung Sahn > himself during some three-day retreats (Yong > Maeng Jong Jin/Leaping like a tiger while sitting). He began by asking me > questions I could not answer. > "What > is your name, where do you come from?" > I hesitated with my answer since I had already read some of his Zen > teachings. > Seung Sahn laughed and said, "This is easy ⦠your name > is William and you came from you home in "xyz." > I said "yes". > Seung Sahn â¦"So just give your answer, it's easy." > Then he asked me ⦠> "So tell me your true name before your parents gave > you one?" > I was silent, unable to answer. He continued ⦠> "Then show me who you are before your parents were > born!" "Quick, before thinking ⦠what is > it?" > I was unable to answer. > He then took his stick and poked me in the hara/duntien > below my navel.  "Answer from here!" > Although I had practiced moving from the hara/duntien during > twenty years of karate and tai chi, I still had no answer. > I could only say â" "I don't know". > Seung Sahn looked at me directly and said, "Under all conditions > keep this "don't-know" mind". > He then showed me a way to answer > this question. > Years later a teacher pointed > out that what we believe we know are actually just concepts. For instance, > whether we say "The apple is red" or "Der apfel ist rot" or "La pommes est rouge", the object before us does not change > because the name we select is either "apple, apfel or pomme". Likewise, if we > aggregate all possible descriptions and names together, we still have only labels > rather than the actual object. We can cut it up for a pie, use it as a substitute > baseball or stick an antenna on it and shoot it into space. However, none of > these names, concepts or utilizations reveal to us what that object really "is". > Such a > view directly points beyond mere description to what something actually and ultimately > "is, is, is". Thus, while we know that > an apple is red in color, what is "red"? What is "round"? What is "sweet"? What > is "color?  Also, just because we can describe > a monochromatic spectral frequency and wavelength, this does not define what this > something "is, is, is". > What is the > consequence? > Ultimate > ineffability, real and actual > unknowability ⦠whether self, > other or a thing. > Unless we > realize that we can never "know it", we will never understand that we can only "be > it" and that such "being it" will never be attained but only actualized when we > realize  directly that we are already "being" > itself. > This is > not SCI but it is the original MMY teaching about Shankara's three fields of > life ⦠doing, knowing, being.  BTW, > > As a trained TM teacher, when I heard such statements as "You need to keep a `try > mind', it appeared to be the antithesis of TM. It troubled me until I set aside > my ideological mind-stamp and realized that they were actual talking about maintaining > a resolute, single-minded intent, void of wavering. Such can be mindless ideology, > bereft of awakened contemplation. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@ wrote: > > > Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. If you like, read this http://www.kwanumzen.org/about-zen/three-letters-to-a-beginner/ > > >
