[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, I do feel that Buddhism proper causes humans to suffer. I feel that it gives them a false sense (an intellectually-based belief) that they know what awakening is and how to conduct themselves in accordance with someone else's teachings who they believe was awakened. In truth it probably makes them feel better, but it keeps them from going further - to awaken themselves. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Bill!, > > quoting: > "I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely." > > Face it: it cannot be. It is a living thing. Living things evolve. I see > no asteroid coming to smack it. > > Zen practice is a personal choice for a person who can cut to the chase, > ...or who can embrace nothing else. > > Other practice is available for folks with a different bent. > > I think, again, that your view of "need" is a personal one. If it's a more > extensive view, then I say, "get on with accomplishing it". > > Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: > > "What are you going to replace it with?" > > But I think you have personally already discarded Buddhism; you call your > practice "Zen", not "Zen Buddhism". It would seem already that Buddhism > should not annoy you. > > Where else do you mean you would like to see it discarded? And, for what > PRACTICAL purpose? Is it like a swarm of mosquitoes that annoys you? > > Or do you, as a Bodhisattva, feel that it is causing sentient beings to > suffer? > > coffee time, > > best!, > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. > > > > Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is > > presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature > > that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with > > Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha > > Nature. > > > > Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the > > better. > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, When I said I thought Buddhism proper was too complex I was mainly thinking of the sutras. They are also very intellectual. That's fine because I know they are used as the basis for a religion - Buddhism. I'm just saying I don't need a religion, Buddhism or any other. I'm not saying that all religions are trash. They do certainly serve a very good purpose for the most part, and as we know sometimes invoke very bad actions also. I just think relying on intellectually-based teachings are not the way to awaken, just as reading about how to do the backstroke is not the way to get across the pool. Reading first might help, but sooner or later you have to jump in the water and swim. Buddhism is teaching about awakening. Zen is experiencing awakening. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Bill!, > > We must err-r, "keep in mind" that there is no general "Buddhism". > > Buddhism is always presented through one school or another. That is, one > school or another of *practice*. Not in a text of Comparative Religion. > > The exception is where (when) Buddhism is approached academically, or > presented in the abstract, or described Historically. > > It's as I reproached Edgar for insulting people who embrace religions: > doctrines and practices do not exist in the abstract, they exist only in the > embrace of warm-blooded Mammals called Humans. > > Thus, anyone embracing the teachings and practice(s) of any Buddhist "school" > is a practitioner, and is drawn to the stream by the flavor and soothing > helpfulness of the Teachings, ...just as they ARE. > > You say that Buddhism as it is presented is too complicated. Maybe!: > > I think you mean for yourself. As one who might study it. But, Buddhism is > not a study. The teachings are for life, in the matter of life and death. > Once a person starts pulling on a string, the rest of the string is there for > the pulling. So it goes in any tradition (Science, too). > > Not everyone has the constitution or the personal "bent" for Zen practice. > Others are bent differently. > > As before, it's likely that different streams of Buddhist practice will > develop, perhaps in the West, and perhaps in Eastern places where Buddhism > may come back into popular practice (as now in China, in the fading influence > of the "Cultural Revolution"). > > Streams always develop, and branch. > > What seems like unnecessary baggage to some is effective medicine for others. > > It's also "good psychology" and fabulously compassionate to use skilful means > to develop a system of practice which appeals to the bent of people who would > take it up. Some streams even incorporate bright colors in their gatherings, > in clothing, and decorations of their practice place, and rather wild musical > sounds (as in Tibetan practice). > > Anyway, Buddhism (Buddhadharma, and its travels) has a history. It's just > not actually simple! > > Dalai Lama presents his Buddhism "simply"; it has appeal for hearers. Some > even quote it. Some carry the quote on their cars as a bumper-sticker. Is > it sufficient? Does it make a lasting impression? Would it have been > enough, by itself, to put Him in the condition He is in?: > > "My religion is kindness." > > Simple! Necessary. And, insufficient. > > --Joe > > PS (let that be my epitaph) > > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > I hear what you are saying, but I think Buddhism as it is presented today > > is way too complicated and complex. But of course that's why I'm drawn to > > zen. Nothing complicated or complex there. Just THIS! > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > No, every generation makes some changes in how they teach, "live", and in > > > the records they write down, or that others write about them. > > > > > > I just found it odd that you should take the Buddha to task for beginning > > > the teaching in his day of an entirely new system with a simple outline, > > > instead of an immediately minutely detailed one which might take hours > > > for him to recite to Hearers. > > > > > > His first people were "Hearers", Stream-Enterers", and so they can be > > > today. Maybe you and I both were, back in the day. > > > > > > I suspect he knew something about pedagogy, and that what he "knew" was > > > entirely informed by the Wisdom dawned in him; and, he was teaching from > > > the Heart. He had to start somewhere and with something. His start was > > > like the Preamble of a founding document. He taught a "graspable" > > > skeleton, perhaps based on the model from Hinduism, but intended to > > > distinguish itself from Hinduism. His students and hearers were Hindu. > > > > > > (Why didn't the Pointillists use twice the number of pixelated "dots" in > > > their paintings, why just 11,391?) > > > > > > And from a Mind seeing no divisions between anythin
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Edgar, No, I'm not assuming it's a pluralistic experience as I know you do. I may use language and sentence structures that describe it pluralistically, but I try conscientiously to avoid that. I looked in my post below and didn't see anywhere that I'd used the phrase "our experience of", but I'm not claiming I never have. I try to just use the word 'experience' without assigning any modifiers or objects. I also try to do this with 'Buddha Nature'. For example I don't say 'our Buddha Nature', I just say 'Buddha Nature'. But back to 'experience'. Experience is just experience. Since it monistic there is no subject or object. - You shouldn't use the adjective pronouns 'my' or 'your' or 'ours'. If you did you'd be creating a pluralistic group of subjects. - Similarly you shouldn't use a following conjunction like 'of' which expects an object. It's just 'experience'. I know I have in the past used the phrase 'experience of Buddha Nature', but that should just be 'experience' or 'Buddha Nature', but not even 'experience Buddha Nature' because even that does imply a subject (an experiencer) and an object (Buddha Nature). Most of these difficulties come up because of trying to describe monism using a language that's based on dualism. Language is based on dualism because it's evolved to communicate intellectually. If you wanted to communicate sensually (which is the sole basis of experience) and avoid intellectualizations (which is the sole basis of desusions) you'd have to do so sensually - like a slap on the face or a shout. And I haven't figured out how to do that yet on a text-based forum such as this. As always thanks for your comment and question...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > But what is 'our' experience 'of'? > > That seems to be the core problem... You don't seem to get the point that by > claiming it's 'our' experience you already assume the dualism you reject... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view > > on this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'. > > That is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. > > > > You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think all > > our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are post-processing > > of our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least self-propagating like > > logic and reason, memories, projections and just pure fantasy. You are > > correct however that I do not think our delusions can be tied to any > > 'external' source; but as I said above many of them, perceptions, are a > > pluralistic-based result of experience. > > > > *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use > > the word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where I > > used to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before but > > think these terms better describe the concept. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually > > > was a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You > > > deny there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and > > > believe your delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external > > > source. > > > > > > That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly > > > agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. > > > > As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. > > > > ~ Sunryu Suzuki > > > > > > > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill!, Edgar,It's funny to hear you to argue that you think you both have a better way to the truth than the Buddhadharma. Goes to show what a formidable little critter the ego is. And to think you two both argue about its delusional nature! Lmfao! : )MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Chris,
Your signal is cutting out... .
"QSB", we say in radio.
("fading")
--Joe
> Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
> I like that - KISS is our task now.
>
> I find the most
>
> Thanks,
> --Chris
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Fw: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Merle, Why? Just follow the thread. It's an outgrowth of my creativity. Not an apple or orange in the flow of it. You're a tough customer! And the customer is not always right, from at least some perspectives. That's why I mention following the thread. --Joe > Merle Lester wrote: > > why are you bringing this up as an argument joe..?..merle > > Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: > > "What are you going to replace it with?" joe Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Hi, Merle, Welcome back to the Agora. A funny thing happened on the way to the Food Court... what was that about fruits, now? My creativity works in fits and starts. And it's all for a good cause, if not always for a good effect. It takes two; or a village, I forget. BTW, I couldn't read music for a time, but could still make noises; then, I could read music, play the 'cello, play violin, play guitar, play bass (guit.), play Bari. Ukelele. Play Kalimba. It's still noise. Writing music is probably more important than reading music; there are Transcriptionists for that (writing). Music is in the fingers, and ears. Some say in the feet, and in the shimmy-shimmy-shake. I'm a poor dancer; getting better. My use of "Apples and Oranges" was the most creative you've seen in at least 180 months, I'd wager. Go ahead and admit it here, thereby to absolve everything. Good to see you again. Earlier today, I recounted some stories about you to a Detective friend here, and called you my "cussin' Cousin". She larfed! And wanted to be cussin'-cousins with me, too. But I told her I never reciprocated (vis-a-vis cussin'). I think she's showing herself to be just a little of the jealous type. Be well, now, --Joe > Merle Lester wrote: > > joe...not the apple and oranges sing song..be more creative..merle > > Chris, > > I'd answer, "No." > > Form and style and content are emptiness. > > Content is content. Style is style. > > Apples and oranges are conjoined with a conjunction, not an equals-sign; > otherwise, so-much for "diversity". > > --Joe > > > Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > Form is nothing [snip] Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Merle,Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here? Evidence of what? And do you really think a symphony could be written without musical notation (never mind performed or taught!)?MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
I like that - KISS is our task now. I find the most Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 2:49 AM, "Bill!" wrote: > Joe, > > I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. > > Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is > presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature > that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with > Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha > Nature. > > Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the > better. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > > > Every generation has a responsibility to the present and the future. > > > > I suspect you personally are doing the updating that you can. Onward! > > > > It's said that "Buddhism" passes from one warm hand to another. It's > not that this needs updating; it's always changing, anyway. > > > > Joe Campbell opined that "the 'Star Wars' story" could be a new > mythology. I hoped not. To me, it seemed the same-old same-old. I think > to him it did, too, and was just a re-telling. Nothing was "updated", > really. > > > > Now, do you want to see the teaching stories of Buddhism updated and > re-tooled or re-clothed for yourself, or for others? If for others, do you > sense that others are dissatisfied with the stories and other vehicles as > they receive them, and have you heard them complain that the old outlines > don't suit? And, has that been at Buddhist practice centers, Bill!, or > solely on the internet, where it's not clear if people are engaged in > practice? > > > > --Joe > > > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > Most religions are wisdom traditions. Their core beliefs may indeed > be just as pertinent today as they were 2500 years ago. It's not their > core beliefs I'm uncomfortable with, it's their method of communicating > their core beliefs - their myths, parables and symbols. > > > > > > It's these I'd like to see updated. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > I agree, sir. > > > > > > > > Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. > > > > > > > > Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. > > > > > > > > That, too, is what makes them "Wise". > > > > > > > > They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True > Compassion. For their times, and future times. > > > > > > > > Religions are not "nonsense", as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers > say. Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. > > > > > > > > The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, > and the path to it. > > > > > > > > As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and > come. > > > > > > > > That's another part of what makes them Wise. > > > > > > > > Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see > where Now has *graciously* come from. > > > > > > > > But, they are to be forgiven! > > > > > > > > That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. > For them, and fo all. > > > > > > > > Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. > > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Fw: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
why are you bringing this up as an argument joe..?..merle Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: "What are you going to replace it with?" joe .
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
joe...not the apple and oranges sing song..be more creative..merle Chris, I'd answer, "No." Form and style and content are emptiness. Content is content. Style is style. Apples and oranges are conjoined with a conjunction, not an equals-sign; otherwise, so-much for "diversity". --Joe > Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, "Joe" wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form > > and style, not about substance and content. > > > > Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go.
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
mike.. how do you know this?...what is your evidence?. i found that a bit "far out".. who in the right mind would not want to know what all those musical notes meant?.. merle Bill!, The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation? Mike
RE: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill!,The Beatles were arguably the best band in the world and none of them could read music. Perhaps, therefore, we should discard with formal music notation?MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Edgar, Still no reply from you on substance. That's OK. To review, the key point is that the Roshi is not establishing a Metaphysics. He is talking about experience, and what the mind of some will do during and after, again noted in experience. The awakened person during and after experience does not intellectualize automatically, but has the choice to do so or not. --Joe > Edgar Owen wrote: > > Joe, > > How your mind changes with the wind of convenience! First intellectualization > is critically important when you claim I do it in two lines, and then of no > importance at all as you do it in 20 or more? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Your communication is received as much by its style as its message. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 9:55 AM, "Joe" wrote: > Chris, > > I'd answer, "No." > > Form and style and content are emptiness. > > Content is content. Style is style. > > Apples and oranges are conjoined with a conjunction, not an equals-sign; > otherwise, so-much for "diversity". > > --Joe > > > Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? > > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > > 301-270-6524 > > On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, "Joe" wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about > form > > > and style, not about substance and content. > > > > > > Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Joe, How your mind changes with the wind of convenience! First intellectualization is critically important when you claim I do it in two lines, and then of no importance at all as you do it in 20 or more? Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form > and style, not about substance and content. > > Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. > > tnx, > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale > > intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was > > two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on > > sentences > >
Re: [Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, LOL! Bill is the asteroid bent on destroying Buddhism! :-) Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Joe wrote: > Bill!, > > quoting: > "I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely." > > Face it: it cannot be. It is a living thing. Living things evolve. I see no > asteroid coming to smack it. > > Zen practice is a personal choice for a person who can cut to the chase, > ...or who can embrace nothing else. > > Other practice is available for folks with a different bent. > > I think, again, that your view of "need" is a personal one. If it's a more > extensive view, then I say, "get on with accomplishing it". > > Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: > > "What are you going to replace it with?" > > But I think you have personally already discarded Buddhism; you call your > practice "Zen", not "Zen Buddhism". It would seem already that Buddhism > should not annoy you. > > Where else do you mean you would like to see it discarded? And, for what > PRACTICAL purpose? Is it like a swarm of mosquitoes that annoys you? > > Or do you, as a Bodhisattva, feel that it is causing sentient beings to > suffer? > > coffee time, > > best!, > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. > > > > Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is > > presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature > > that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with > > Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha > > Nature. > > > > Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the > > better. > >
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Chris, I'd answer, "No." Form and style and content are emptiness. Content is content. Style is style. Apples and oranges are conjoined with a conjunction, not an equals-sign; otherwise, so-much for "diversity". --Joe > Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, "Joe" wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form > > and style, not about substance and content. > > > > Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Form is nothing other than emptiness.the style is the message? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Jul 2, 2013 9:42 AM, "Joe" wrote: > Edgar, > > But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form > and style, not about substance and content. > > Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. > > tnx, > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale > intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was > two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on > sentences > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Edgar, But your reply to my post should interest no one here, as it is about form and style, not about substance and content. Do you have a substantive reply on topic? Else, we'll let it go. tnx, --Joe > Edgar Owen wrote: > > My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale > intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was two > concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on > sentences Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill!, quoting: "I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely." Face it: it cannot be. It is a living thing. Living things evolve. I see no asteroid coming to smack it. Zen practice is a personal choice for a person who can cut to the chase, ...or who can embrace nothing else. Other practice is available for folks with a different bent. I think, again, that your view of "need" is a personal one. If it's a more extensive view, then I say, "get on with accomplishing it". Remember the objection against considering to end the war in Vietnam?: "What are you going to replace it with?" But I think you have personally already discarded Buddhism; you call your practice "Zen", not "Zen Buddhism". It would seem already that Buddhism should not annoy you. Where else do you mean you would like to see it discarded? And, for what PRACTICAL purpose? Is it like a swarm of mosquitoes that annoys you? Or do you, as a Bodhisattva, feel that it is causing sentient beings to suffer? coffee time, best!, --Joe > "Bill!" wrote: > > I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. > > Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is > presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature > that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with > Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha > Nature. > > Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the > better. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Bill!, We must err-r, "keep in mind" that there is no general "Buddhism". Buddhism is always presented through one school or another. That is, one school or another of *practice*. Not in a text of Comparative Religion. The exception is where (when) Buddhism is approached academically, or presented in the abstract, or described Historically. It's as I reproached Edgar for insulting people who embrace religions: doctrines and practices do not exist in the abstract, they exist only in the embrace of warm-blooded Mammals called Humans. Thus, anyone embracing the teachings and practice(s) of any Buddhist "school" is a practitioner, and is drawn to the stream by the flavor and soothing helpfulness of the Teachings, ...just as they ARE. You say that Buddhism as it is presented is too complicated. Maybe!: I think you mean for yourself. As one who might study it. But, Buddhism is not a study. The teachings are for life, in the matter of life and death. Once a person starts pulling on a string, the rest of the string is there for the pulling. So it goes in any tradition (Science, too). Not everyone has the constitution or the personal "bent" for Zen practice. Others are bent differently. As before, it's likely that different streams of Buddhist practice will develop, perhaps in the West, and perhaps in Eastern places where Buddhism may come back into popular practice (as now in China, in the fading influence of the "Cultural Revolution"). Streams always develop, and branch. What seems like unnecessary baggage to some is effective medicine for others. It's also "good psychology" and fabulously compassionate to use skilful means to develop a system of practice which appeals to the bent of people who would take it up. Some streams even incorporate bright colors in their gatherings, in clothing, and decorations of their practice place, and rather wild musical sounds (as in Tibetan practice). Anyway, Buddhism (Buddhadharma, and its travels) has a history. It's just not actually simple! Dalai Lama presents his Buddhism "simply"; it has appeal for hearers. Some even quote it. Some carry the quote on their cars as a bumper-sticker. Is it sufficient? Does it make a lasting impression? Would it have been enough, by itself, to put Him in the condition He is in?: "My religion is kindness." Simple! Necessary. And, insufficient. --Joe PS (let that be my epitaph) > "Bill!" wrote: > > Joe, > > I hear what you are saying, but I think Buddhism as it is presented today is > way too complicated and complex. But of course that's why I'm drawn to zen. > Nothing complicated or complex there. Just THIS! > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > > > No, every generation makes some changes in how they teach, "live", and in > > the records they write down, or that others write about them. > > > > I just found it odd that you should take the Buddha to task for beginning > > the teaching in his day of an entirely new system with a simple outline, > > instead of an immediately minutely detailed one which might take hours for > > him to recite to Hearers. > > > > His first people were "Hearers", Stream-Enterers", and so they can be > > today. Maybe you and I both were, back in the day. > > > > I suspect he knew something about pedagogy, and that what he "knew" was > > entirely informed by the Wisdom dawned in him; and, he was teaching from > > the Heart. He had to start somewhere and with something. His start was > > like the Preamble of a founding document. He taught a "graspable" > > skeleton, perhaps based on the model from Hinduism, but intended to > > distinguish itself from Hinduism. His students and hearers were Hindu. > > > > (Why didn't the Pointillists use twice the number of pixelated "dots" in > > their paintings, why just 11,391?) > > > > And from a Mind seeing no divisions between anything(s), but only the > > interconnectedness, he was able to call out EIGHT. Quite an achievement! > > And he gave them as useful tools to people, as a start to practice, or to > > draw them to practice. > > > > Compassion made him do it. > > > > Has this become outdated? I think not by a long shot. > > > > Let's remember, too, that "words are goads": A hearing and appreciation of > > the Eightfold Path -- or a more manifold Path -- is not yet Practice. > > > > The history of Buddhism is a history of Change. And a big teaching of the > > tradition -- and it is yet a tradition -- has to do with "Change". All > > quite remarkable, one of the more remarkable things on Earth, and directly > > concerning Humans' lives. > > > > --Joe > > > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > So are you saying that we should not make any attempts to modernize and > > > make more relevant the mode of explanations and teachings from that of > > > 2500 years ago? > > > > > > If that were the case in your line
[Zen] Re: Fwd: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Dear Suresh, I regret that you received rough treatment on your other forum over this subject you write about. I respect you for connecting the matter of the natural disaster, and accepted approach toward karma and the ultimate "responsibility", both for the disaster, and for its aftermath, the reaction to it and the changes if any that are indicated or need to be implemented by individuals or governments. I found your account of riding your father on the back of the motor-bike (or push-bike?), and his support of you, to be quite moving. Yours has been a supportive and enabling upbringing. To me, it's also impressive and to be envied that you have such good facility in several languages: I noted that you had written another post in another forum in Tamil. And obviously English is yet another fluent language for you. This is not common in America, for example! Hence, my envy. ;-) I send you further encouragement in what you do to communicate a broader and more naturalistic view of the physical workings of climate and weather, environment, religion, and culture, to the people in those other forums. And I think this is also Zen work, and the natural operation of Compassion in the heart of a Bodhisattva. So, kudos! And with best wishes to you and your family, --Joe --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, SURESH JAGADEESAN wrote: > > Dear Joe > > comments please for my below mail to other fourm member > > brgds > Suresh > > Dear Sri.Shivasankara Rao, > > Yesterday night I saw your mail and Sri.Ram Mohan mail in my > blackberry. Fearing not to get disturbed by your mails in the night, I did > not read it. > > I was keep thinking whether in my mail, I used any derogatory word or abusive > word, have I hurt any of the members or elders? > > Then I questioned what is that I wanted? Am I wanted to know who am I? or Am > I here to correct some body or make somebody to accept my view? Is not all > waste of energy? > > But I was hurt and I reciprocated that is all. > > Now what is my inner intention to write on the forum? Definitely my > inner intention was to get a word of appreciation. That is what inner mind > longs. > > Each of my writings I write from my heart, I see to convey truth as it comes > from my heart. I read it again and again correct spelling > mistakes, correct grammatical mistakes and then post with satisfaction as if > I am delivering a child, so each of my writing (child) is of my creativity, > with so much of my love in it. > > Now when that writing was dissected and stated it is all delusion, you are > mad, you are nonsense, you are emotional you cannot think > rationally, then I am totally upset, something in me was dying. What I write > is me, my soul and spirit. And that soul and spirit is wounded. > > Hence I am disappointed with the forum members and Moderator. > [snip] Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Intellectualizing -
Thought : Experience :: Masturbation : Sex Bill the the cartoon character whose crazy buddy says "Thanks, I needed that" after Bill slaps him. By the way, does anyone else see the humor: Bill posts about the frivolity of intellectualizing, and people immediately start ripping his semantics to shreds. Did anyone even READ his post, or did they just do as most people in conversation, which is to count down the seconds until the other person stops talking so that their own point can be made? Do you also complain that a painting of a fire gives no actual heat or light? There is no mindfulness to be found on this forum, only signposts, and a sign is not the place to which it points (except the one that says "If you lived here, you'd be home by now!) On Tue, 7/2/13, Bill! wrote: Subject: [Zen] Re: Intellectualizing - To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2013, 6:03 AM ABSOLUTELY! Although I'd even drop the list of "see, hear, touch, taste, smell,*" and just use the word 'experience'. When you're just experiencing (Buddha Nature) there is no discrimination between seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling. It's all Just THIS! * I've intentionally left out "think" because I do not consider that an experience and not part of Buddha Nature. I know that's not orthodox, but that's what I have experienced and now believe. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "pudgala2" wrote: > > > As soon as you see something, > The unenlightened only see what their preconditioned constituent > sentient beings (beliefs, attitudes, opinions, moods, values, etc.) will > allow or force them to see and nothing more, > > you already start to intellectualize it. > sentient beings automatically process it. > > > As soon as you intellectualize something, > As soon as sentient beings process something, > > it is no longer what you saw. > only the mental results of what sentient beings made up your mind to see > will be seen. > > > The Enlightened see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and think immediately > without opinionated processing. > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. > As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. > ~ Sunryu Suzuki > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > ...Bill! > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Bill, But what is 'our' experience 'of'? That seems to be the core problem... You don't seem to get the point that by claiming it's 'our' experience you already assume the dualism you reject... Edgar On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view on > this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'. That > is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. > > You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think all > our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are post-processing of > our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least self-propagating like logic > and reason, memories, projections and just pure fantasy. You are correct > however that I do not think our delusions can be tied to any 'external' > source; but as I said above many of them, perceptions, are a > pluralistic-based result of experience. > > *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use the > word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where I used > to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before but think > these terms better describe the concept. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was > > a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny > > there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your > > delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. > > > > That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly > > agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As > > > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ > > > Sunryu Suzuki > > > > > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Joe, My point was that your long post consisted entirely of large scale intellectualization The so called intellectualization of my post was two concise sentences. Your intellectualization was 20 some often run-on sentences Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > Nope, I'm not talking about intellectualizing. > > I'm talking about our subject. > > I know you're up to it, so c'mon! When you have a chance; if you want. > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > Boy, talk about intellectualizing! > > :-) > > > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Joe wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > I wouldn't know about bad English. > > > > > > But I suspect that philosophizing by someone not native to or rigorously > > > trained in a language is fraught with the possibility or near occasion of > > > misinterpretation. > > > > > > Even a good language translator cannot give a good translation if the > > > translator is not also a Zen adept. It's dicey. So is making any firm or > > > confident interpretation. And, the Roshi is dead. No one has identified > > > the Translator (if there was one). > > > > > > In any case, the Roshi would remind you: "There is no fixed Dharma, > > > anyway, so don't hang on my words, nor anyone's: ours is not the Teaching > > > School" > > > > > > But my interpretation is not subject to any doubt, just as I wrote in my > > > reply. > > > > > > I am confident in my interpretation of the wording as I have modified it. > > > In fact, the wording then speaks for itself, and need not be dubiously > > > interpreted. I append it again, below, for review: > > > > > > "As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As > > > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight." > > > > > > Again, though, the second clause of the first sentence does not follow, > > > if one is awake. So note, again, too, that the Roshi is not speaking > > > about the experience of his few current or past awakened disciples -- nor > > > even about himself -- but about the experience of the majority of his > > > students, in the state they are in now, and as they work toward entering > > > the door of Ch'an, perhaps for the first time. > > > > > > To those people, what he says is spot on, yes. > > > > > > And, again, his is not a metaphysical statement. He is not establishing > > > "objects", or "things". Re-read the re-wording. > > > > > > I think that Bill!, not being the one with the soundness of the thesis of > > > a 300-page unedited manuscript to defend in advance, will see the > > > reasonableness of my interpretation, and the clarity and correctness of > > > my observations on these points. You should also! > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > If you really think this is matter of bad English then he shouldn't > > > > write something in English that wasn't correct. That would be > > > > unbecoming of a Zen teacher. > > > > > > > > But the statement is both good English AND good Zen. It's your's and > > > > Bill's interpretation that seems to be off. > > > > > >
[Zen] Fwd: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage [2 Attachments]
<*>[Attachment(s) from SURESH JAGADEESAN included below] Dear Joe, Please comment on my below mail to other forum member. Brgds Suresh Dear Sir, “If it is an error or judgment, then why does an educated / learned alert human being who is also alert makes an error?” The learned / educated alert human being is not fully alert like Buddha or Ramana or JK, in other words he is not an enlightened human being. He is still operating from the conditioned mind. The responses of that educated/learned person, is from his education and learning and not from his inner being or ‘self’. Hence error is possible by educated / learned alert human being. His alertness is not permanent; the diffused light is trying to penetrate that wall of learning or conditioning. And sometimes it succeed and some time it fails to penetrate. “you have a choice only on performing an action. On result you have no choice” This is what zen also states. There is a Thirulkural, stating “before taking action think well, once you have taken action, thereafter thinking is of no use” ENNI THUNIGA KARUMAM, THUNITHANPIN ENNUVAM ENBADHU ELUKU” So think before just like while playing chess, the player thinks in multiple moves of opponent if he makes that one move, and then he makes that move. Ask Viswanath Anand, how he was World champion for many times. So if we take that effort of well thinking and planning, then our action will be more or less flawless. Read Six sigma theory how to achieve 99.999% desired result. If we use six sigma theories on rehabilitation and construction then Uttarakhand disaster will not repeat. Do you want to bet? On this. Learn from Japanese how they are successful and well developed country from the 2nd world war of ruin in 1945. We got freedom in 1947, just two years behind, where is India and where is Japan in term of economy. What is the average income of Japanese and what is the average income of Indian? How do Japanese cities looks like and how does Indian cities look like? “And Hinduism goes deeper into this. What you call luck, nothing but some result appearing after a long long time. That is also termed Adrushta. “ There is no luck in six sigma theory. Don’t think like common man, think like an educated man who is interested in safety and quality. “ I doubt if there is anything like Law of Karma and Dharma - stated any where else in the world and it is absolutely universal.. That is the beauty of this.” Keep doubting, what is said is not important how people live or lead their life here is important. Why your mind is not thinking a country which wrote Law of Karma and Dharma is biggest in corruption, biggest in poverty, biggest in population, biggest in less nutrition children, biggest racket of rapes, and sexual abuse. Why have you questioned? It is because of our religion. For every papa there is a pariharam. Hence temple business is vast growing and ever growing. You can rape and do pariharam, that is it. If I go to Nadi Jythish, the he will say I have done papa in last genma, now do this pariharm, all your troubles will be over. This is what called corruption. Even temples darshan, you have ticket system, you pay higher praise, you will see god first. You do this to god, god will give you this. This is corruption. People want short cuts, no hard work is required, all you have to do is one homam, one yaga or go to temple all will be solved or received. This kind of arrangement is created by a corrupt mind It is not beautiful, it is so ugly. Sir, before you write please read six sigma system. Learn how quality system works. As I mentioned my earlier post that after Titanic ship sang, if no rules have come, today these kind of disaster would have continued. Last week one vessel MOL Comfort a container vessel with carrying capacity of 8000 containers broke into two off Yemen coast, but no one has died, all are rescued. How?, since they had lifeboats. In Titanic there were not adequate lifeboats to save all lives. My colleague said, India’s biggest threat is population. If that is the problem, why these politicians have not taken any serious steps to curb this? If government has some safety standards for administrating the country, then all these things will be thought of, even unthinkable thought of, even impossible will be thought of and then a plan will be formed and seen its proper execution. I will attach six sigma few articles and on MOL Comfort. Best regards Suresh On 7/1/13, ram mohan anantha pai wrote: > Namaskaram, > > I want to touch up on only one point here. > > Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM, SURESH JAGADEESAN > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>*SJ writes * > >> *Now today again I have posted zen view of Karma, which means just >> action. You have free will to carry out the actions. If you are fully >> alert in carrying out the actions, then it will bring good result. If >> you are not alert, you act as per your conditioned mind, then that >> will bring bad result. *
[Zen] Re: Intellectualizing -
ABSOLUTELY! Although I'd even drop the list of "see, hear, touch, taste, smell,*" and just use the word 'experience'. When you're just experiencing (Buddha Nature) there is no discrimination between seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling. It's all Just THIS! * I've intentionally left out "think" because I do not consider that an experience and not part of Buddha Nature. I know that's not orthodox, but that's what I have experienced and now believe. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "pudgala2" wrote: > > > As soon as you see something, > The unenlightened only see what their preconditioned constituent > sentient beings (beliefs, attitudes, opinions, moods, values, etc.) will > allow or force them to see and nothing more, > > you already start to intellectualize it. > sentient beings automatically process it. > > > As soon as you intellectualize something, > As soon as sentient beings process something, > > it is no longer what you saw. > only the mental results of what sentient beings made up your mind to see > will be seen. > > > The Enlightened see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and think immediately > without opinionated processing. > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. > As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. > ~ Sunryu Suzuki > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > ...Bill! > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Intellectualizing -
Joe, This quote doesn't bother me as it does you. I read Suzuki's 'see' as already perceiving. If you're 'seeing' something you're already intellectualizing it. You've already created pluarlity - a seer and a seen.. If you are just experiencing (Buddha Nature) there is no 'see' and of course no intellectualizing - Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Yes, Bill! > > quoting: > "As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw." > > Now, what about when that's not so? > > The out-of-context line is too glaringly black and white. > > What about when you see something, and do not intellectualize? > > The Roshi says (incorrectly, because "not always so"), "...you already > start...". What about if you don't? When you don't. Start. > > The quote uses too, too broad a brush. As you know! > > What you call 'perceptions' or 'delusions', to match the Roshi's > "intellectualizations", my Chan teacher called "Vexations" ...a bit less > neutral-sounding and laudatory than "intellectualizations". > > I think he picked a good word, for his English-speaking students' sake. (I'll > see if I can research the Chinese word, and obtain several English synonym > translations, and bring them here). > > Vexations we're particularly attached to give us an especially hard time. I > sometimes call them "bewitchments", and I like what the old-fashioned > menacing feel of the term communicates. > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. > > As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. > > ~ Sunryu Suzuki > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > > ...Bill! > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, I think Buddhism itself needs to be discarded completely. Zen, on the other hand, as it's presented in a lot of zen literature is presented very simply and very effectively. There is some zen literature that is complex also, but most of that is either trying to resolve zen with Buddhism or explain in an almost technical style the experience of Buddha Nature. Anyway, I'm just more supportive of the KISS school - and the simpler the better. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Bill!, > > Every generation has a responsibility to the present and the future. > > I suspect you personally are doing the updating that you can. Onward! > > It's said that "Buddhism" passes from one warm hand to another. It's not > that this needs updating; it's always changing, anyway. > > Joe Campbell opined that "the 'Star Wars' story" could be a new mythology. I > hoped not. To me, it seemed the same-old same-old. I think to him it did, > too, and was just a re-telling. Nothing was "updated", really. > > Now, do you want to see the teaching stories of Buddhism updated and > re-tooled or re-clothed for yourself, or for others? If for others, do you > sense that others are dissatisfied with the stories and other vehicles as > they receive them, and have you heard them complain that the old outlines > don't suit? And, has that been at Buddhist practice centers, Bill!, or > solely on the internet, where it's not clear if people are engaged in > practice? > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > Most religions are wisdom traditions. Their core beliefs may indeed be > > just as pertinent today as they were 2500 years ago. It's not their core > > beliefs I'm uncomfortable with, it's their method of communicating their > > core beliefs - their myths, parables and symbols. > > > > It's these I'd like to see updated. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > I agree, sir. > > > > > > Religions are Wisdom-Traditions. > > > > > > Wisdom Traditions use the tools they have available. Then, and now. > > > > > > That, too, is what makes them "Wise". > > > > > > They utilize fully what they have available, in service of True > > > Compassion. For their times, and future times. > > > > > > Religions are not "nonsense", as some hasty-pudding kitchen-workers say. > > > Maybe they're just hopped-up on instant (soluble) Coffee. > > > > > > The wisdom-traditions purvey and convey wisdom, and preserve wisdom, and > > > the path to it. > > > > > > As traditions, they also keep on changing, as generations pass, and come. > > > > > > That's another part of what makes them Wise. > > > > > > Hasty people live for the next thing, not for Now. And don't see where > > > Now has *graciously* come from. > > > > > > But, they are to be forgiven! > > > > > > That's why Wisdom and Compassion are preserved, and transmitted. For > > > them, and fo all. > > > > > > Anyway, a new generation is born TODAY. > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Fw: It was like Shiva dancing in rage
Joe, I hear what you are saying, but I think Buddhism as it is presented today is way too complicated and complex. But of course that's why I'm drawn to zen. Nothing complicated or complex there. Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Bill!, > > No, every generation makes some changes in how they teach, "live", and in the > records they write down, or that others write about them. > > I just found it odd that you should take the Buddha to task for beginning the > teaching in his day of an entirely new system with a simple outline, instead > of an immediately minutely detailed one which might take hours for him to > recite to Hearers. > > His first people were "Hearers", Stream-Enterers", and so they can be today. > Maybe you and I both were, back in the day. > > I suspect he knew something about pedagogy, and that what he "knew" was > entirely informed by the Wisdom dawned in him; and, he was teaching from the > Heart. He had to start somewhere and with something. His start was like the > Preamble of a founding document. He taught a "graspable" skeleton, perhaps > based on the model from Hinduism, but intended to distinguish itself from > Hinduism. His students and hearers were Hindu. > > (Why didn't the Pointillists use twice the number of pixelated "dots" in > their paintings, why just 11,391?) > > And from a Mind seeing no divisions between anything(s), but only the > interconnectedness, he was able to call out EIGHT. Quite an achievement! > And he gave them as useful tools to people, as a start to practice, or to > draw them to practice. > > Compassion made him do it. > > Has this become outdated? I think not by a long shot. > > Let's remember, too, that "words are goads": A hearing and appreciation of > the Eightfold Path -- or a more manifold Path -- is not yet Practice. > > The history of Buddhism is a history of Change. And a big teaching of the > tradition -- and it is yet a tradition -- has to do with "Change". All quite > remarkable, one of the more remarkable things on Earth, and directly > concerning Humans' lives. > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > So are you saying that we should not make any attempts to modernize and > > make more relevant the mode of explanations and teachings from that of 2500 > > years ago? > > > > If that were the case in your line of work (astronomy) wouldn't we still be > > locked into the earth as being flat and the center of the universe, and the > > stars other heavenly bodies were actual gods? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > You might not be among the fortunate who lived 2500 years ago, when > > > literacy was the exception. > > > > > > The skilful ways of the ancestors might be hard for an English-Major to > > > comprehend! > > > > > > Breadth-Requirements might have had a chance of filling you in on the > > > facts. No? All but forgotten? > > > > > > I see no reason to disparage the roots of the Zen (Buddhist) tradition. > > > > > > Remember, too, that the Indian way of teacher was / is extremely > > > detailed, precise, and dependent on memorization and personal > > > assimilation. That was the tradition, and so it continues (there)! > > > > > > Mr. Suresh may correct me if I'm a century awry. > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > "Bill!" wrote: > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > I agree 100% with that! Like the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Speech, > > > > Right Thought, Right Intentions, etc... Why do they name only 8 > > > > classes? Why do they name classes at all? Why not just: Live Right? > > > > And anyway the challenge isn't doing all the 'right' things. The > > > > challenge is determining what is right and what is not. > > > > > > > > I call this "The Twelve Days Of Christmas Syndrome": You know...four > > > > calling birds, three French hens, two turtle doves and a partridge in a > > > > pear tree. ;>) > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Intellectualizing -
Edgar, Yes, I understand that yours is definitely the pluralistic* point-of-view on this. You believe you are 'in here' and everything else is 'out there'. That is how I perceive things also, but I know that is delusion. You have again mis-characterized my description on this. I don't think all our delusions arise 'spontaneously' in our mind. Many are post-processing of our experience. Some are spontaneous or at least self-propagating like logic and reason, memories, projections and just pure fantasy. You are correct however that I do not think our delusions can be tied to any 'external' source; but as I said above many of them, perceptions, are a pluralistic-based result of experience. *Pluralistic - I've stared using the word 'pluralism' where I used to use the word 'dualism', just as I've started using the word 'delusion' where I used to use the word 'illusion'. I mean the same thing as I did before but think these terms better describe the concept. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill, > > Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was a > SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny > there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your > delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. > > That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly > agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself > > Edgar > > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As > > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ > > Sunryu Suzuki > > > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
