Joe,
I do remember Jim now and yes, I had forgotten about him.
If you haven't already why don't you suggest he just write a blog? That would
allow him to put down his thoughts as fast and as often as he liked without
worrying about whether or not his thoughts are being accepted.
Just a
Bill!,
That's a darned good idea, a blog.
I haven't been in touch with Jim for many months. I think we agreed we were
talking in circles, and couldn't help each other. But I never thought of
suggesting he write a blog. Maybe he'd already been doing that. Anyway, I've
lost track of him and
Bill!,br/br/I think Zen and awakening to Buddha Nature transcend the
Buddhist teachings. But by the same token that's exactly what the Buddhist
teachings themselves point to! I don't think it's a question of mixing the two
traditions (Joe's concern), but either approach appeals to different
...and then of course there's Edgar's Dharma OS...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote:
Bill!,br/br/I think Zen and awakening to Buddha Nature transcend the
Buddhist teachings. But by the same token that's exactly what the Buddhist
teachings themselves point to! I
Mike,
The teachings are the teaching. Our natural true state is our natural true
state.
One is medicine; the other is the healthy patient.
(hmm -- I recall a part of a koan: ...Medicine and sickness cure each other.)
I agree with you about the perceived or accepted suitability of a school
Bill!,
And don't forget Jim, the fellow with the Quantum Bodhisattva theory. Oh,
sorry, if you had forgotten.
--Joe
PS (Jim had written me privately a number of times after he resigned from this
board, and told me he was getting some welcome acceptance at some gay websites
he frequented,
Bill!, br/br/There are many different terms for the same thing. The most
well known in the Buddhist lexicon is 'dependent origination', but equally you
might come across 'dependent arising', inter pendent co-arising, 'conditioned
arising' and other such terms. They just mean that everything
Mike,
Thanks for your efforts in providing me this description and link.
On one hand this sounds to me not much different than the usual concept of
cause-and-effect except it is more inclusive. It doesn't just ascribe a causal
relationship between two events, or a combination of events to
br/Bill!,br/br/I think the first thing that I have to make clear is that
I'm not talking about 'Buddhism'. I'm following the Buddha Dharma and let's not
forget that the last words of Buddha were to investigate for yourself his
teachings. I'm not following dogma, but the things I've experienced
Mike,
IMO when you talk about things such as 'dependent arising' or 'Buddha Dharma'
or anything from the Sutras you are talking about Buddhism not zen. Zen is
only concerned with realizing Buddha Nature. Nothing more, and all of these
other things have absolutely nothing to do with Buddha
Bill!,br/br/Ahh, here we go again! I notice you wrote that I'm talking
about Buddhism not zen [lower case 'z']. This is *your* idiosyncratic
interpretation and is out of step with every writer on the subject including
all the Patriarchs and Dogen. Lower case zen is not something outside of Zen
Mike,
Many patriarchs do write from a Buddhist point of view, but you only have to
open any book recording koans or mondos to find zen discussed and communicated
with no reference to Buddhism or even Buddha. Even holding up a turnip is can
be a demonstration.
It's not a matter of finding
and only cause, something that does not itself
need a cause, cannot be applied.[d]
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
--
* From: * Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org;
* To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com;
* Subject: * Re: FW: RE: [Zen] Cause-and-Effect
* Sent: * Sun, Mar 31
Chris,
Now, now. Don't be blinded by your vision.
You've just ANSWERED why it is not a useful question.
--Joe
Chris Austin-Lane chris@... wrote:
Or as I like to point out the answer to Why? Is invariably the entire
history of the universe till now. Why is generally not a useful question.
Chris, br/br/Which is also similar to Carl Sagan's point about needing to
go all the way back to the Big Bang to make the ingredients to make an apple
pie.br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
Bill!,br/br/I think I'm starting to understand where our paths cross in all
this (I hope!). Traditional Buddhism uses the sutras and teachings (most
notably The Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path) to Liberation. Zen views
these methods as potential hindrances to Awakening (being the
Mike,
I'd still say that each approach is complete in itself: it took hundreds of
years and many generations to become so; and become so finely tuned. And I'd
still say that I see no reason to mix them.
That is, *in any one teaching occasion*. Like a retreat.
I doubt that Subhana in her
inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself
need a cause, cannot be applied.[d]
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
--
* From: * Bill! BillSmart@...;
* To: * Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com;
* Subject: * Re: FW: RE: [Zen] Cause
Mike,
This does make perfect sense, which as you know from my perspective does not
always warrant my seal of approval, but in this case I do agree.
The Zen Buddhist teaching I received did not emphasize (and sometimes even
discouraged) the reading of the sutras. My training emphasized
Mike,
IMO
Form (things/phenomena) don't point to a truth. Truth is only experienced.
Truth is Buddha Nature. Truth is absolute.
A `relative' truth would be YOUR truth, or MY truth. That's no longer `form'
but `content'. I call all content illusory because each of us create us
ourselves
Bill!,
I think it was Gary Snyder who wrote (and I paraphrase badly):
'A farmer holding a turnip pointing the Way'.
Don't you see that? We know that a turnip, Thailand, 'I', the ones we love,
are illusory - in the sense that they're not separate, independent objects with
an enduring 'self',
Mike,
This whole dialog is getting over my head and is taking me to a place I really
don't want to go - and that is talking ABOUT zen and Buddha Nature and trying
to EXPLAIN them rather than just describing experience.
That being said, my take on this is that you can embrace (form attachments)
Bill!,
I'm happy to drop it if you want, but I think we're kind of saying the same
thing, but differently (if that makes sense?). The only thing I'd disagree with
you tho is that conditions are not just a human thing. It's found in nature
too. That's why mangoes don't grow n the Sahara and
Mike,
That's a famous Haiku poem by an old Japanese writer of long ago.
I think we mentioned it here once before. On the Group website, we can search
under any likely key words. Turnip may work. Let turnip point the way to
the Haiku.
--Joe
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike
24 matches
Mail list logo
