Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Hello Beverly: Just wanted to welcome you to the group. There is a Career University Studies of comparative religions. There was someone from the USA doing that here at Edinburgh Universty. Saying this in case you may be interested in connection with your post and question you ask. And as for me I'd like to intruce myself to you as Mayka. My background in in zen buddhism in the Thich Nhat Hanh Tradition since 1997. Have to warn you that due to circunstances I have evolved in a very personal way that may differ from what is the TNH tradition. In addition I'd like to let you know that I don't pay much attention to the form of any spiritual tradition. Experience of life has taught me to trust only the heart and since you are a believer of God, let's say I only believe in what connects me with the universal, with the heart of God, with the Chaos. That connection allows me just to flow with the ocean of life, and the chaos too! Warm welcome again. Mayka --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 16:38 Hi, I'm a newbie in this group, and to Buddhism. I sincerely don't want to upset anyone or start an argument. I want to join in this discussion, and this has cropped up so I'm asking the question. I told a friend today that I feel Buddhism is for me, and I'm looking into Zen. My friend replied that Tibetan Buddhism is a more spiritual type of Buddhism because they believe in God. Having looked into various types of Buddhism, he believes that the Buddha communicated higher information, including the existence of God, to Tibetan Buddhists because they were more spiritually evolved at that point - Tibetan Buddhists claim this is the case and my friend agrees with them, he says. My response was to say that different things appeal to different people and I don't think it's a matter of one being more 'spiritual' or more 'true' than another. (I really don't care what might considered 'higher' or more 'spiritual' - at the moment that is irrelevant to me. However, it did seem a kind of un-Buddhist thing to claim that oneself is better than another person? My friend is not a Buddhist.) What do other people think? Thank you. :-) Beverley.
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Hi Beverly: If you type in your browser "Thich Nhat Hanh" that will lead you to all main links. If you type: "Interbeing Community UK" that will lead you to the National Web-page in the UK and to all the local sanghas in your area. I'm not very much updated about what is going on right now as I'm not particularly interested in the Interbeing Community . As community I like better the Jesuits Parish Church and for sitting down the TNH local sangha. Good luck in your search! Mayka ^_^ --- On Tue, 17/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 16:24 Hi Mayka, Thanks for your welcome. :-) I'm in South Wales, about 15 miles from Cardiff. It's interesting to know that you can do a study in that at university, but that's not for me. I'm trying to find my place within life / beyond material life. I don't believe in God, in the way that Christians believe in God (a guy on a throne looking down at us crossly from heaven), but I have come to believe that the way I percieve the Universe and the Earth loosely translates into seeing them as gods, or deities. I 'discovered' Thich Nhat Hanh last week(! ;-) ) and want to find out more about the Community of Interbeing and probably join it. I've sent off a couple of emails about it and am waiting for replies. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 12:40:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Hello Beverly: Just wanted to welcome you to the group. There is a Career University Studies of comparative religions. There was someone from the USA doing that here at Edinburgh Universty. Saying this in case you may be interested in connection with your post and question you ask. And as for me I'd like to intruce myself to you as Mayka. My background in in zen buddhism in the Thich Nhat Hanh Tradition since 1997. Have to warn you that due to circunstances I have evolved in a very personal way that may differ from what is the TNH tradition. In addition I'd like to let you know that I don't pay much attention to the form of any spiritual tradition. Experience of life has taught me to trust only the heart and since you are a believer of God, let's say I only believe in what connects me with the universal, with the heart of God, with the Chaos. That connection allows me just to flow with the ocean of life, and the chaos too! Warm welcome again. Mayka --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 16:38 Hi, I'm a newbie in this group, and to Buddhism. I sincerely don't want to upset anyone or start an argument. I want to join in this discussion, and this has cropped up so I'm asking the question. I told a friend today that I feel Buddhism is for me, and I'm looking into Zen. My friend replied that Tibetan Buddhism is a more spiritual type of Buddhism because they believe in God. Having looked into various types of Buddhism, he believes that the Buddha communicated higher information, including the existence of God, to Tibetan Buddhists because they were more spiritually evolved at that point - Tibetan Buddhists claim this is the case and my friend agrees with them, he says. My response was to say that different things appeal to different people and I don't think it's a matter of one being more 'spiritual' or more 'true' than another. (I really don't care what might considered 'higher' or more 'spiritual' - at the moment that is irrelevant to me. However, it did seem a kind of un-Buddhist thing to claim that oneself is better than another person? My friend is not a Buddhist.) What do other people think? Thank you. :-) Beverley.
Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Dear Daniel: The subject of mindfulness has been often brought into discussion in all forums I've participated. It keeps calling my attention the many multi-concepts that the simplicity of this practice has given rise to. And before go on here I'd just like to point it out that anything I could say over this subject is just my personal experience with it and nothing else. My concept about mindfulness: Mindfulness is equal to awareness. Awareness of what is going on in body, mind, within and around. The tool that is used to bring that awareness is conscious breathing. I breathe in and I follow my breathe all the way in. I breathe out and I follow the breath all the way out. The breath is used as the bridge that unites body and mind. Through conscious breathing there is not separation. In this way the mind doesn't dissipate in the thought somewhere else far away of the body. The practice of mindfulness allows one to keep practicing zazen away of the cushion and through all daily ordinary activities one wants. The Experience Of Mindfulness. Form and no form are not separated. They interact with each other. They're one. as the experience occur in the continuos present moment one becomes the present moment itself. There is no above or below while in the flow of mindfulness. There are no levels either. There is no attachement to any object of body and mind. There is no attachement either to the experience as one doesn't feel as having an experience. There is no life or death even when there is. Basically having a headache in mindfulness means that one is not the headache. It also means being entirely with the headache. Just to give an ordinary exemple of basic mindfulness (understood by Mayka personal experience and not necessarily anyone else). Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 3:03 Dear Friends, I thought it would be interesting to post here a brief excerp from a book I am currently working on. I am interested because this is for the most part a non-Theravada group. You reactions would be of interest to me. So don't hold back. I don't promise I will agree with you, but I am interested in what you think, or more precisely, how what I say here corresponds to my own experience. Thanks, Daniel Three Western Myths About Mindfulness Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them over from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the second stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is goes unoticed. Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three things particularly difficult: the development of concentration, insight into intention, and the development of effort and energy. When practice is mature in Knowledge of Equanimity, a kind of choiceless awareness becomes possible, in that the illusion of the one who attends is now absent, but at that point the mind is very developed and will not be hindered or deluded by its own act of letting go. The path along which our mind must evolve to come upon the experience of the Unconditioned is quite narrow and precise. The ability to discover this precise point of balance in the development of the mind's faculties is what made the Buddha so unique. There is no room in this process for personal predilections or intellectual prejudice. To be successful in this path we must train our attention so as to achieve the necessary balance and development of the faculties. There may indeed be more than one system of practice for achieving this, yet every such successful system will be discovered to be balanced within itself. However, even then, all practice methods must be regularly "tweaked" to insure that progress remains on course. In the end, it is not the method itself that achieves the goal, but the carefully balanced evolution of the faculties that leads the mind to emergence. This precision requires refined tuning, something that does not easily evolve from free-floating awarenes
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill: I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike myself. There is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings of given the map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is equal meaning as to awareness. You're right and there are no distinctions or any dualism while practising mindfulness. This is also my personal experience too. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 Daniel, My comments are embedded below: > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them over > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having a different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really doesn't matter right now. It's your perspective. This is not good and not bad, but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I will comment from my perspective which has been built up from my zen practice. > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now [how] > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the second > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > goes unoticed. [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you start applying discrimination (categorizing, judging, associating, censoring, rejecting, augmenting, translating, rationalizing, intellectualizing, etc...), in other words applying some kind of CHOICE on your sensory experiences you have entered into the realm of dualism and illusion. Your choices are the illusions and the myths. > Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three > things particularly difficult: the development of concentration, insight > into intention, and the development of effort and energy. When practice > is mature in Knowledge of Equanimity, a kind of choiceless awareness > becomes possible, in that the illusion of the one who attends is now > absent, but at that point the mind is very developed and will not be > hindered or deluded by its own act of letting go. [Bill!] Here you seem to backtrack. In the paragraph above you indicate 'choiceless awareness' is a myth, but in this paragraph you admit in the absence of illusion (duality) it 'becomes possible'. So, is 'choiceless awareness' a myth or not? Or, is it only a myth for some and not for others? Or, is it a myth for some and not a myth when no one (self) exists to make choices? > The path along which our mind must evolve to come upon the experience of > the Unconditioned is quite narrow and precise. The ability to discover > this precise point of balance in the development of the mind's > faculties is what made the Buddha so unique. [Bill!] There is nothing unique about Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha), or Buddha (the direct experience of reality we share with all senient beings). The very fact of this is essential to zen (and to Buddhism). Otherwise you are elevating Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha) to some special state like Christianity has mistakenly elevated Jesus. Both Guatama Siddhartha and Jesus are men, human beings just like you and me, and anything they have done or accomplished or realized can be done by us also. >There is no room in this > process for personal predilections or intellectual prejudice. To be > successful in this path we must train our attention so as to achieve the > necessary balance and development of the faculties. There may indeed be > more than one system of practice for achieving this, yet every such > successful system will be discovered to be balanced within itself. > However, even then, all practice methods must be regularly > "tweaked" to insure that progress remains on course. In the end, > it is not the method itself that achieves the goal, but the carefully > balanced evolution of the faculties that leads the mind to emergence. > This precision requires ref
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Beverly: Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern religions. I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion becomes the less quality one gets from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your real guide. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 Hi Bill, Aha! I think this is what I'd understand as the natural and inevitable link that early humans had with nature and everything. The thing that started dying out in Europe around the time the Romans started hassling everyone - and was topped off by the Christian establishment branding it witchcraft. Luckily, we don't have annoying Romans or authoritarian Christians any more - the role is now fulfilled by eg mass advertising and reality TV. ;-) Beverley. From: Bill! To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 2:36:17 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverley, As I just posted, zen is pure sensory experience, so of course it existed before Buddhism and before Guatama Siddartha. It has was also recognized long before Siddartha and before and since in many other places, times and cultures. I believe, as opposed to zen being a product of Buddhism, Buddhism is a product of zen - as are all religion. Zen is at the core of all these and an add-on or subset of them. ...Bill! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Beverley Huish wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Did Zen develop before it was linked to Buddhism? > > Beverley. > > > > > > > From: Bill! > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 10:09:49 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > Beverley, > > Also, zen is not a dependent sub-set of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is just a > Buddhist expression of zen. In fact most Buddhists don't even recognize zen > as a > legitimate sect of Buddhism. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Beverley Huish wrote: > > > > Thank you, JM, :-) > > > > One of the things that appeals to me about Buddhism is that it > > is non-judgemental. > > > > I'm also glad to have you say that knowledge isn't Buddhism's emphasis - there > > > seems to be an awful lot of it about different types of Buddhism. (I > > already > > decided that I'm not going to make any effort to pick up what I don't need > > to > > know, or when I don't feel I can take anything else new on - unfortunately, > > being a newbie Buddhist, I don't know what I really need to know to be a > > Buddhist. I'm just focussing on mindfulness at the moment and hoping / > >trusting > > > > that other information will come to me as I'm ready to receive it.) > > > > :-) > > > > Beverley. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 17:47:27 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > > > > Hello Beverly, > > > > Having your non-comparing mindset is the essence of Chan. Comparing is > > always > > > relative and reincarnates itself into endless hell. > > > > Also for your information... > > > > Long Shu Bodhisatva (龍樹） brought Chan to Tibet way back then. In China, > > Chan > >is > > > > nick named The Grand "Secret Lineage"/Vajrayana/Mizong (大密宗）, while Tibetan > > practice is just Secret Lineage（密宗）. > > > > Some knowledge for your non-Buddhist friend, though knowledge is never our > > emphasis. > > > > FYI, > > JM > > > > > > Learn to de-stress, energize and awaken http://www.chan-meditation.com > > Learn to > > > > live with Health, Happiness and Harmony http://www.chanliving.org Learn to > >reach > > > > enlightenment http://www.heartchan.org To save the world > > http://www.universal-oneness.org > > > > On 5/16/2011 8:38 AM, Beverley Huish wrote:
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill: The use of the tool called "mindfulness" is not buddha nature. But the energy, the experience one has out by using the tool might be in Buddha Nature. as mindfulness generates a continuous energy of enhanced attention, awareness, concentration, sensitivity, a general incremented enhancement of all senses, . the form and the non form interact with each other in such a way that they are not separated. Here the experience the form is in the non form and the non form is in the form gets clear. . A bit as saying the physical act of sitting down zazen is not buddha nature, but what you experience while you are sitting down is buddha nature (provided that while sitting down one only sits down and nothing else). In both cases the form and the non form interact with each other. Without the physical body, form, wouldn't be possible to experience the non form. The physical body is the vehicle to experience the non form. So it's the action of mindfulness. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:52 Mayka, Our agreement does not surprise me. As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Bill: > I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about > mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike > myself. There is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings of given the > map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is equal meaning as to > awareness. You're right and there are no distinctions or any dualism while > practising mindfulness.  This is also my personal experience too. > Mayka > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Daniel,  My comments are embedded below: > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them over > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. > > [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and > assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having a > different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed > your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really doesn't > matter right now. It's your perspective.  This is not good and not bad, > but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I will comment > from my perspective which has been built up from my zen practice. >  > > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now [how] > > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the second > > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > > goes unoticed. > [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you start applying > discrimination (categorizing, judging, associating, censoring, rejecting, > augmenting, translating, rationalizing, intellectualizing, etc...), in > other words applying some kind of CHOICE on your sensory experiences you > have entered into the realm of dualism and illusion. Your choices are the > illusions and the myths. >  > > Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three > &g
Re: [Zen] Does a dog have Buddha Nature?
Funny! ^_^ --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: [Zen] Does a dog have Buddha Nature? [1 Attachment] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 12:22 [Attachment(s) from Edgar Owen included below]
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill I'm under the impresion that the term confusion about mindfulness may come about calling mindfulness the same to tool, the process and the outcome of the process. I suppose this is why so many sub-concepts are created out of it. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 13:58 Bill: The use of the tool called "mindfulness" is not buddha nature. But the energy, the experience one has out by using the tool might be in Buddha Nature. as mindfulness generates a continuous energy of enhanced attention, awareness, concentration, sensitivity, a general incremented enhancement of all senses, . the form and the non form interact with each other in such a way that they are not separated. Here the experience the form is in the non form and the non form is in the form gets clear. . A bit as saying the physical act of sitting down zazen is not buddha nature, but what you experience while you are sitting down is buddha nature (provided that while sitting down one only sits down and nothing else). In both cases the form and the non form interact with each other. Without the physical body, form, wouldn't be possible to experience the non form. The physical body is the vehicle to experience the non form. So it's the action of mindfulness. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:52 Mayka, Our agreement does not surprise me. As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Bill: > I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about > mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike > myself. There is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings of given the > map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is equal meaning as to > awareness. You're right and there are no distinctions or any dualism while > practising mindfulness.  This is also my personal experience too. > Mayka > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Daniel,  My comments are embedded below: > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them over > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. > > [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and > assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having a > different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed > your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really doesn't > matter right now. It's your perspective.  This is not good and not bad, > but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I will comment > from my perspective which has been built up from my zen practice. >  > > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now [how] > > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the second > > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > > goes unoticed. > [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you sta
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
ED; The concept of mindfulness explained in your article is a concept created by the writer. According to myself experience with mindfulness there is no difference between awareness and mindfulness . Another thing is that here mindfulness is used with a purpose; "The purpose of release stress". There is no purpose in real mindfulness except of the one of bringing body and mind to the present moment. However, one could use mindfulness to pay attention to an specific object such an organ of the body, a distressed mind, its sensations, images, thoughts and the impact that is having in the rest of the bodyand concentrate into it in order to release its pain or uncomfort. That will be mindfulness over an specific object. But basically the concept of minfulness is to be aware of body, mind, within and around by using conscious breathing. If one practices that all the rest such as attention, concentrationcomes naturally. How do you think one could be aware of something if attention, observation, concentration... is not paid?. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 15:21 Bill and All, Here's an alternative understanding of mindfulness which appears to be more precise: "Mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way; On purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally." "First of all, mindfulness involves paying attention "on purpose". Mindfulness involves a conscious direction of our awareness. We sometimes (me included) talk about "mindfulness" and "awareness" as if they were interchangeable terms, but that's not a good habit to get into. I may be aware I'm irritable, but that wouldn't mean I was being mindful of my irritability. In order to be mindful I have to be purposefully aware of myself, not just vaguely and habitually aware. Knowing that you are eating is not the same as eating mindfully." http://www.wildmind.org/applied/daily-life/what-is-mindfulness --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > Mayka, > > Our agreement does not surprise me. > > As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when > others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call > 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. > > What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term > 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. > > ...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Hi Daniel: Awareness means to me to be conscious of all activities in body and mind taking place at the present moment. In order to do this conscious breathing is essential over this process. Conscious breathing is what it makes these processes not to be mental processes. Through awareness slowly and gradually an energy of awakening starts to be generated. It's and endless process of awakening. At this point one realises that there is no enlightenment that enlightenment is the way. And that way is the continuous present moment living in awareness. Perhaps because I received the teaching of Mindfulness directly by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh I don't like to separate the words "mindfulness and awareness". Nonetheless many people who are not familiar with the practice they get better the concept of mindfulness when the word mindfulness is changed for awareness. In fact you can read in a moment all the different things we have already written about mindfulness. And that is great as each of them is based in the personal experience from each of us over mindfulness or awareness. And what is not based in the individuals of the forum then is based in the scriptures written by those ones who are the same time had their own personal experience. When a concept of mindfulness or awareness is created out of the direct personal experience had with mindfulness, awareness is not right or wrong, correct or incorrect. What is your experience with awareness? Really great to have you here. Mayka . --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Daniel Fernandez wrote: From: Daniel Fernandez Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 0:54 Dear Mayka, Thank you for taking the time to share with me your direct experience. Much of what you say coincides with my own experience as well. Only I would ask you, what do you mean when you say awareness? Is this simply attention? Does it have within it the quality of understanding the present experience? Or is just bare sensory awareness as Bill was speaking of? Daniel --- On Wed, 5/18/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 12:22 AM Dear Daniel: The subject of mindfulness has been often brought into discussion in all forums I've participated. It keeps calling my attention the many multi-concepts that the simplicity of this practice has given rise to. And before go on here I'd just like to point it out that anything I could say over this subject is just my personal experience with it and nothing else. My concept about mindfulness: Mindfulness is equal to awareness. Awareness of what is going on in body, mind, within and around. The tool that is used to bring that awareness is conscious breathing. I breathe in and I follow my breathe all the way in. I breathe out and I follow the breath all the way out. The breath is used as the bridge that unites body and mind. Through conscious breathing there is not separation. In this way the mind doesn't dissipate in the thought somewhere else far away of the body. The practice of mindfulness allows one to keep practicing zazen away of the cushion and through all daily ordinary activities one wants. The Experience Of Mindfulness. Form and no form are not separated. They interact with each other. They're one. as the experience occur in the continuos present moment one becomes the present moment itself. There is no above or below while in the flow of mindfulness. There are no levels either. There is no attachement to any object of body and mind. There is no attachement either to the experience as one doesn't feel as having an experience. There is no life or death even when there is. Basically having a headache in mindfulness means that one is not the headache. It also means being entirely with the headache. Just to give an ordinary exemple of basic mindfulness (understood by Mayka personal experience and not necessarily anyone else). Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 3:03 Dear Friends, I thought it would be interesting to post here a brief excerp from a book I am currently working on. I am interested because this is for the most part a non-Theravada group. You reactions would be of interest to me. So don't hold back. I don't promise I will agree with you, but I am interested in what you think, or more precisely, how what I say here corresponds to my own experience. Thanks, Daniel Three Western Myths About Mindfulness Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada circles. Beginning to
Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Daniel: And as for the question about if awareness has the quality of understanding the present experience or is just bare sensory awareness. Awareness is not a mental process. It's directly in action. One can't be aware about something and at the same time thinking. If there is thinking taking place then there is no awareness. There is nothing to understand. "What a beautiful sunrise!. There are colouring reds, oranges, yellowsspreading in the sky" Do you need to have any understanding here in order to be fully aware of what you are experiencing?...If you would, you would be missing out the whole direct experience with the sunrise, you'll be losing that precious moment. There is no understanding in awareness. There is only awareness of something. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 10:36 Hi Daniel: Awareness means to me to be conscious of all activities in body and mind taking place at the present moment. In order to do this conscious breathing is essential over this process. Conscious breathing is what it makes these processes not to be mental processes. Through awareness slowly and gradually an energy of awakening starts to be generated. It's and endless process of awakening. At this point one realises that there is no enlightenment that enlightenment is the way. And that way is the continuous present moment living in awareness. Perhaps because I received the teaching of Mindfulness directly by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh I don't like to separate the words "mindfulness and awareness". Nonetheless many people who are not familiar with the practice they get better the concept of mindfulness when the word mindfulness is changed for awareness. In fact you can read in a moment all the different things we have already written about mindfulness. And that is great as each of them is based in the personal experience from each of us over mindfulness or awareness. And what is not based in the individuals of the forum then is based in the scriptures written by those ones who are the same time had their own personal experience. When a concept of mindfulness or awareness is created out of the direct personal experience had with mindfulness, awareness is not right or wrong, correct or incorrect. What is your experience with awareness? Really great to have you here. Mayka . --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Daniel Fernandez wrote: From: Daniel Fernandez Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 0:54 Dear Mayka, Thank you for taking the time to share with me your direct experience. Much of what you say coincides with my own experience as well. Only I would ask you, what do you mean when you say awareness? Is this simply attention? Does it have within it the quality of understanding the present experience? Or is just bare sensory awareness as Bill was speaking of? Daniel --- On Wed, 5/18/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 12:22 AM Dear Daniel: The subject of mindfulness has been often brought into discussion in all forums I've participated. It keeps calling my attention the many multi-concepts that the simplicity of this practice has given rise to. And before go on here I'd just like to point it out that anything I could say over this subject is just my personal experience with it and nothing else. My concept about mindfulness: Mindfulness is equal to awareness. Awareness of what is going on in body, mind, within and around. The tool that is used to bring that awareness is conscious breathing. I breathe in and I follow my breathe all the way in. I breathe out and I follow the breath all the way out. The breath is used as the bridge that unites body and mind. Through conscious breathing there is not separation. In this way the mind doesn't dissipate in the thought somewhere else far away of the body. The practice of mindfulness allows one to keep practicing zazen away of the cushion and through all daily ordinary activities one wants. The Experience Of Mindfulness. Form and no form are not separated. They interact with each other. They're one. as the experience occur in the continuos present moment one becomes the present moment itself. There is no above or below while in the flow of mindfulness. There are no levels either. There is no attachement to any object of body and mind. There is no attachement either to the experience as one doesn't feel as having an experience. There is n
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
ED; AFTER HAVING PRACTISED AND EXPERIENCED IN ONE MINDFULNESS whatever concept created afterwards won't right or wrong, correct or incorrect as that concept will be based over the personal experience of the one who writes it. The experience of mindfulness practise varies from person to person and this is why I've found it much safer to write only the main base key in order to generate its energy. The one who wrote the article you posted was someone who did in that way because he was using that for a specific purpose. Mindfulness of stress. And as for Daniel 1st posting about mindfulness. That wasn't either correct or incorrect provided that Daniel come out with it after having experienced in him. And as for the Scholar side of the post: I wouldn't know as I'm not familiar with the tradition he has been educated and trained with. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 1:10 Mayka, Whose explanation of the concept of 'mindfulness' do you find acceptable, and what is it? --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED; > The concept of mindfulness explained in your article is a concept created by the writer. > Mayka
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill: I've found very pleasant reading Daniel posting. I envy the same in him as you your both art writing skills. And as for your question I think that Daniel was explaining mindfulness according to the way in his own tradition is transmited. My saying here is only my personal experience with mindfulness. Daniel sayings may go in line with the way his tradition may transmit the teaching of mindfulness. Have to say that in the TNH tradition there is also the Scholar side of mindfulness. So far haven't gone much into it because I found all what I need in the very first key: "Mindfulness is to be aware of what is going on in body, mind, within and around ". And you won't ever believe how huge is the implications of just such a simple key!. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 2:13 Mayka, Thanks for your explanation. Is this the same concept as others, specifically Beveverley, have of 'mindfulness'? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Bill: > The use of the tool called "mindfulness" is not buddha nature. But the > energy, the experience one has out by using the tool might be in Buddha > Nature.  as mindfulness generates a continuous energy of enhanced > attention, awareness, concentration, sensitivity, a general incremented > enhancement of all senses, . the form and the non form interact with each > other in such a way that they are not separated. Here the experience the > form is in the non form and the non form is in the form gets clear. . A bit > as saying the physical act of sitting down zazen is not buddha nature, but > what you experience while you are sitting down is buddha nature (provided > that while sitting down one only sits down and nothing else). In both cases > the form and the non form interact with each other. Without the physical > body, form,  wouldn't be possible to experience the non form. The physical > body is the vehicle to experience the non form. So it's the action of > mindfulness. > Mayka >  > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:52 > > >  > > > > Mayka, > > Our agreement does not surprise me. > > As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when > others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call > 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. > > What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term > 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > > > Bill: > > I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about > > mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike > > myself. There is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings of given > > the map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is equal meaning as > > to awareness. You're right and there are no distinctions or any dualism > > while practising mindfulness.  This is also my personal experience > > too. > > Mayka > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > > > From: Bill! > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel,  My comments are embedded below: > > > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them over > > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > > within the mind,
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill, Daniel, JMJM and all: Mike and myself wrote something like this: "Mindfulness is the technique one uses to experience buddha nature". And there was this debate about: "Is mindfulness buddha nature?". What do you have to say about this Daniel?. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 12:40 Bill: I've found very pleasant reading Daniel posting. I envy the same in him as you your both art writing skills. And as for your question I think that Daniel was explaining mindfulness according to the way in his own tradition is transmited. My saying here is only my personal experience with mindfulness. Daniel sayings may go in line with the way his tradition may transmit the teaching of mindfulness. Have to say that in the TNH tradition there is also the Scholar side of mindfulness. So far haven't gone much into it because I found all what I need in the very first key: "Mindfulness is to be aware of what is going on in body, mind, within and around ". And you won't ever believe how huge is the implications of just such a simple key!. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 2:13 Mayka, Thanks for your explanation. Is this the same concept as others, specifically Beveverley, have of 'mindfulness'? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Bill: > The use of the tool called "mindfulness" is not buddha nature. But the > energy, the experience one has out by using the tool might be in Buddha > Nature.  as mindfulness generates a continuous energy of enhanced > attention, awareness, concentration, sensitivity, a general incremented > enhancement of all senses, . the form and the non form interact with each > other in such a way that they are not separated. Here the experience the > form is in the non form and the non form is in the form gets clear. . A bit > as saying the physical act of sitting down zazen is not buddha nature, but > what you experience while you are sitting down is buddha nature (provided > that while sitting down one only sits down and nothing else). In both cases > the form and the non form interact with each other. Without the physical > body, form,  wouldn't be possible to experience the non form. The physical body is the vehicle to experience the non form. So it's the action of > mindfulness. > Mayka >  > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:52 > > >  > > > > Mayka, > > Our agreement does not surprise me. > > As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when > others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call > 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. > > What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term > 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > > > Bill: > > I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about > > mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike > > myself. There is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings of given > > the map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is equal meaning as > > to awareness. You're right and there are no distinctions or any dualism > > while practising mindfulness.  This is also my personal experience > > too. > > Mayka > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! wrote: > > > > From: Bill! > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel,  My comments are embedded below: > > > > > Three Weste
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
ED; I'm under the impression that there is also the disolution of all that mentioned at a later stages. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 15:08 Please note: Buddha did not discount the mind and its conjuncts when addressing mindfulness. ;-) --ED Four Frames of Reference The Buddha said there are four frames of reference in mindfulness: Mindfulness of body (kayasati). Mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanasati). Mindfulness of mind or mental processes (cittasati). Mindfulness of mental objects or qualities (dhammasati).
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
ED; I relate very well with the way Bill has explained mindfulness. This is the way I see and experience it myself. And yet I didn't go through from any of the adds on explained in different sutras. Perhaps I'm not practicing mindfulness but something else after all. Oh well!. Let's see what other have in their box. Mayka --- On Thu, 19/5/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 15:44 Mayka, All dhammas are empty, (including the feelings of women and the concepts of men?) ;-) If Steve is till around, I hope he will rescue us from the dreaded pit of nihilism. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED; > I'm under the impression that there is also the disolution of all that > mentioned at a later stages. > Mayka > Please note: Buddha did not discount the mind and its conjuncts when > addressing mindfulness. ;-) > --ED > Four Frames of Reference > The Buddha said there are four frames of reference in mindfulness: > > Mindfulness of body (kayasati). > Mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanasati). > Mindfulness of mind or mental processes (cittasati). > Mindfulness of mental objects or qualities (dhammasati).
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
elopmental model. If by Buddha nature you mean reality, the answer is yes. If by Buddha nature you mean the individual's ability to come into harmony with reality, the answer would be no. Thank you for your remarks on scholarship. Many schools of Buddhism hold as a kind of ideal: the yogi who is also a scholar, both learned and realized. The strongest exceptions would be Japanese Zen and some schools of Chan that have an anti-intellectual culture. However, there are schools of Chan that respect the study of the Tripitika and the commentaries. The forest monastery traditions of Southeast Asia will usually emphasize practice and denigrate study as well. However, even in these forest traditions, regular Dharma talks are given to inculcate right understanding, the first step of the Noble Eightfold Path. Mayka, thank you for your gentleness and sincerity, Namasté, Daniel --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Daniel: > > And as for the question about if awareness has the quality of > understanding the present experience or is just bare sensory awareness. > > Awareness is not a mental process. It's directly in action. One can't be > aware about something and at the same time thinking. If there is thinking > taking place then there is no awareness. There is nothing to understand. > "What a beautiful sunrise!. There are colouring reds, oranges, > yellowsspreading in the sky" Do you need to have any understanding > here in order to be fully aware of what you are experiencing?...If you would, > you would be missing out the whole direct experience with the sunrise, you'll > be losing that precious moment. There is no understanding in awareness. > There is only awareness of something. > > Mayka > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 10:36 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel: > > Awareness means to me to be conscious of all activities in body and mind > taking place at the present moment. In order to do this conscious breathing > is essential over this process. Conscious breathing is what it makes these > processes not to be mental processes. Through awareness slowly and > gradually an energy of awakening starts to be generated. It's and endless > process of awakening. At this point one realises that there is no > enlightenment that enlightenment is the way. And that way is the continuous > present moment living in awareness. > >  Perhaps because I received the teaching of Mindfulness directly by Ven. > Thich Nhat Hanh I don't like to separate the words "mindfulness and > awareness". Nonetheless many people who are not familiar with the > practice they get better the concept of mindfulness when the word mindfulness > is changed for awareness. In fact you can read in a moment all the > different things we have already written about mindfulness. And that is > great as each of them is based in the personal experience from each of us > over mindfulness or awareness. And what is not based in the individuals of > the forum then is based in the scriptures written by those ones who are the > same time had their own personal experience. > >  When a concept of mindfulness or awareness is created out of the direct > personal experience had with mindfulness, awareness is not right or wrong, > correct or incorrect. > > What is your experience with awareness? > > Really great to have you here. > Mayka > > > . > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... wrote: > > From: Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 0:54 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > Dear Mayka, >  > Thank you for taking the time to share with me your direct experience. Much > of what you say coincides with my own experience as well. Only I would ask > you, what do you mean when you say awareness? Is this simply attention? Does > it have within it the quality of understanding the present experience? Or is > just bare sensory awareness as Bill was speaking of? Daniel > > --- On Wed, 5/18/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About M
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
However, even in these forest traditions, regular Dharma talks are given to inculcate right understanding, the first step of the Noble Eightfold Path. Mayka, thank you for your gentleness and sincerity, Namasté, Daniel --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Daniel: > > And as for the question about if awareness has the quality of > understanding the present experience or is just bare sensory awareness. > > Awareness is not a mental process. It's directly in action. One can't be > aware about something and at the same time thinking. If there is thinking > taking place then there is no awareness. There is nothing to understand. > "What a beautiful sunrise!. There are colouring reds, oranges, > yellowsspreading in the sky" Do you need to have any understanding > here in order to be fully aware of what you are experiencing?...If you would, > you would be missing out the whole direct experience with the sunrise, you'll > be losing that precious moment. There is no understanding in awareness. > There is only awareness of something. > > Mayka > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 10:36 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel: > > Awareness means to me to be conscious of all activities in body and mind > taking place at the present moment. In order to do this conscious breathing > is essential over this process. Conscious breathing is what it makes these > processes not to be mental processes. Through awareness slowly and > gradually an energy of awakening starts to be generated. It's and endless > process of awakening. At this point one realises that there is no > enlightenment that enlightenment is the way. And that way is the continuous > present moment living in awareness. > >  Perhaps because I received the teaching of Mindfulness directly by Ven. > Thich Nhat Hanh I don't like to separate the words "mindfulness and > awareness". Nonetheless many people who are not familiar with the > practice they get better the concept of mindfulness when the word mindfulness > is changed for awareness. In fact you can read in a moment all the > different things we have already written about mindfulness. And that is > great as each of them is based in the personal experience from each of us > over mindfulness or awareness. And what is not based in the individuals of > the forum then is based in the scriptures written by those ones who are the > same time had their own personal experience. > >  When a concept of mindfulness or awareness is created out of the direct > personal experience had with mindfulness, awareness is not right or wrong, > correct or incorrect. > > What is your experience with awareness? > > Really great to have you here. > Mayka > > > . > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... wrote: > > From: Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 0:54 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > Dear Mayka, >  > Thank you for taking the time to share with me your direct experience. Much > of what you say coincides with my own experience as well. Only I would ask > you, what do you mean when you say awareness? Is this simply attention? Does > it have within it the quality of understanding the present experience? Or is > just bare sensory awareness as Bill was speaking of? Daniel > > --- On Wed, 5/18/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 12:22 AM > > >  > > > > > > Dear Daniel: > > The subject of mindfulness has been often brought into discussion in all > forums I've participated. It keeps calling my attention the many > multi-concepts that the simplicity of this practice has given rise to. And > before go on here I'd just like to point it out that anything I could say > over this subject is just my personal experience with it and nothing else. > > My concept about mindfulness: > Mindfulness is equal to awareness. Awareness of what
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Dear all: Thank you ED for this list. According to this description about mindfulness: "Mindfulness / Recollection - repeatedly bringing objects back to mind, not forgetting ness": By reading this statement It definitely sounds as if through the years and practising mindfulness in part-time basis, mindfulness has evolve in me in a very different way as this description and other descriptions given by other practitioners. According to the statement made about mindfulness here as bringing the objects back to mind I'd like to say: The only object I can think of is the conscious breathing used as the tool as: 1 - Acting as the bridge uniting body and mind together 2- Helping one going back to ones true home. Some zen traditions called this Buddha Nature. It was also pointed out in previous posting that mindfulness can also be addressed as focus to an specific object. One can have mindfulness on walking, mindfulness on stress, mindfulness on cooking, mindfulness while brushing one teeth, mindfulness when evacuating in the toilette.Any activity can be ppractisedin mindfulness. I have repeatedly explained and written in different posts that to Mayka Mindfulness is to be aware of body, mind, within and around. Having said that, it's obvious that if one is aware of all that at once it will come into awareness all the sensations in the body, mind, thoughts, sensation, mental formations, movement so the body, sensation during movement temperature.EVERYTHING. And at this point I do agree with Bill in the sense that all the list of mental factors is an add on to it. The reason because that is an add on is because one only has to pay ATTENTION and RECOGNISE whatever is there. One does not need from any list to tell you that you have a sensation of cold, heat, mental formation of anger, peace. If what is there is cold, one recognises the cold, if what is there is moviment of the body (activity of walking) then one is aware of the moviment of the feet and the whole body including its sensations. Or if one moves a finger, one is aware of the movementof that finger, its recognising its sensations, the impact in the whole body., the speed of the breathOne has to observe the whole thing just as it comes about. It's effortless. There is no forcing. There is no thought. By continuos practice one can perfectly detect the impermanence by its continuos mind moviment waves. There is no separation from the any external objects and one. The form and the non form are not separated at the time of practicing mindfulness. Mindfulness=Awareness Mayka I --- On Fri, 20/5/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 1:57 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Daniel: What do you mean by saying that mindfulness is a mental factor? Mayka Mayka, Below is one list of mental factors. --ED http://viewonbuddhism.org/mind.html#3 51 MENTAL FACTORS In the Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandu, 51 types of mind states or mental factors are distinguished. They are mainly categorised by the way they are related to the main delusions of attachment, anger and ignorance, (see below) and their relevance to mind training. Note that the English terms used often have different connotations than the actual definitions in Buddhism. Although below list may appear a dull list of definitions, a careful study of it can explain much of the Buddhist attitude towards the mind. The list does not have the intention to be complete in describing all possible mental states, but describes merely the most important ones in relation to spiritual practice. THE 5 OMNIPRESENT (EVER-RECURRING) MENTAL FACTORS 1. Feeling (the first aggregate) 2. Recognition / discrimination / distinguishing awareness (the second aggregate) 3. Intention / mental impulse - I will ... 4. Concentration / attention / mental application - focused grasping of an object of awareness 5. Contact - the connection of an object with the mind, this may be pleasurable, painful or neutral as experienced by the aggregate of Feeling. THE 5 DETERMINATIVE MENTAL FACTORS 6. Resolution / aspiration - directing effort to fulfil desired intention, basis for diligence and enthusiasm. 7. Interest / appreciation - holding on to a particular thing, not allowing distraction 8. Mindfulness / Recollection - repeatedly bringing objects back to mind, not forgetting 9. Concentration / Samadhi - one-pointed focus on an object, basis for increasing intelligence 10. Intelligence / Wisdom - "common-sense intelligence", fine discrimination, examines characteristics of objects, stops doubt, maintains root of all wholesome qualities. THE 4 VARIABLE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) MENTAL FACTORS 11. Sleep - makes mind unclear, sens
Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness
Bill: That's it!:: Mindfulness=Awareness. However, do bear in mind that this description might be only personal to you and me. So, we may not have the correct one according to the official buddhist scriptures. Let's see with come out Daniel tomorrow. Mayka --- On Fri, 20/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 11:55 ED, I don't know where you got this quote from (and I don't really care so your don't have to tell me). I have never before this heard anyone say that Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha?) used the term 'mindfulness'. I'd actually like to know the original word used and what other translations of that word are possible. But...that really doesn't matter a lot. Even taking the quote below as accurate, Buddha does not equate mind and 'mindfulness', or even infer that mental activity (cognition) is required for 'mindfulness'. After reading the quote again I think a better term for 'mindfulness' would just be 'awareness'. But that's just me. I don't 'feel' that the word 'mindfulness' when used in a zen context has anything to do with mind as we normally accept mind - that is as seat of thinking, cognition, intellectualizations, rationalizations, logic, discrminations, etc... Just my 2-cents worth...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > Please note: Buddha did not discount the mind and its conjuncts when > addressing mindfulness. ;-) > > --ED > > > Four Frames of Reference > The Buddha said there are four frames of reference in mindfulness: > > 1. Mindfulness of body (kayasati). > 2. Mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanasati). > 3. Mindfulness of mind or mental processes (cittasati). > 4. Mindfulness of mental objects or qualities (dhammasati). >
Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka
Thank you Daniel: Just writing this first mail for you to acknowledge that I've been reading your mail. You have giving me enough material to read well first and reflect upon your responses. I'll be back to you as soon as I can. Thank you once again for the time spent and the effort you put in each of your postings. Your contribution in this forum is very important. We never had an Scholar from the Theravada School in the forum before. ^_^ Mayka --- On Fri, 20/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 17:28 Hello Mayka, Thank you again, for your attention and your questions. This time I also have some questions for you, since I am having trouble understanding some of your points. You say there is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of what is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going into a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states or in delusion about your present experience? It seems to me from what you say that understanding is very present. Do you think I am wrong? I think we are getting caught up in words here. I just read a new post you have up where you stated: "The reason because that is an add on is because one only has to pay ATTENTION and RECOGNISE whatever is there. One does not need from any list to tell you that you have a sensation of cold, heat, mental formation of anger, peace" You say, recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what is meant by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only to help define our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and misunderstanding that are occurring here. The Buddha made a very good attempt at creating an "objective" yogic language for his followers to share, not perfect of course, but still it is helpful. Like mindfulness, understanding is a mental factor that is always present in consciousness. If you don't like the word mental factor, then the word "consciousness-concommitant" is also sometimes used. These cetasika are aspects are ways in which consciousness functions. For example, energy is another one. Low energy, and you are sleepy or you have sinking mind. Samadhi, or ekagrata is unification of mind, it is also cetasika or mental factor, as is trust. These five: mindfulness, understanding, trust, concentration and energy are the five factors that control the evolution of meditation practice. In Satipatthana, these are what the teacher looks at when the student comes in for an interview to see what needs to be balanced out so the contemplation does not go off track, or get stuck. They are a very useful tool to generate deeper understanding of practice, once the student has reached an intermediate level (as I define this). What do you mean when you say there is non-duality? You speak of objects such as body and mind. Is consciousness identical to the objects? If so, then how do they know themselves? If not, then is this not duality of consciousness and object? You see, I also am confused when you speak J To me, what is understood changes at different stages in the development of mindfulness depending on how the mind apprehends the object. For example what appears to be a painful knee at one stage later appears to be only vibrations and unpleasant sensations at another. Eventually, background and foreground merge, there is only consciousness functioning with vibrations of energy within it. One cannot say if the energy is one or separate from consciousness because there is not point of view outside of consciousness from which to make the assertion. But still there is understanding present with consciousness as to what is going down. Still I am aware "now there is only empty energy vibrations." Not in mental images or words of course; those cannot survive in that environment, but simply as understanding. There are in 11 such stages in the unfolding of the progress of insight (more depending on how you choose to divide them). Each has it's own "ñana" or insight knowledge. For example, there is "knowledge of dissolution" and "knowledge of what is and what is not the path" and there is "knowledge discerning conditionality" etc. Do you not have such noticeable stages of progress in your tradition? They may not be named, but I am pretty sure that most students will go through a common set of experiences as their practice matures. Surely there is some development of concentration and mindfulness over the years and this must change the way reality appears? In your previous post you asked: "In connection with understanding my comprehension over your post is that you mean an understanding free from any rational understanding. It's an understanding coming
Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka
Daniel: You say there is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of what is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going into a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states or in delusion about your present experience? It seems to me from what you say that understanding is very present. Do you think I am wrong? I think we are getting caught up in words here. I just read a new post you have up where you stated: Mayka: In previous post you wrote something in connection with understanding. I said that there is an understanding that is rational and that is not within buddha nature. Then my statement was there is an understanding that is not understanding, implying that the rational thinking mind is not taking place on it. Afterwards my question was if that is the sort understanding you were referring to (the non rational one). Daniel: You say, recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what is meant by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only to help define our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and misunderstanding that are occurring here. The Buddha made a very good attempt at creating an "objective" yogic language for his followers to share, not perfect of course, but still it is helpful. Mayka: The list may be useful to Theravada students but it's not of much use to me at the present moment because at present I'm finding more practical and much more simple to stay with what arises in me. Daniel: Like mindfulness, understanding is a mental factor that is always present in consciousness. If you don't like the word mental factor, then the word "consciousness-concommitant" is also sometimes used. These cetasika are aspects are ways in which consciousness functions. For example, energy is another one. Low energy, and you are sleepy or you have sinking mind. Samadhi, or ekagrata is unification of mind, it is also cetasika or mental factor, as is trust. These five: mindfulness, understanding, trust, concentration and energy are the five factors that control the evolution of meditation practice. In Satipatthana, these are what the teacher looks at when the student comes in for an interview to see what needs to be balanced out so the contemplation does not go off track, or get stuck. They are a very useful tool to generate deeper understanding of practice, once the student has reached an intermediate level (as I define this). Mayka: When I'm low of energy, I'm aware of being low of energy. Then I stop, rest and practice awareness of my body and mind with conscious in and out breathing., And that restores energy levels. This paragraph is again of difficult comprehension to me. It's educative but irrelevant to my practice. Daniel: What do you mean when you say there is non-duality? You speak of objects such as body and mind. Is consciousness identical to the objects? If so, then how do they know themselves? If not, then is this not duality of consciousness and object? You see, I also am confused when you speak J Mayka: When I talk about non duality means that because there is conscious breathing in and out, mindfulness, awareness, attention, observation, recognition, acceptance,... of what is going on in body and mind the same conscious breathing, minfulness, awarenessdissolves by itself before even taking place the entanglament, attachement to any perception, sensation, feeling, emotion, mental formation, thought... Daniel: To me, what is understood changes at different stages in the development of mindfulness depending on how the mind apprehends the object. For example what appears to be a painful knee at one stage later appears to be only vibrations and unpleasant sensations at another. Eventually, background and foreground merge, there is only consciousness functioning with vibrations of energy within it. One cannot say if the energy is one or separate from consciousness because there is not point of view outside of consciousness from which to make the assertion. But still there is understanding present with consciousness as to what is going down. Still I am aware "now there is only empty energy vibrations." Not in mental images or words of course; those cannot survive in that environment, but simply as understanding. There are in 11 such stages in the unfolding of the progress of insight (more depending on how you choose to divide them). Each has it's own "ñana" or insight knowledge. For example, there is "knowledge of dissolution" and "knowledge of what is and what is not the path" and there is "knowledge discerning conditionality" etc. Mayka: I don't understand this paragraph very well. It sounds as something very complicated and definetely needs from a Teacher to guide one here. Daniel: Do you not have such noticeable stages of progress in your tradition? They may not be named, but I am pretty sure th
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Daniel: Fascinating!. No time right now to read with the profound attention this post of yours deserve. But I will. I'm just in the middle of lots of preparations to go away. As soon as I have the time I'll be going back to you. I'm very interested over this subject and all the sayings in your tradition plus your own personal experience. Thank you so much Mayka --- On Sat, 21/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 5:00 The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravadin Perspective I thought I might post this since we have been discussing the nature of mindfulness. Here is one possible Theravada perspective. Mindfulness itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective experiences. However, the classical Theravada way of discussing absolute realities is to discuss them in terms of their functions and characteristics. "The function of mindfulness is to keep the object in view by neither forgetting it nor allowing it to disappear." (U Pandita: In This Very Life). This explains the literal meaning of the word sati (Pali) or smrti (Sanskrit) as remembering. Sati is the remembering of what needs to be remembered in any situation. It remembers the object, objects or processes of contemplation (mentality/materiality) and also what we are doing. When you have the experience of going off to do something in your home, and then forget what it was you had set out to do, or when you begin to say something and then forget what it was that you were going to say, you have lost your sati/smrti. It is often confused with concentration. A meditator can have very strong concentration, and still have a lapse of mindfulness. This is what happens when we have been on retreat for some time and our mind loses the breath, and we go off fantasies, lust or anger. Have you noticed how powerful those moments of anger or lust can be on retreat, or how vivid the fantasies? That is because the mind goes into them with all the power of the samadhi that has been generated in the prior days. It is like a heavy fast moving train jumping the track. The mass or weight of the train is the samadhi. The momentum is the energy in the mind, and the jumping off the track is the lapse of mindfulness. Mindfulness also has the function of protecting the mind. Somewhere in the Dhammapada (sorry I don't have time to source it), the Buddha said something like: "Just as rain cannot enter a well thatched roof, defilement cannot enter the mind one who is fully mindful." Continuity in the state of mindfulness therefore brings with it a great purity. Non-superficiality is an important characteristic of mindfulness. As mindfulness deepens, the objects of contemplation, in this case the flow of mentality and materiality, are increasingly penetrated. At first the breath is coarse and not clearly felt, but over time mindfulness reveals the finer currents of sensation that make up the breath, just so with every other aspect of both five aggregates. Just as a stone sinks to the bottom of a river, mindfulness leads consciousness and understanding to gradually penetrate and eventually completely permeate our experience. The Buddha said, "Mindfulness is everywhere useful." It is the one mental factor that will develop all of the necessary wholesome mental factors that support awakening. For example, the continuous application of mindfulness rouses energy in consciousness. The continuous setting up face to face with the objects of contemplation develops samadhi, and as the mind penetrates its present experience more and more deeply with the maturing of mindfulness, more and more is seen and understood. In this way mindfulness develops understanding and insight. As experience deepens and wisdom reveals the four noble truths, the mind gains trust, sadha/sradh, and begins to rest in its experience. The settling of the mind under the influence of samadhi and trust brings tranquility. These last three together bring intense lucidity and purity to the mind, which in turn enable more wisdom. In this way all of the 37 requisites of enlightenment are developed. I would say therefore that mindfulness, if supported by sila, (virtue, morality) is the womb of bodhi.
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Daniel wrote: “Theravada perspective. Mindfulness itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective experiences” -- I'm in complete agreement with statement. This is also my personal direct experience with mindfulness. As soon as one starts to give large explanations about what is mindfulness about, the far away one is from its real meaning and the far away one is also from the direct experience with it. And this is exactly why I reduced to the simplicity of: “Mindfulness is to be aware of what is going on in body, mind, within and around” leaving this as a koan to be break through through the direct experience of the practice. In zen everything words are very much reduced. Words mainly are a map to practice straight away. Everything is zen is reduced to simplicity. Theravada seems to be more into a kind of Gothic style in the sense of detail ornamentation. Nonetheless it's an excellent point of dharma buddha reference. Awareness of in an out breathing, concentration, attention, awareness, observation, recognition, acceptance, any of that is separated from mindfulness. Each of these factors complement all the others. They actually interbeing with each others. And this is why when I talk about mindfulness, it also implies all the other factors. And If I would be talking about concentration, then concentration will also contain mindfulness. This of course provided that one is practicising mindfulness. Enjoy Sunday! Mayka From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 5:00 The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravadin Perspective I thought I might post this since we have been discussing the nature of mindfulness. Here is one possible Theravada perspective. Mindfulness itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective experiences. However, the classical Theravada way of discussing absolute realities is to discuss them in terms of their functions and characteristics. "The function of mindfulness is to keep the object in view by neither forgetting it nor allowing it to disappear." (U Pandita: In This Very Life). This explains the literal meaning of the word sati (Pali) or smrti (Sanskrit) as remembering. Sati is the remembering of what needs to be remembered in any situation. It remembers the object, objects or processes of contemplation (mentality/materiality) and also what we are doing. When you have the experience of going off to do something in your home, and then forget what it was you had set out to do, or when you begin to say something and then forget what it was that you were going to say, you have lost your sati/smrti. It is often confused with concentration. A meditator can have very strong concentration, and still have a lapse of mindfulness. This is what happens when we have been on retreat for some time and our mind loses the breath, and we go off fantasies, lust or anger. Have you noticed how powerful those moments of anger or lust can be on retreat, or how vivid the fantasies? That is because the mind goes into them with all the power of the samadhi that has been generated in the prior days. It is like a heavy fast moving train jumping the track. The mass or weight of the train is the samadhi. The momentum is the energy in the mind, and the jumping off the track is the lapse of mindfulness. Mindfulness also has the function of protecting the mind. Somewhere in the Dhammapada (sorry I don't have time to source it), the Buddha said something like: "Just as rain cannot enter a well thatched roof, defilement cannot enter the mind one who is fully mindful." Continuity in the state of mindfulness therefore brings with it a great purity. Non-superficiality is an important characteristic of mindfulness. As mindfulness deepens, the objects of contemplation, in this case the flow of mentality and materiality, are increasingly penetrated. At first the breath is coarse and not clearly felt, but over time mindfulness reveals the finer currents of sensation that make up the breath, just so with every other aspect of both five aggregates. Just as a stone sinks to the bottom of a river, mindfulness leads consciousness and understanding to gradually penetrate and eventually completely permeate our experience. The Buddha said, "Mindfulness is everywhere useful." It is the one mental factor that will develop all of the necessary wholesome mental factors that support awakening. For example, the continuous application of mindfulness rouses energy in consciousness. The continuous setting up face to face with the objects of contemplation develops samadhi, and as the mind
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Sorry there was a big mistake in previous post. Correction below: Awareness of in an out breathing, concentration, attention, awareness, observation, recognition, acceptance, any of that is NOT separated from mindfulness. Mayka --- On Sun, 22/5/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 22 May, 2011, 9:48 Daniel wrote: “Theravada perspective. Mindfulness itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective experiences” -- I'm in complete agreement with statement. This is also my personal direct experience with mindfulness. As soon as one starts to give large explanations about what is mindfulness about, the far away one is from its real meaning and the far away one is also from the direct experience with it. And this is exactly why I reduced to the simplicity of: “Mindfulness is to be aware of what is going on in body, mind, within and around” leaving this as a koan to be break through through the direct experience of the practice. In zen everything words are very much reduced. Words mainly are a map to practice straight away. Everything is zen is reduced to simplicity. Theravada seems to be more into a kind of Gothic style in the sense of detail ornamentation. Nonetheless it's an excellent point of dharma buddha reference. Awareness of in an out breathing, concentration, attention, awareness, observation, recognition, acceptance, any of that is separated from mindfulness. Each of these factors complement all the others. They actually interbeing with each others. And this is why when I talk about mindfulness, it also implies all the other factors. And If I would be talking about concentration, then concentration will also contain mindfulness. This of course provided that one is practicising mindfulness. Enjoy Sunday! Mayka From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 5:00 The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravadin Perspective I thought I might post this since we have been discussing the nature of mindfulness. Here is one possible Theravada perspective. Mindfulness itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective experiences. However, the classical Theravada way of discussing absolute realities is to discuss them in terms of their functions and characteristics. "The function of mindfulness is to keep the object in view by neither forgetting it nor allowing it to disappear." (U Pandita: In This Very Life). This explains the literal meaning of the word sati (Pali) or smrti (Sanskrit) as remembering. Sati is the remembering of what needs to be remembered in any situation. It remembers the object, objects or processes of contemplation (mentality/materiality) and also what we are doing. When you have the experience of going off to do something in your home, and then forget what it was you had set out to do, or when you begin to say something and then forget what it was that you were going to say, you have lost your sati/smrti. It is often confused with concentration. A meditator can have very strong concentration, and still have a lapse of mindfulness. This is what happens when we have been on retreat for some time and our mind loses the breath, and we go off fantasies, lust or anger. Have you noticed how powerful those moments of anger or lust can be on retreat, or how vivid the fantasies? That is because the mind goes into them with all the power of the samadhi that has been generated in the prior days. It is like a heavy fast moving train jumping the track. The mass or weight of the train is the samadhi. The momentum is the energy in the mind, and the jumping off the track is the lapse of mindfulness. Mindfulness also has the function of protecting the mind. Somewhere in the Dhammapada (sorry I don't have time to source it), the Buddha said something like: "Just as rain cannot enter a well thatched roof, defilement cannot enter the mind one who is fully mindful." Continuity in the state of mindfulness therefore brings with it a great purity. Non-superficiality is an important characteristic of mindfulness. As mindfulness deepens, the objects of contemplation, in this case the flow of mentality and materiality, are increasingly penetrated. At first the breath is coarse and not clearly felt, but over time mindfulness reveals the finer currents of sensation that make up the breath, just so with every other aspect of both five aggregates. Just as a stone sinks to
Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka
Hi Daniel: Thank you for the warmth energy coming from your mail. Whatever I write with the pronoun "I" doesn't is done in that way as a meanings to express Mayka personal experience. It's not meant to be an individualistic "I". In the TNH tradition when the Ven. Master talk about himself he refers to himself as "Thay". "Thay" means Teacher in Vietnamese Language. For instance if the Ven wanted to express that he was happy, then he would say "Thay is happy". We had during a retreat a dharma sharing discussion about western an eastern languages. Apparently in Vietnam they don't usually mention the "I" but their names as they were talking in a third person. About the list and lists. Initially I wrote in third person the comment but then changed with the personal "I" implying in that way that the list was irrelevant to me but perhaps not necessarily to others. I couldn't talk for others. You're right and this or any other list can be very useful specially to beginners embracing Buddhism. Besides, It may be also useful to all the others elder practitioners too as it's always handy to have lists specially when one gets lazy in the practise and as a result forgetfulness starts to take place . Bill will say that the remedy to forgetfulness is zazen and he'll be right too. I'm originally from San Sebastian, Basque Country, North of Spain and very close to France. If you're from California you may speak Spanish, or are you not?. I hear there are really beautiful beach over there with fantastic sunrise and sunsetI didn't know that when I came about with the idea of the visualisation. Enjoy your Sunday! Mayka --- On Sat, 21/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 19:05 Hi Mayka, I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, so I will just insert a few words below following your comments... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Daniel: You say there > is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of what > is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going > into a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states > or in delusion about your present experience? It seems to me from > what you say that understanding is very present. Do you think I am > wrong? I think we are getting caught up in words here. I just read a > new post you have up where you stated: > > Mayka: In previous post > you wrote something in connection with understanding. I said that > there is an understanding that is rational and that is not within > buddha nature. Then my statement was there is an understanding that > is not understanding, implying that the rational thinking mind is not > taking place on it. Afterwards my question was if that is the sort > understanding you were referring to (the non rational one). I'm sorry mayka, I was "thrown off" by your use of the word "non-rational" we are indeed speaking of the same thing. Your understanding that is not understanding, is I think, the same thing I am speaking of. > > Daniel: You say, > recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of > re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what > is meant by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only > to help define our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and > misunderstanding that are occurring here. The Buddha made a very good > attempt at creating an "objective" yogic language for his > followers to share, not perfect of course, but still it is helpful. > Mayka: The list may be > useful to Theravada students but it's not of much use to me at the > present moment because at present I'm finding more practical and much > more simple to stay with what arises in me. But Mayka, don't you see that if we were all working off the same "list," we would not have this trouble communicating? It is not just about what is useful to your practice in this moment. There are others to consider, in teaching, sharing etc. You can always define your own terms clearly, but whatever they may be, when you went in to your interview with your teachers, there must have been some kind of language or culture of communication used so you can understand each other, so the Dharma can be communicated. It need not be mine. > > Â > Daniel: Like > mindfulness, understanding is a mental factor that is always present > in consciousness. If you don't like the word mental factor, then the > word "consciousness-concommitant" is also
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Daniel: When being talks about zen not being moral, he means that as a moralistc. Not having moral doesn't mean in any way being amoral. It only means beyond duality. It means to accept life as it comes. No mud, no lotus flower. Mayka --- On Sat, 21/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 17:26 Hi Ed, I will leave this to the Zen-heads here to respond to definitively, but if I have understood Bill correctly, the answer would seem to be yes, that zen is fundamentally amoral. Hence Zen and art of [insert martial art of choice]. If this is true,then either Zen never was Buddha Dharma (as Bill asserts) or those aspects of Zen used to enhance the art of killing represent a profound corruption of the Buddha's teaching. You see in the Theravada, and in most of the Mahayana as well, a thief breaking into a house is recognized as possessing great mindfulness, but this is clearly not right mindfulness. Lacking the qualities of moral rectitude, self-integration and generosity that morality bestows, this kind of mindfulness cannot lead to the emergence of consciousness into the Unconditioned, Nibbana. I cover this more thoroughly in my talk on my YouTube Channel: The Adornment of Virtue (on the top row). A mind in which there is crookedness, remorse, violence, untruth, poor self esteem or self contradictions is not capable of true and pure samadhi, and cannot conform to Reality. So morality protects the mind for the development of unification of mind - samadhi, which in turn supports insight, which in turn leads to release, and which altogether enter upon the Deathless. To understand this, one needs to understand conditionality, otherwise one is blind to this. So here one sees how right understanding supports the development of both moral rectitude and samadhi. So I would say that right understanding of the conditionality and generation of wholesome mental factors does indeed help, very much. Best wishes, Daniel --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > > "I would say therefore that mindfulness, if supported by sila, > (virtue, morality) is the womb of bodhi." > > Does the above statement underscore a fundamental difference in emphasis > between Zen and Theravada Buddhism practice? > > --ED > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chance wrote: > > > exquisite. "we are what we think, having become what we thought". this > post is worthy of analysis which creates syntesis, relatively. > > never trouble trouble till trouble troubles > you. > > Daniel had posted: > > > > > > "The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravadin Perspective > > > > > > I thought I might post this since we have been discussing the nature > of mindfulness. Here is one possible Theravada perspective. Mindfulness > itself cannot be defined because it belongs to the realm of ultimate > realities: actualities that cannot be broken down into finer subjective > experiences. However, the classical Theravada way of discussing absolute > realities is to discuss them in terms of their functions and > characteristics. > > > > > > "The function of mindfulness is to keep the object in view by > neither forgetting it nor allowing it to disappear." (U Pandita: In This > Very Life). This explains the literal meaning of the word sati (Pali) or > smrti (Sanskrit) as remembering. Sati is the remembering of what needs > to be remembered in any situation. It remembers the object, objects or > processes of contemplation (mentality/materiality) and also what we are > doing. When you have the experience of going off to do something in your > home, and then forget what it was you had set out to do, or when you > begin to say something and then forget what it was that you were going > to say, you have lost your sati/smrti. It is often confused with > concentration. A meditator can have very strong concentration, and still > have a lapse of mindfulness. This is what happens when we have been on > retreat for some time and our mind loses the breath, and we go off > fantasies, lust or anger. Have you noticed how powerful those moments of > anger or lust can be on retreat, or how vivid the fantasies? That is > because the mind goes into them with all the power of the samadhi that > has been generated in the prior days. It is like a heavy fast moving > train jumping the track. The mass or weight of the train is the samadhi. > The momentum is the energy in the mind, and the jumping off the track is > the lapse of mindfulness. > > > > > > Mindfulness also has the function of protecting the mind. Somewhere > in the Dhammapada (sorry I don't have time to source it), the Buddha > said something like: "Just as rain cannot enter a well thatched roof,
Re: [Zen] Re: Self Nature
just adding here that Buddha Nature can also be experienced through the
application of mindfulness in daily activities. Zazen doesn't involve just
sitting down but also bringing zazen to the daily activities. One doesn't need
to spend endless sitting down in order to experience Buddha Nature. One can
also choose a much much easier way to have the same experience by much less
long sessions of sitting down but the application of mindfulness practice which
is the effective zazen in motion.
Mayka
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Bill! wrote:
From: Bill!
Subject: [Zen] Re: Self Nature
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 2:03
ED,
Again, my responses are embedded below:
> [ED] Is one expected to detect any extra intelligence, or elevated
> virtue, or added value to the planet in persons who claim to have
> experienced Buddha Nature?
>
> [Bill!] No. 'One' is not expected to detect anything special in those that
> have had awareness of Buddha Nature.
>
> [ED-2] So, one sits on one's zafu for thousands of hours over decades for no
> reason whtsoever.
>
[Bill!-2] Yes!
>
> [ED] Until this concept-premise of 'Buddha Nature' is better clarified, I
> will tend to regard it as the purely natural phenomenon of a rather pleasant
> mind-space or mind-state arrived at after much Zen clear-mind (mind-less)
> practice.
>
> [Bill!] ...
>
> [ED-2] So your response is 'No': To clarify the concept of 'Buddha nature'
> one usually has to engage in thousands of hours of shikantaza over decades to
> experience the mind-states of kensho-satori, aka 'Buddha nature'.
>
{Bill!-2] My response was not 'no'. You didn't ask me a yes-or-no question.
You just stated something. If you want a yes-or-no response to your statement,
and from the impression of you I've gathered from reading 100's of your posts
here on the Zen Forum, I'd have to say 'yes'; I do believe your will regard
Buddha Nature as you've described until someone else clarifies it for you.
Harkening back to my original response, that isn't going to happen on this
word-bound text-based forum.
>
> [ED] I do not regard this perspective as discounting Zen practice in any way.
>
> [Bill!] Nor do I. Although I will say that zen practice is not at all
> necessary to realize (become aware of) Buddha Nature, nor is it the only way.
> But it's the only way I am familar with enough to recommend.
>
> [ED-2] Other techniques (in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, Christianity) can
> entail 'higher' states of consciousnes, which may or may not be
> similar/identical to 'Buddha nature', and with different 'flavor'.
>
[Bill!-2] The only other techniques besides zen that I am familar enough with
to comment on are Christianity and Platonism. Both of these, I'm convinced,
are talking about the same state I talk about when I use the term 'Buddha
Nature'. Christianity uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven' and Plaontonism uses
the term 'The One'. These are not the only terms used by them but are the most
prominent in my opinion.
...Bill!
Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka
Hola Daniel: Si lo deseas podemos pasar al correo privado y continuar nuestra conversacion alli en castellano. Escribeme tu antes para saber que direcion electronica usar. Gracias Mayka --- On Sun, 22/5/11, Daniel Fernandez wrote: From: Daniel Fernandez Subject: Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 22 May, 2011, 19:34 Hola Maria! Si, hablo español. Es un regalito de mi familia maternal. Mis abuelos emigraron de Galicia en los años 1920. Tengo un corazon celto, ardiente ;-) He visitado San Sebastian, cuando vivi en España, hace muchos años ya. Me recuerdo de un paseo muy bonito cerquito de el agua con restaurantes interesantes. ¡Es allá que primero oí esta canción, Juanita Banana! Si en algún ocasión tienes problema para explicar tus pensamientos en ingles, pues, habla me en español (o francés si quieres). No hablo muy bien español, me falta mucho de vocabulario i de gramática, pero lo entiendo bien. Eres vasca? Hablas euskara? ¡Claro que nos tuteamos! How did you end up in Edinberg? D. --- On Sun, 5/22/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 22, 2011, 3:06 AM Hi Daniel: Thank you for the warmth energy coming from your mail. Whatever I write with the pronoun "I" doesn't is done in that way as a meanings to express Mayka personal experience. It's not meant to be an individualistic "I". In the TNH tradition when the Ven. Master talk about himself he refers to himself as "Thay". "Thay" means Teacher in Vietnamese Language. For instance if the Ven wanted to express that he was happy, then he would say "Thay is happy". We had during a retreat a dharma sharing discussion about western an eastern languages. Apparently in Vietnam they don't usually mention the "I" but their names as they were talking in a third person. About the list and lists. Initially I wrote in third person the comment but then changed with the personal "I" implying in that way that the list was irrelevant to me but perhaps not necessarily to others. I couldn't talk for others. You're right and this or any other list can be very useful specially to beginners embracing Buddhism. Besides, It may be also useful to all the others elder practitioners too as it's always handy to have lists specially when one gets lazy in the practise and as a result forgetfulness starts to take place . Bill will say that the remedy to forgetfulness is zazen and he'll be right too. I'm originally from San Sebastian, Basque Country, North of Spain and very close to France. If you're from California you may speak Spanish, or are you not?. I hear there are really beautiful beach over there with fantastic sunrise and sunsetI didn't know that when I came about with the idea of the visualisation. Enjoy your Sunday! Mayka --- On Sat, 21/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 19:05 Hi Mayka, I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, so I will just insert a few words below following your comments... --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Daniel: You say there > is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of what > is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going > into a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states > or in delusion about your present experience? It seems to me from > what you say that understanding is very present. Do you think I am > wrong? I think we are getting caught up in words here. I just read a > new post you have up where you stated: > > Mayka: In previous post > you wrote something in connection with understanding. I said that > there is an understanding that is rational and that is not within > buddha nature. Then my statement was there is an understanding that > is not understanding, implying that the rational thinking mind is not > taking place on it. Afterwards my question was if that is the sort > understanding you were referring to (the non rational one). I'm sorry mayka, I was "thrown off" by your use of the word "non-rational" we are indeed speaking of the same thing. Your understanding that is not understanding, is I think, the same thing I am speaking of. > > Daniel: You say, > recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of > re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what > is meant by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only > to help define our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and > misunderstanding that are
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Bill and Daniel: This is a most interesting conversation. A conversation very alike this was brought by two very angry young couple after spending time in the main TNH Monastery Home. I can't reproduce conversation here as that goes into the confidential files. But I can share with you all that the sayings of Bill goes very much in line to the saying have also been expressed by myself in the zen private board created by this couple and with only TNH (including monastics) presence on it.. Sayings as this ones are not taking with the open mind they are supposed to be taking. This board is the first thing I have know so far of someone taking action over the consequences of repression. Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 2:48 Daniel et al, My responses/comments are embedded below: --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "empty0grace" wrote: [Daniel] I would say based on both my experience and the teachings that I have observed, that amorality is very close to immorality in that without the clear presence of moral rectitude there is nothing to prevent immoral intentions from arizing when unwholesome states arize in the mind. [Bill!] This is a bogus argument on it's face. Amorality is no closer to immorality than it is to morality, except for those who have already accepted the dogma that morality is good, and everything else is bad. Also moral rectitude itself does not prevent immoral intentions from arising. Moral rectitude only serves to identify them (classify them as immoral) and then direct the self to resist or surpress them. [Daniel] If Zen, as Bill proposes it were actually "direct awareness that occurs BEFORE the rising of and post-processing activites of the discriminating mind." He would be able to observe the actual presence and absence of moral rectitude in the mind, and see how these affect the actions that spring from intentions. The words are added later so we can speak about it, but absolute realities do not disapear for lack of words. [Bill!] Daniel's conclusions are half-right. Buddha Nature is aware of dualistic concepts (illusions) such as moral/immoral, good/bad, high/low, etc... as they arise in the discriminating mind. These illusions come and go. The important thing is to recognize them as illusory and transitory, and not to become attached to them. Attachement is the cause of suffering. As far of the rest of this paragraph Daniel errors in that for Buddha Nature there are no actions, no intentions - Just THIS! Actions and intentions presuppose a self. Buddha Nature exists before the dualistic split of self/other is created. [Daniel] The natural condition of the mind is immoral: greed, hatred and delusion are our birthright as human beings, not Buddha nature, which really does sound like a religious assertion to me. [Bill!] Daniel! You now sound more like a Christian, Jew or Muslim than a Buddhist! What you say is entirely backwards! Buddha Nature is our birthright. Are sparrows immoral? Are sharks immoral? Are trees immoral? No! They are ammoral (and by that term I mean that the dualistic concept of moral/ammoral is not applicable.) All those conditions you mention above are illusory - products of our discriminating mind - and it's the attachments to these that cause suffering. [Daniel] What you see, is what you get, and what we see when we look inside is greed, hatred and delusion (unless you cultivated the eightfold path). [Bill!] I agree that 'what you see is what you get'. When I look inside me I don't see greed, hatred, delusion, etc... Or to be more precise when I do see these I know they are illusions and that they come and go. I am not attached to them (at least this is my practice). [Daniel] These are the wellsprings of all unwholesome mindstates that lead to wrong intentions that in turn lead to wrong actions. Unless the this is specifically corrected with training in moral intentions, samadhi and right understanding, the mind remains as crooked as the day it was born. D. [Bill!] It's seems to me you have surfaced the most fundamental difference between us - and perhaps between all religions such as Theravada Buddhism and zen. What you're suggesting seems to be to be that that humans (or all beings? all life?) are inherently evil and that it is only through the learning of some dogma (lists of do's and don'ts) that you can overcome this inherent evil. (And just for the record even if you were to do this would not make you 'good' or 'pure', you'd only be avoiding evil - there's a big difference.) I'm saying that the all life is just as it is. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is only humans (of the beings I know) that create good and evil. They
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Correction: Previous post was not correctly expressed and when reading again I realiced that the word practicioners was missed out giving the impression in this way as there is TNH in the board. It should be read as: With only THN PRACTICIONERS including some monastics on it. ( Not with the personal presence of TNH). Apologies for the missing word: practicioners. Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 9:36 Bill and Daniel: This is a most interesting conversation. A conversation very alike this was brought by two very angry young couple after spending time in the main TNH Monastery Home. I can't reproduce conversation here as that goes into the confidential files. But I can share with you all that the sayings of Bill goes very much in line to the saying have also been expressed by myself in the zen private board created by this couple and with only TNH (including monastics) presence on it.. Sayings as this ones are not taking with the open mind they are supposed to be taking. This board is the first thing I have know so far of someone taking action over the consequences of repression. Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 2:48 Daniel et al, My responses/comments are embedded below: --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "empty0grace" wrote: [Daniel] I would say based on both my experience and the teachings that I have observed, that amorality is very close to immorality in that without the clear presence of moral rectitude there is nothing to prevent immoral intentions from arizing when unwholesome states arize in the mind. [Bill!] This is a bogus argument on it's face. Amorality is no closer to immorality than it is to morality, except for those who have already accepted the dogma that morality is good, and everything else is bad. Also moral rectitude itself does not prevent immoral intentions from arising. Moral rectitude only serves to identify them (classify them as immoral) and then direct the self to resist or surpress them. [Daniel] If Zen, as Bill proposes it were actually "direct awareness that occurs BEFORE the rising of and post-processing activites of the discriminating mind." He would be able to observe the actual presence and absence of moral rectitude in the mind, and see how these affect the actions that spring from intentions. The words are added later so we can speak about it, but absolute realities do not disapear for lack of words. [Bill!] Daniel's conclusions are half-right. Buddha Nature is aware of dualistic concepts (illusions) such as moral/immoral, good/bad, high/low, etc... as they arise in the discriminating mind. These illusions come and go. The important thing is to recognize them as illusory and transitory, and not to become attached to them. Attachement is the cause of suffering. As far of the rest of this paragraph Daniel errors in that for Buddha Nature there are no actions, no intentions - Just THIS! Actions and intentions presuppose a self. Buddha Nature exists before the dualistic split of self/other is created. [Daniel] The natural condition of the mind is immoral: greed, hatred and delusion are our birthright as human beings, not Buddha nature, which really does sound like a religious assertion to me. [Bill!] Daniel! You now sound more like a Christian, Jew or Muslim than a Buddhist! What you say is entirely backwards! Buddha Nature is our birthright. Are sparrows immoral? Are sharks immoral? Are trees immoral? No! They are ammoral (and by that term I mean that the dualistic concept of moral/ammoral is not applicable.) All those conditions you mention above are illusory - products of our discriminating mind - and it's the attachments to these that cause suffering. [Daniel] What you see, is what you get, and what we see when we look inside is greed, hatred and delusion (unless you cultivated the eightfold path). [Bill!] I agree that 'what you see is what you get'. When I look inside me I don't see greed, hatred, delusion, etc... Or to be more precise when I do see these I know they are illusions and that they come and go. I am not attached to them (at least this is my practice). [Daniel] These are the wellsprings of all unwholesome mindstates that lead to wrong intentions that in turn lead to wrong actions. Unless the this is specifically corrected with training in moral intentions, samadhi and right understanding, the mind remains as crooked as the day it was born. D. [Bill!] It's s
Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective
Bill Wrote: "The way back to the Garden is to not to memorize some Holy List of Do's and Don'ts; it is to recognize the forbidden fruit (dualism) for what it is - illusion, and severe your attachments to it". -- You'll be surprised to find out how many people in the world would be lost without a list of that. When I first came to Scotalnd I was taken aback by things that in Spain are taken for granted while in here wasn't. Conclusion: Lists are there for one to choose to use them or not to use them. But it's good that they are there for the ones who need from those lists. Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] The Nature of Right-Mindfulness: a Theravada Perspective To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 2:48 Daniel et al, My responses/comments are embedded below: --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "empty0grace" wrote: [Daniel] I would say based on both my experience and the teachings that I have observed, that amorality is very close to immorality in that without the clear presence of moral rectitude there is nothing to prevent immoral intentions from arizing when unwholesome states arize in the mind. [Bill!] This is a bogus argument on it's face. Amorality is no closer to immorality than it is to morality, except for those who have already accepted the dogma that morality is good, and everything else is bad. Also moral rectitude itself does not prevent immoral intentions from arising. Moral rectitude only serves to identify them (classify them as immoral) and then direct the self to resist or surpress them. [Daniel] If Zen, as Bill proposes it were actually "direct awareness that occurs BEFORE the rising of and post-processing activites of the discriminating mind." He would be able to observe the actual presence and absence of moral rectitude in the mind, and see how these affect the actions that spring from intentions. The words are added later so we can speak about it, but absolute realities do not disapear for lack of words. [Bill!] Daniel's conclusions are half-right. Buddha Nature is aware of dualistic concepts (illusions) such as moral/immoral, good/bad, high/low, etc... as they arise in the discriminating mind. These illusions come and go. The important thing is to recognize them as illusory and transitory, and not to become attached to them. Attachement is the cause of suffering. As far of the rest of this paragraph Daniel errors in that for Buddha Nature there are no actions, no intentions - Just THIS! Actions and intentions presuppose a self. Buddha Nature exists before the dualistic split of self/other is created. [Daniel] The natural condition of the mind is immoral: greed, hatred and delusion are our birthright as human beings, not Buddha nature, which really does sound like a religious assertion to me. [Bill!] Daniel! You now sound more like a Christian, Jew or Muslim than a Buddhist! What you say is entirely backwards! Buddha Nature is our birthright. Are sparrows immoral? Are sharks immoral? Are trees immoral? No! They are ammoral (and by that term I mean that the dualistic concept of moral/ammoral is not applicable.) All those conditions you mention above are illusory - products of our discriminating mind - and it's the attachments to these that cause suffering. [Daniel] What you see, is what you get, and what we see when we look inside is greed, hatred and delusion (unless you cultivated the eightfold path). [Bill!] I agree that 'what you see is what you get'. When I look inside me I don't see greed, hatred, delusion, etc... Or to be more precise when I do see these I know they are illusions and that they come and go. I am not attached to them (at least this is my practice). [Daniel] These are the wellsprings of all unwholesome mindstates that lead to wrong intentions that in turn lead to wrong actions. Unless the this is specifically corrected with training in moral intentions, samadhi and right understanding, the mind remains as crooked as the day it was born. D. [Bill!] It's seems to me you have surfaced the most fundamental difference between us - and perhaps between all religions such as Theravada Buddhism and zen. What you're suggesting seems to be to be that that humans (or all beings? all life?) are inherently evil and that it is only through the learning of some dogma (lists of do's and don'ts) that you can overcome this inherent evil. (And just for the record even if you were to do this would not make you 'good' or 'pure', you'd only be avoiding evil - there's a big difference.) I'm saying that the all life is just as it is. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is only humans (of the beings I know) that create good and evil. They do this by creating dualisms such as self/othe
Re: [Zen] Re: Reply Daniel's Reply to Bill
Thank you Mel for your input over the conversation. You make some good points. Nonetheless, To all: I'd like to say that Daniel comes from a tradition very different from zen, and therefore we should be given him a very open space of expression. We should also try to put ourselves into the skin of Theravada tradition and the why he has been educated and trained. Once we do that it will much easier to understand his talk or the way he reacts. He's not used to zennists talk. He seems to have a considerable experience in his own tradition that is ttransmittednot only through his Scholar Gothic Theravada Texts but also through the warmth of his heart. And that is something to not to undervalue at all. Heart, human warmth is something that is not so ffrequentthese days. All the rest is just dharma combat accross the net. Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Mel wrote: From: Mel Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Reply Daniel's Reply to Bill To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 11:09 I think ED may have asked about some of the differences between the zen and theravada paths. Below illustrates some of such --- On Mon, 23/5/11, empty0grace wrote: "...and if that's is so a practitioner of satipatthana will be forever filling their insatiable bowl and increasing the thickness of the layers occluding Buddha Mind." MEL: It is unfortunate for many, but zen followers state it as it is, with no preservatives, or sweeteners. They don't teach the use of additives in zen. What you see is what you get. Same deal..what they see is what they get, and they can live with that. Too much choosing and discriminating leads to dualistic tendencies Makes no exceptions, and is universal judgment and condemnation of all satipatthana practitioners. This is the English you used. Thereby it includes both me and my teachers. It is also a clear statement that their practice does not bear the fruit of awakening. -- MEL: I can't help but be reminded of the way the local Thai community here DownUnder(Australia) reacted when their then most regarded monk was accused (with proof) of sexual liasons with quite a few young women. Interesting...I thought that being devout Buddhists, that they would be far too above all the mudslinging flying their way. Guess what? Death-threats were even made against people such as the media The above is a very strong indication of having taken offense. Daniel, a bit sensitive there, bud. In zen, we're taught to ride over things like this, dualistically-speaking. One breaths, and keeps posture straight..just like in zazen. Even if my own beloved mother was being called all sorts of names imaginable under the sun...I breath, and keep posture straight, keep a clear head, and observe. In zazen, things come..and things go. We let it pass, and know very well others will also come, and go When you take offense not only for yourself but for your teachers, who is hurt? You? Buddha? BigMind? Who? The original face/nature? Where did Buddha come from? What was there before Buddha? Is it hurt? I could not imagine myself saying such a thing to you, regardless of how profoundly we seem to disagree, not just because I have not met your teachers, but because it would be disrespectful. There is no need to be quoting dictionaries. --- MEL: Another difference between zen and the theravada paths. You put emphasis on words..we in zen don't. We just say it as it is. A wannabe-theravada follower told me once that real buddhist monks were...how do I put this?...study monks? He spoke to me of hundreds..thousands?..of printed material that monks have to study. Incredible. In zen, such a thing tend to be regarded as something of a joke. In my bag is a copy of a book called THE BUDDHA AND HIS TEACHINGS(published by Narada Co). In the back cover it says THIS IS A RELIGIOUS TEXT. PLEASE TREAT IT WITH RESPECT...or something like that, and this brings the points... - What is Buddha exactly? - Where is it(Buddha)? How does one pollute Buddha/Dharma? I can flush that book down the toilet the way MPs, spooks, and USMC guards did with koran copies at 'Gitmo', Abu Ghraib, and Bagram in the presence of the inmates..but how does that pollute or alter the Great All/BigMind? The teachers? Who are they? Do they not live, and die?...just as all else?.. To the nonZen and/or nonBuddhist members of the forum, please bear in mind that the catch-term 'emptiness' pops up every now and then - The problem, as I see it, is that you do not take responsibility for your words. You do not qualify with "in my opinion, or in
Re: [Zen] I'm baaack!
Welcome back Mike! Mayka --- On Mon, 23/5/11, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: [Zen] I'm baaack! To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 12:14 Hi Zennies, Been a bit overwhelmed with visa/job committments recently so decided to take week, or 3, off from opening anything other than family mail. Well, hello Daniel! Great to see you've joined this forum - I'm sure we'll all learn alot from each other here. I'm way behind on reading all the mail, so I'll just skim read most of them and answer the most pertinent ones. Speak soon. Mike
Re: [Zen] Words, dharma & school
JMJM Wrote: "All discrimination against any concept, school or comment from practitioner is resulted from our own attachment to forms. In this case, the forms of words, logic and dharma. It is just our ego at work and not our Buddha Nature". - Indeed JMJM. That attachment to the form doesn't allow the dharma flow. Everything then gets into the mental level shading away all trace of Buddha Nature as the entry door to it is closed by that attachement to the form. Mayka --- On Tue, 24/5/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] Words, dharma & school To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 17:20 Good morning to All, As you know, Chan is taught without words or formalities. After 49 years, Buddha said that he did not say a single word. Why is that? Chan is the totality of all concepts and no concept. Chan is the entirety and wholeness of the universe and is emptiness in nature. All dharma once spoken is no longer dharma. All truth once explained is no longer complete. If I may emphasize for your reference, every school has its logic, approach and effectiveness. Each is different because of karma. It is also because of karma that each of us enters a different school. Yet at the same time, we and school are both just forms. All discrimination against any concept, school or comment from practitioner is resulted from our own attachment to forms. In this case, the forms of words, logic and dharma. It is just our ego at work and not our Buddha Nature. Instead of looking into the forms containing all the impermanence, incompleteness and relativity, it is our practice to look deeper into their hearts and intentions piercing through the man made inefficient tool of language. At the end, you may just find that we are no different from the other. Each is our mirror. Just my opinion for your reference, JM -- Learn to de-stress, energize and awaken http://www.chan-meditation.com Learn to live with Health, Happiness and Harmony http://www.chanliving.org Learn to reach enlightenment http://www.heartchan.org To save the world http://www.universal-oneness.org
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Beverly: All what you mention is also done in all religious traditions but in a different way. It may change the way in which that is done, but it's done. The damage at time is more in the psychological level. Other times there is not damage at all and the person only gains benefit. People like myself who were born in Countries like Spain where Catholicism has been there for many centuries we know some of its labyrinths which give us the choice of putting on the side what we don't want. We also have the horrid experience from the inquisition. As a result of all that we can see the monster wearing different clothing from other religions. Or at the very least I can. All religions have their strong and weak points and in me experience the best is to use from them whatever is going to be of benefit of all life. But to leave ones tradition because is faulty to embrace another one with a previous idealism of the new one, it's as much as changing the collar to a doggy. The dog will be the same but the collar different. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 9:43 Hi Mayka, I tend to use 'Christianity' to indicate the movement, occasionally very unpleasant, where people with big egos started trying to enforce their will on other people (the problem which you mention) through the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus and people who follow his teachings (rather than all the stuff later people decided to hang on Christianity to control other people, like hatred of other religions, etc) aren't part of this dogmatic unpleasantness. Organised oppressive religion (like all extremism) is the problem. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 9:42:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern religions. I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion becomes the less quality one gets from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your real guide. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 Hi Bill, Aha! I think this is what I'd understand as the natural and inevitable link that early humans had with nature and everything. The thing that started dying out in Europe around the time the Romans started hassling everyone - and was topped off by the Christian establishment branding it witchcraft. Luckily, we don't have annoying Romans or authoritarian Christians any more - the role is now fulfilled by eg mass advertising and reality TV. ;-) Beverley. From: Bill! To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 2:36:17 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverley, As I just posted, zen is pure sensory experience, so of course it existed before Buddhism and before Guatama Siddartha. It has was also recognized long before Siddartha and before and since in many other places, times and cultures. I believe, as opposed to zen being a product of Buddhism, Buddhism is a product of zen - as are all religion. Zen is at the core of all these and an add-on or subset of them. ...Bill! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Beverley Huish wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Did Zen develop before it was linked to Buddhism? > > Beverley. > > > > > > > From: Bill! > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 10:09:49 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > Beverley, > > Also, zen is not a dependent sub-set of Buddhis
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Mike: Churchism: A collar can be changed for another collar. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 11:06 Hi Mayka, The expression I like which seperates the spiritual core of a religion and the institutions that spring up around it is churchism. Mike From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2011, 18:06 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: All what you mention is also done in all religious traditions but in a different way. It may change the way in which that is done, but it's done. The damage at time is more in the psychological level. Other times there is not damage at all and the person only gains benefit. People like myself who were born in Countries like Spain where Catholicism has been there for many centuries we know some of its labyrinths which give us the choice of putting on the side what we don't want. We also have the horrid experience from the inquisition. As a result of all that we can see the monster wearing different clothing from other religions. Or at the very least I can. All religions have their strong and weak points and in me experience the best is to use from them whatever is going to be of benefit of all life. But to leave ones tradition because is faulty to embrace another one with a previous idealism of the new one, it's as much as changing the collar to a doggy. The dog will be the same but the collar different. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 9:43 Hi Mayka, I tend to use 'Christianity' to indicate the movement, occasionally very unpleasant, where people with big egos started trying to enforce their will on other people (the problem which you mention) through the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus and people who follow his teachings (rather than all the stuff later people decided to hang on Christianity to control other people, like hatred of other religions, etc) aren't part of this dogmatic unpleasantness. Organised oppressive religion (like all extremism) is the problem. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 9:42:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern religions. I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion becomes the less quality one gets from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your real guide. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 Hi Bill, Aha! I think this is what I'd understand as the natural and inevitable link that early humans had with nature and everything. The thing that started dying out in Europe around the time the Romans started hassling everyone - and was topped off by the Christian establishment branding it witchcraft. Luckily, we don't have annoying Romans or authoritarian Christians any more - the role is now fulfilled by eg mass advertising and reality TV. ;-) Beverley. From: Bill! To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 2:36:17 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverley, As I just posted, zen is pure sensory experience, so of course it existed before Buddhism and before Guatama Siddartha. It has was also recognized long before Siddartha and before and since in many other places, times and cultures. I believe, as opposed to zen b
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Auu!..He! --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 11:18 Woof! Woof! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Beverly: > All what you mention is also done in all religious traditions but in a > different way. It may change the way in which that is done, but it's done. > The damage at time is more in the psychological level. Other times there is > not damage at all and the person only gains benefit. > > People like myself who were born in Countries like Spain where Catholicism > has been there for many centuries we know some of its labyrinths which give > us the choice of putting on the side what we don't want. We also have the > horrid experience from the inquisition. As a result of all that we can see > the monster wearing different clothing from other religions. Or at the very > least I can. All religions have their strong and weak points and in me > experience the best is to use from them whatever is going to be of benefit of > all life. But to leave ones tradition because is faulty to embrace another > one with a previous idealism of the new one, it's as much as changing the > collar to a doggy. The dog will be the same but the collar different. > Mayka > > --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: > > From: Beverley Huish > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 9:43 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mayka, > > I tend to use 'Christianity' to indicate the movement, occasionally very > unpleasant, where people with big egos started trying to enforce their will > on other people (the problem which you mention) through the name of Jesus > Christ. Jesus and people who follow his teachings (rather than all the stuff > later people decided to hang on Christianity to control other people, like > hatred of other religions, etc) aren't part of this dogmatic unpleasantness. > Organised oppressive religion (like all extremism) is the problem. > > :-) > > Beverley. > > > > > > From: Maria Lopez > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 9:42:28 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > > > > > > Beverly: > Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most > modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it > failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, > politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed > Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are > within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern > religions. > > I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be > into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the > genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually > is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is > the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion > becomes the less quality one gets > from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In > that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest > quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get > lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your > real guide. > Mayka > > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: > > > From: Beverley Huish > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > Aha! I think this is what I'd understand as the natural and inevitable link > that early humans had with nature and everything. The thing that started > dying out in Europe around the time the Romans started hassling everyone - > and was topped off by the Christian establishment branding it witchcraft. > Luckily, we don't have annoying Romans or authoritarian Christians any more - > the role is now fulfilled by eg mass advertising and reality TV. ;-) > > Beverley. &g
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Beverly: To me is not about lover or hatred towards any spiritual tradition but about open mind, heart and awareness. Open MInd, Heart and Awareness dissolves aversion and allows one to get the best from all. Some members on this list suffer from aversion to some forms of religions. Once we are liberated from that kind of aversion then we are free to see them for what they are. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 10:33 Hi Mayka, What you say is true about changing anything through idealism merely being like changing a dog's collar. I've never been part of the Christian tradition (except insofar as all Western European culture is heavily influenced by it). I know some lovely people who are committed Christians and I know they don't feel hatred for other people in the way I mentioned before. As for other religions, I know less about them than Christianity and there's so much disrespect, hatred and mistrust around at the moment about other world religions that I don't want to add to it (especially considering my level of ignorance about them). I am thankful I live in a country where I am free to have my own opinions. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 26 May, 2011 10:06:55 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: All what you mention is also done in all religious traditions but in a different way. It may change the way in which that is done, but it's done. The damage at time is more in the psychological level. Other times there is not damage at all and the person only gains benefit. People like myself who were born in Countries like Spain where Catholicism has been there for many centuries we know some of its labyrinths which give us the choice of putting on the side what we don't want. We also have the horrid experience from the inquisition. As a result of all that we can see the monster wearing different clothing from other religions. Or at the very least I can. All religions have their strong and weak points and in me experience the best is to use from them whatever is going to be of benefit of all life. But to leave ones tradition because is faulty to embrace another one with a previous idealism of the new one, it's as much as changing the collar to a doggy. The dog will be the same but the collar different. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 9:43 Hi Mayka, I tend to use 'Christianity' to indicate the movement, occasionally very unpleasant, where people with big egos started trying to enforce their will on other people (the problem which you mention) through the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus and people who follow his teachings (rather than all the stuff later people decided to hang on Christianity to control other people, like hatred of other religions, etc) aren't part of this dogmatic unpleasantness. Organised oppressive religion (like all extremism) is the problem. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 9:42:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern religions. I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion becomes the less quality one gets from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your real guide. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish wrote: From: Beverley Huish Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 Hi Bill, Aha! I think this i
Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question
Mike: Would you believe that I wrote something like this in a TNH private zen forum?. Mayka --- On Fri, 27/5/11, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, 27 May, 2011, 8:52 Hi ED, >Which religion has a spiritual core, and what is it? That's up to the seeker to find out. The unfortunate thing is that the message of a particular religion's founder becomes obscured by the institutionalisation of the message (rituals, heiracrchies etc) and thus leads to (my new pet word).. churchism. Mike From: ED To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2011, 20:56 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Hi Mike, Which religion has a spiritual core, and what is it? --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown wrote: > > Hi Mayka, > > > The expression I like which seperates the spiritual core of a religion and the institutions that spring up around it is churchism. > > Mike
Re: [Zen] Signing Off
Daniel: Oh well, How extremely easy is to knock down a buddhist practicioner. A bit of breeze of reality and they can't handle it!. This is also a problem many practicioners from TNH have. I was mistaken and your heart is still petit. Good luck anyway. Mayka --- On Fri, 27/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] Signing Off To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 27 May, 2011, 1:07 To all my friends: I have been away for a few days, being busy, and I came back to an overwhelming number of posts since my last visit. Many of these are related to my own postings. I am sorry that I don't have time to respond to all these posts, but I will do my best to read through them all. I have found that the time I spend interacting on this board has been prohibitive to getting my own projects done, and so I've decided to sign off permanently. That way I won't be tempted and get sucked back in. This decision is reinforced by my sense that my presence here is really not very useful, either to others or myself. I have ended up as the voice of the Theravada on this board, and that was not my original intention, since my practice has evolved so as not to be recognizably Theravada any more. Besides, this is unnecessary, since any who are interested can read any number of good books on the subject. I am therefore asking the moderators to discontinue my membership here. I want to thank you all for your patience, your time and your posts. Any who wish to are welcome to email me privately on my email account as listed here on this board. Happy Dharma faring to all! Daniel PS: for those interested, here are some books on the Theravada that I recommend: The Heart of Buddhist Meditation; Nyanaponika Thera In This Very Life; Sayadaw U Pandita The Progress of Insight; Mahasi Sayadaw (available on the web) Great Disciples of the Buddha; Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha; translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi
Re: [Zen] Signing Off
Mike: I'm dissapointed you are dissapointed. Mayka --- On Sat, 28/5/11, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: Re: [Zen] Signing Off To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Saturday, 28 May, 2011, 11:01 OOo Mayka, I'm kinda disappointed with this message. I take Daniel at his word that he doesn't have enough time on his hands to stay here (I believe he is studying at nursing college and anyone who's done that would understand the committment). I think from what I've seen from his replies to you, and others, he has an extraordinary big heart. Mike From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 27 May 2011, 20:15 Subject: Re: [Zen] Signing Off Daniel: Oh well, How extremely easy is to knock down a buddhist practicioner. A bit of breeze of reality and they can't handle it!. This is also a problem many practicioners from TNH have. I was mistaken and your heart is still petit. Good luck anyway. Mayka --- On Fri, 27/5/11, empty0grace wrote: From: empty0grace Subject: [Zen] Signing Off To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 27 May, 2011, 1:07 To all my friends: I have been away for a few days, being busy, and I came back to an overwhelming number of posts since my last visit. Many of these are related to my own postings. I am sorry that I don't have time to respond to all these posts, but I will do my best to read through them all. I have found that the time I spend interacting on this board has been prohibitive to getting my own projects done, and so I've decided to sign off permanently. That way I won't be tempted and get sucked back in. This decision is reinforced by my sense that my presence here is really not very useful, either to others or myself. I have ended up as the voice of the Theravada on this board, and that was not my original intention, since my practice has evolved so as not to be recognizably Theravada any more. Besides, this is unnecessary, since any who are interested can read any number of good books on the subject. I am therefore asking the moderators to discontinue my membership here. I want to thank you all for your patience, your time and your posts. Any who wish to are welcome to email me privately on my email account as listed here on this board. Happy Dharma faring to all! Daniel PS: for those interested, here are some books on the Theravada that I recommend: The Heart of Buddhist Meditation; Nyanaponika Thera In This Very Life; Sayadaw U Pandita The Progress of Insight; Mahasi Sayadaw (available on the web) Great Disciples of the Buddha; Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha; translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
A tic of FB like to Chris. --- On Thu, 21/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 6:36 I consider myself to be a practicing Christian and a zen trainee. I find that zen practice makes it easier to fulfill the promises of Christianity. To love one another; to treat others as I wish to be treated.; these things flow much more naturally when the self is broken down a bit and detached from the center of experience. Even to sit in church and just listen, pray, and sing is something I do more wholeheartedly as I sit zazen more. Neither activity, zen training nor Christian worship, seems to me to be fundamentally about my thoughts or my beliefs, and so do not seem to be in the category of things which might contradict one another. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Jul 20, 2011, at 6:33, Barb Jordan wrote: Greetings, A Finger Pointing at the Moon…Christianity or Zen. What I have experienced on my journey is that Christianity and Zen are but fingers pointing to the truth. I came into Zen after following Christianity most of my life. I found the Truth to be hidden deeply in Christianity and it wasn’t until I came to Zen that I could understand it. I believe there are prophets for the day and there is a religion for different cultures, but they are all fingers pointing to the truth. We have to discover the Truth ourselves. This verse comes to my mind For the creative imagination to be particularly active, the water must be fetched, and drunk fresh from the spring if it is to flow through us and quicken our hidden mythological talents. Karl-Kerenyi Peace, Barb
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Thought provoking eassay. Thanks Edgar! --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 13:04 All this was gone before you were born. Do you fear that? Every moment of the past is now gone. Do you fear that? Yesterday and your yesterday self are now gone. Do you fear that? The previous second is now gone and your existence then with it. Do you fear that? No, of course not. These are all imaginary times that exist only in your mind as memories. Your future death does not exist except as an identical imagination in your mind. So why fear these imaginary moments after you won't be here that your mind makes up? They exist only in your fears, as thoughts and not in reality. The only reality is the present moment and you are here alive in it. And you can choose to infect this present moment with fear or to release it and directly experience total life and pure consciousness within it. Personal death is an illusion because it will never be experienced. Only life is ever experienced. Only life can be experienced. Death can never be experienced so there is nothing to worry about. Thus use the freedom you have to optimize your life in the present moment since your life in the present moment is all that exists and all that ever will exist. Thus you must purify your consciousness in the present moment by paying no attention to and not dwelling on your fear of death. That will maximize life which is what the fear of death is really about - not being present maximally and totally in the present which is all that exists, which is the only place life can and does exist. Worrying about death won't make any difference about whether you will die or not so it's a waste of time that diminishes your real life right now. It's also about bravery. Remember the samurai Zen ethic - the ultimate bravery is to recognize and accept the possibility of your death as ever present and all around you and everywhere and facing it squarely to live every moment totally in the moment. In spite of that recognition choose to live totally and completely in the moment! Live every moment as your last. Worrying about death and letting it drain the reality of your life is for wimps who are not truly alive. Worrying about death is not the Zen way... Edgar http://EdgarLOwen.info On Jul 20, 2011, at 9:39 PM, D P wrote: But this will all be gone. All of it. That's what I fear. And it feels like a real fear. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Why on earth would anyone be worried about death? After all you won't be > around or conscious to experience it! Remember you were dead before you were > born. Do you worry about not being alive before you were born? Of course not. > Then why worry about being dead after you're dead? Same thing exactly. You'll > be in exactly the same state, or rather no state at all. Death is entirely an > illusion and an illusory fear. > > And even if you are still worried about death the best answer to that is > simply to immerse yourself completely in the present moment and enjoy it and > forget death. After all death doesn't exist. That is your death will never > exist for you. All that will ever exist for you is life! > > Edgar > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, D P wrote: > > > Hi, > > I am sorry hthat I haven't been on here more, but I do need some help right > > now. > > > > I just can't get over my fear of death. I know that in some ways it's not > > really an issue in zen, but it still bothers me. I can't seem to get into > > the idea of living the moment. > > > > Does anybody have any advice, koans, or books/essays to read? > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Re: Need help with the fear of death
A tick of like to Bill. Really well, simple and clear explanation in the second paragraph about as the thought anticipating the future. Thanks Bill!. --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 2:44 DP, Sorry you're having so much discomfort. As far as I know no one here is really qualified to help you. I can only suggest you continue to work with your doctors to try to get this under control. As far as the 'fear of death' and 'living in the moment', I'm sure that would help you. The fear of [fill-in-the-blank] is always an anticipation. Anticipation is 'living in the future', or at least imagining what the future will be like. If whatever you're imagining is bad, then you feel bad RIGHT NOW. Also, if what you are imagining is good, then you feel good RIGHT NOW. But in both these cases the RIGHT NOW you're experiencing is based on an anticipation - an illusion. Ask you doctors if they think meditation would help you relax and not think so much - especially about things that are illusory. If they do then I highly recommend zen meditation (zazen). Have you tried that yet? Good luck...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "D P" wrote: > > Hi, > I am sorry hthat I haven't been on here more, but I do need some help right > now. > > I just can't get over my fear of death. I know that in some ways it's not > really an issue in zen, but it still bothers me. I can't seem to get into the > idea of living the moment. > > Does anybody have any advice, koans, or books/essays to read? >
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
...And here it comes out one more from the woods...! --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Mel wrote: From: Mel Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 5:34 ..Wow...the site looks like everyone has come out of the wood-work, but it's good. Salik888, I'm not sure about others here, but the DT Suzuki works tend to be on the rather scholarly side. I myself would say his words tend to be beyond the grasp of an average run-of-the-mill kind of factory worker like myself who possess only basic education. Now, someone like Deshimaru Taisen who is an actual monk who doesn't boast a PhD or Masters (or some other level of education, although I doubt DT Suzuki did any boasting as such at all) here and there but is instead direct and to the point with teachings that actually teach...well...that's different. I also don't hear much mention of DT Suzuki amongst Zen practitioners, and it could be for these reasons with Buddha's blessings Mel
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Hi Anthony: If you pay too much attention to the surface of religions and their institutions you may find yourself into continuos comparations, choosing and picking, and a waste of time debates. Get into the soul of all religions and you'll see that there is no difference between them teachings. Mayka --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 10:06 Bill, Since the Old Testament is part of Christianity. As you say, they demand obedience without question. Buddhism never asks you that, except in the case of Tantric guru, who asks you to jump from the top of a nine story buiding. But then he uses his psychic power to save you from falling flat to the ground. Wonderful religion. There is strong authority in the Pope. If he says Gospel of Thomas is heretical, it is. So Christian who follows that is up to them, but they are no longer considered Christians. I think the Protestants must have their standards. I don't know what they are. However, the Gospel seems to run counter to the absolute authority of God, whether it is for Catholic or Protestents. Anthony --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 9:10 AM Anthony, Some Christians certainly do consider the Gospel of Thomas, and the many other 'Gospels of ...' including the Gospel of Mary that were not selected to be included in the New Testament as heretical - but many Christians to do not. It really just depends on whether they feel a particular gospel 'speaks to them' and enhances their faith. As I've said before in a response to you, I've don't remember any quote of Jesus commanding his followers to 'obey him without question'. I do recall him asking for 'faith without question', but that's not the same thing. In the Old Testament there are many references to God the Father demanding absolute obedience. Could it be you've attributed those to Jesus by association? Anyway this is a zen forum and hopefully everyone here knows better than to give themselves over to a religion that demands 'obedience without question'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > Bill, >  > Gospel of Thomas is considered heretical in Christianity, so Whether or not > you try to prove there are zen elements (it looks that way) does not > represent the religion that often quotes Jesus as saying he is the son of > God, who must be obeyed without question. That is not zen. >  > Regards, > Anthony > > --- On Wed, 20/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 11:06 AM > > >  > > > > Anthony, > > Jesus used the terms 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God' in many of his > teachings - especially in his parables. In some cases, like Siddartha, he > just referred to himself as the example of the Kingdom of Heaven' or what I > would call 'Buddha Mind'. Here are some examples that address your question > about whether or not Jesus taught his experience was only about something > external: > > Gospel of Thomas: > > (3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in > the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It > is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside > of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you > will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of > the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty > and it is you who are that poverty." > > (77) Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me > all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. > Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." > > Beyond that I don't really wish to 'show you the real zen in Christianity'. I > would much rather you discover the 'real zen' in and all around you. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > I am not familiar with the 'Kingdom of Heaven', but it sounds like > > something outside your mind, so it is not zen. It is dualism. > >  > > As regards Buddha's proclamation that he was the only one worthy of honor, > > along with your beloved story of Buddha holding a flower on Vulture Peak, > > was cooked up by later day mahayana. That is why Unmon Zen Master wanted to > > kill, not the Buddha, but the myth that had gone the wrong way. Unmon > > is the real zen. > >  > > Show me the real zen in Christiantity. > >  > > Anthony > > > > --- On Tue, 19/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > From: Bill! > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, 19 Jul
Re: [Zen] why I'm here
Mind not to wet your pants or you'll be smelling. --- On Wed, 20/7/11, pandabananasock wrote: From: pandabananasock Subject: [Zen] why I'm here To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 2:47 I'm here to piss in the dirt
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Good point Mark. --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Mark Perew wrote: From: Mark Perew Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 20:59 DP Living in the moment, mindfulness, is very different from living for the moment. Can you spot the difference? How might those be different in your practice? On Jul 21, 2011 1:16 PM, "D P" wrote: > > I fear nothingness because I associate it with the western view of nihlism. I > also am put off with the idea of living for the moment, because I associate > it with a western hedonism that I find distasteful. > > > Yes, what happened before us is gone, but we have touchstones to know that it > did exist. And the past can certainly affect us now. > > > But the "living right" is also scary because then my OCD kicks in that I am > somehow not doing it right! > > I want to forgive myself for mistakes, and accept things without dwelling in > depression. > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >> >> All this was gone before you were born. Do you fear that? Every moment of >> the past is now gone. Do you fear that? Yesterday and your yesterday self >> are now gone. Do you fear that? The previous second is now gone and your >> existence then with it. Do you fear that? No, of course not. These are all >> imaginary times that exist only in your mind as memories. Your future death >> does not exist except as an identical imagination in your mind. So why fear >> these imaginary moments after you won't be here that your mind makes up? >> They exist only in your fears, as thoughts and not in reality. The only >> reality is the present moment and you are here alive in it. And you can >> choose to infect this present moment with fear or to release it and directly >> experience total life and pure consciousness within it. >> >> Personal death is an illusion because it will never be experienced. Only >> life is ever experienced. Only life can be experienced. Death can never be >> experienced so there is nothing to worry about. Thus use the freedom you >> have to optimize your life in the present moment since your life in the >> present moment is all that exists and all that ever will exist. Thus you >> must purify your consciousness in the present moment by paying no attention >> to and not dwelling on your fear of death. That will maximize life which is >> what the fear of death is really about - not being present maximally and >> totally in the present which is all that exists, which is the only place >> life can and does exist. >> >> Worrying about death won't make any difference about whether you will die or >> not so it's a waste of time that diminishes your real life right now. It's >> also about bravery. Remember the samurai Zen ethic - the ultimate bravery is >> to recognize and accept the possibility of your death as ever present and >> all around you and everywhere and facing it squarely to live every moment >> totally in the moment. In spite of that recognition choose to live totally >> and completely in the moment! Live every moment as your last. Worrying about >> death and letting it drain the reality of your life is for wimps who are not >> truly alive. Worrying about death is not the Zen way... >> >> Edgar >> http://EdgarLOwen.info >> >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 9:39 PM, D P wrote: >> >> > But this will all be gone. All of it. That's what I fear. And it feels >> > like a real fear. >> > >> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: >> > > >> > > Why on earth would anyone be worried about death? After all you won't be >> > > around or conscious to experience it! Remember you were dead before you >> > > were born. Do you worry about not being alive before you were born? Of >> > > course not. Then why worry about being dead after you're dead? Same >> > > thing exactly. You'll be in exactly the same state, or rather no state >> > > at all. Death is entirely an illusion and an illusory fear. >> > > >> > > And even if you are still worried about death the best answer to that is >> > > simply to immerse yourself completely in the present moment and enjoy it >> > > and forget death. After all death doesn't exist. That is your death will >> > > never exist for you. All that will ever exist for you is life! >> > > >> > > Edgar >> > > >> > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, D P wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > I am sorry hthat I haven't been on here more, but I do need some help >> > > > right now. >> > > > >> > > > I just can't get over my fear of death. I know that in some ways it's >> > > > not really an issue in zen, but it still bothers me. I can't seem to >> > > > get into the idea of living the moment. >> > > > >> > > > Does anybody have any advice, koans, or books/essays to read? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book
Re: [Zen] Words..
Words: "Too often, we hold them dearly, as golden rules, as absolute. Then we are blinded by them and fail to "see" the truth of every encounter, loose the wisdom of the moment to deliver our fulfillment, as well as disconnect from the calling of within, which is boundless compassion and true sense of life's purpose". A refreshing beautiful reminder giving sense to ones life. Thanks JMJM. --- On Wed, 20/7/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] Words.. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com, zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, heartc...@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 16:03 Hi Mel, Well put. It is said, all written words, sutra/bible/koran, are for our convenience. Convenience for us to be awakened from within. They are like boats to ferry us across the other shore, the shore beyond our habits, additions, believes, logic, dogma, faith, etc. Once we landed, or had a peak through our own delusions, these boats, big or small, dumb or smart, are to be left behind, instead of being carried in our mind. So that we can continue on with our journey. Too often, we hold them dearly, as golden rules, as absolute. Then we are blinded by them and fail to "see" the truth of every encounter, loose the wisdom of the moment to deliver our fulfillment, as well as disconnect from the calling of within, which is boundless compassion and true sense of life's purpose. My teacher often reminds me, stay within your heart, sync with the life force and wisdom of each moment. Thus you could be unaffected by all forms at every moment, and "see" clearly the manifestation of cause and effect. JM Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 7/20/2011 1:53 AM, Mel wrote: This posting is going off the zen grid a bit, but I myself had no problems with the forbidden books as well as those things to do with any sexual connection between Mary Magdalene and Jesus during my try-out period of a few months with the Christian faith back then. The way I see it to this day, nothing really changes what Yahweh/Jesus says in his holy book...author Dale Brown, or not They(some scholars) say that Jesus and Mary Magdalene shacked up(set up house/love nest) together and had children afterwards, whose descendants are alive today. It has also been said in the past that Mary Magdalene was present somewhere in the picture of Jesus's PassOver with the disciples. As a Christian of the Quaker variety(or at least, I tried to be as so) from back then, I had no problem with such, because I could see that it was such an insignificant matter, and didn't really affect all things scriptural It's the same with the old man himself. Somebody can turn around and tell me today that the old fella wasn't really as holy as he claimed to be from under that special tree. Do I care? Must I even care? Of course not. The book Zen Mind Begginer's Mind is one I keep coming back to. Reading and absorbing it is not exactly getting it straight from the horse's mouth, but it's beneficial to me in my own private way. For all I know, this son of Queen Maha Maya could have been one of the most corrupt characters in humankind's history. Good...bad...which one was he? By now, do we really care as zen practitioners? Unlike some corrupt and self-proclaimed, ceremony-obssessed south-east Asian and Ceylonese Buddhists I've dealt with in the past I don't hold holiness to anyone in this world of ours. Zen is my chosen path, although I do not tag myself as Buddhist in any way, unless I'm pressed to declare some faith or another and I can see that explaining zen to the enquirer is going to cause not clarity in mind but added confusion to the enquirer Thanks for your time in Buddha's grace Mel
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Thanks Anthony! Mayka --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 23 July, 2011, 12:18 Mayka, Long time no hear. It is nice to hear from you again. Whatever you say, I always listen. Anthony --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 23 July, 2011, 6:34 PM Hi Anthony: If you pay too much attention to the surface of religions and their institutions you may find yourself into continuos comparations, choosing and picking, and a waste of time debates. Get into the soul of all religions and you'll see that there is no difference between them teachings. Mayka --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 10:06 Bill, Since the Old Testament is part of Christianity. As you say, they demand obedience without question. Buddhism never asks you that, except in the case of Tantric guru, who asks you to jump from the top of a nine story buiding. But then he uses his psychic power to save you from falling flat to the ground. Wonderful religion. There is strong authority in the Pope. If he says Gospel of Thomas is heretical, it is. So Christian who follows that is up to them, but they are no longer considered Christians. I think the Protestants must have their standards. I don't know what they are. However, the Gospel seems to run counter to the absolute authority of God, whether it is for Catholic or Protestents. Anthony --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 21 July, 2011, 9:10 AM Anthony, Some Christians certainly do consider the Gospel of Thomas, and the many other 'Gospels of ...' including the Gospel of Mary that were not selected to be included in the New Testament as heretical - but many Christians to do not. It really just depends on whether they feel a particular gospel 'speaks to them' and enhances their faith. As I've said before in a response to you, I've don't remember any quote of Jesus commanding his followers to 'obey him without question'. I do recall him asking for 'faith without question', but that's not the same thing. In the Old Testament there are many references to God the Father demanding absolute obedience. Could it be you've attributed those to Jesus by association? Anyway this is a zen forum and hopefully everyone here knows better than to give themselves over to a religion that demands 'obedience without question'. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > Bill, > Â > Gospel of Thomas is considered heretical in Christianity, so Whether or not > you try to prove there are zen elements (it looks that way) does not > represent the religion that often quotes Jesus as saying he is the son of > God, who must be obeyed without question. That is not zen. > Â > Regards, > Anthony > > --- On Wed, 20/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 11:06 AM > > > Â > > > > Anthony, > > Jesus used the terms 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God' in many of his > teachings - especially in his parables. In some cases, like Siddartha, he > just referred to himself as the example of the Kingdom of Heaven' or what I > would call 'Buddha Mind'. Here are some examples that address your question > about whether or not Jesus taught his experience was only about something > external: > > Gospel of Thomas: > > (3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in > the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It > is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside > of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you > will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of > the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty > and it is you who are that poverty." > > (77) Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me > all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. > Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." > > Beyond that I don't really wish to 'show you the real zen in Christianity'. I > would much rather you discover the 'real zen' in and all
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
ED and Bill; The word "Preaching" sounds to me as a monotonous repetitive lethany of religious catechisms. There are times in which we all "preach" which means that what we say is not alive in us at the moment of being expressed out. We only repeat what we heard or even maybe occasionally have experienced. But that is not alive in us at the present moment of talking. Then, there are other times in which the receiver has a complex with "preaching" and as a result of that mental formation, everything he/she hears is received as preaching. Mayka --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 24 July, 2011, 9:03 ED, I had to look up the word 'sententious'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing Then I had to look up 'aphoristic'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: a: a concise statement of a principle b: terse formulation of a truth or sentiment With those definitions in mind I'd say: - zen defnitely favors aphorisitic expressions but does absolutely no moralizing - Christianity favors aphorisitic experssions and defintitely likes to moralize. So my answer to your question below is, "No, not entirely." ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > > Is it the case that sententious preaching, rational and/or non-rational, > is an element that Zen and Christianity tend to hold in common? >
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Bill: We may be touching the same kind of reality because most of times I read you, it resonates in harmony with the heart of zen. And feel in that an enormous reassurance and support in my own personal whereabouts. You're so right as there is no any kind of practise between us when we talk or read from each other, but just an exchange of reciprocated sharing. Never found a practitioner, a friend, a natural zen Teacher to me, like you anywhere in the world. A bow to you! Mayka --- On Mon, 25/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 25 July, 2011, 2:34 Mayka, Thanks for your excellent definition of 'preaching'. I agree with it. In that sense I do not beleive zen teachers 'preach'. If they do they've lost the immediateness and sponteneiety that characterizes zen. I do suspect many Buddhist teachers preach. Chrisitians, Jews and Muslims preach a lot. IMO. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED and Bill; >  > The word "Preaching" sounds to me as a monotonous repetitive lethany of > religious catechisms.  There are times in which we all "preach" which > means that what we say is not alive in us at the moment of being expressed > out. We only repeat what we heard or even maybe occasionally have > experienced. But that is not alive in us at the present moment of > talking. Then, there are other times in which the receiver has a complex > with "preaching" and as a result of that mental formation,  everything > he/she hears is received as preaching. >  > Mayka >  >  > --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, 24 July, 2011, 9:03 > > >  > > > > ED, > > I had to look up the word 'sententious'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression > b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing > > Then I had to look up 'aphoristic'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: a concise statement of a principle > b: terse formulation of a truth or sentiment > > With those definitions in mind I'd say: > - zen defnitely favors aphorisitic expressions but does absolutely no > moralizing > - Christianity favors aphorisitic experssions and defintitely likes to > moralize. > > So my answer to your question below is, "No, not entirely." > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it the case that sententious preaching, rational and/or non-rational, > > is an element that Zen and Christianity tend to hold in common? > > >
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Bill: I'd like partially disagree with your statement about that there is no preaching in zen. Perhaps in real zen you're right there is no preaching but in the zen found in the Internet groups where a Teacher or Roshi is present there, Not only there is preaching but also there is an enormous repression imposed over its members. It's a zen borne in the USA and it's perverse, fanatic, psychological violent to its members. In this respect I'm very lucky and websites of that kind they usually put me soon into moderation. And at those moments I know that I'm in a faking pretentious zen group. This was the case in the Zen Living Group yesterday in which I've been put into moderation for no real serious transgression done but just giving responses to mails received. And I've been put into moderation without been warned, told and neither the participants of the group have been inform about it. And someone who came out asking to be deleted from the group after reading the response from the Roshi to me. He was insulted with nasty language by one of the fanatic Roshi followers.Not that I care much as I don't usually am an active participant over that group. Saying this only to illustrate that preaching, perversion, agresion, represion, imposition of views and ideas do exist in American zen. Mayka --- On Mon, 25/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 25 July, 2011, 2:34 Mayka, Thanks for your excellent definition of 'preaching'. I agree with it. In that sense I do not beleive zen teachers 'preach'. If they do they've lost the immediateness and sponteneiety that characterizes zen. I do suspect many Buddhist teachers preach. Chrisitians, Jews and Muslims preach a lot. IMO. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED and Bill; >  > The word "Preaching" sounds to me as a monotonous repetitive lethany of > religious catechisms.  There are times in which we all "preach" which > means that what we say is not alive in us at the moment of being expressed > out. We only repeat what we heard or even maybe occasionally have > experienced. But that is not alive in us at the present moment of > talking. Then, there are other times in which the receiver has a complex > with "preaching" and as a result of that mental formation,  everything > he/she hears is received as preaching. >  > Mayka >  >  > --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, 24 July, 2011, 9:03 > > >  > > > > ED, > > I had to look up the word 'sententious'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression > b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing > > Then I had to look up 'aphoristic'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: a concise statement of a principle > b: terse formulation of a truth or sentiment > > With those definitions in mind I'd say: > - zen defnitely favors aphorisitic expressions but does absolutely no > moralizing > - Christianity favors aphorisitic experssions and defintitely likes to > moralize. > > So my answer to your question below is, "No, not entirely." > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it the case that sententious preaching, rational and/or non-rational, > > is an element that Zen and Christianity tend to hold in common? > > >
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Edgar and Bill: Reducing the suffering of all forms of life in my view involves to be a vegetarian if conditions are adecuate for it. Though It's true that being a vegetarian is a very personal choice to make. If one is not a vegetarian then needs to pay attention to the procedence of that meat, how was brought the animal, the kind of food the animal ate, if the animal was in a free land or hold under cruelty, the transport in which the anymal was taken to the manslaughter, , the form in which the animas was killed.One has to be very cautious about what one ingests as we are what we eat. and that is not buddhist, christian, zenbut the awareness of the reality as a fact about not being separated from the rest of life forms. True that we have to survive and that in order to survive we have to kill different forms of life but awareness of what we ingest will make one become a vegetarian most of times as there is a reduction in the suffering caused to other forms of life. This is only my personal view. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 15:16 Edgar, If someone directs a question specifically to me I always try to answer, but I must admit that sometimes the content of your posts, like the one below, are a mystery to me. I will however try to answer and have embedded my responses in your post : --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill are you telling us you aren't a vegetarian? [Bill!] No, I wasn't trying to indicate whether or not I was a vegetarian in my post below. I was not talking about myself at all. DP had interpreted one part of the Buddhist Eightfold Path- Right Action - as a prohibition of the eating of animal products. I was pointing out that Right Action ( as well as all of the Eightfold Path) is Buddhist doctrine. As you well know I do not believe zen is merely a sub-set of Buddhism nor has a co-dependency on Buddhism. As such I do not believe that the Eightfold Path has any relevancy to zen, at least as far as being a doctrine, dogma or set of rules that need to be followed. And anyway there are no translations of Right Action that I have seen that specifically prohibit the eating of animal products or that requires vegetarianism. The translations I have seen define Right Action as 'abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from illicit sex [or sexual misconduct]'. But since you are asking (in an oblique way) I will now tell you that I am not a vegetarian. >If so how do you justify taking the lives of sentient creatures to eat? [Bill!] Are your questions just ill-thought out, or do you purpose pose them in such a curious manner? I don't try to justify my conduct. To whom would I justify it? You? The Zen Forum? Buddha? God? What do you mean by 'sentient creatures'? Do you mean 'animals' as opposed to 'plants'? Do you think that this is relevant to the Eightfold Path of Right Action? It says you should abstain from 'taking life'. I read that as all life, not just the life of 'sentient creatures' or animals or sentient beings. Why do you single out 'sentient creatures' from other life forms? Isn't life all life? What makes the difference if the life manifests itself as what we have classified as 'plant' or 'animal, or 'sentient' or 'not-sentient'? If you'd like to start a discussion thread on Justification, the Eightfold Path, Right Action, the practice of vegetarianism in Buddhsim, or any other topics like these I would be glad to participate; but I do not intend to put a lot of my time and effort as I have here into responding to jumbled up questions like the one above. > Edgar ...Bill! > > > On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > DP, > > > > My take on this is: > > > > 'Right Action' is part of Buddhist dogma. So is vegatarianism. So would be > > any dietary restrictions. > > > > Zen practice is just eating what the cook prepares. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "D P" wookielifeday@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think I can see that. > > > > > > > > > Let me put it this way: > > > > > > I have OCD about contracting horrible diseases. Part of my response to my > > > OCD is to accept the fact that I may in fact be exposing myself to these > > > horrible diseases just through regular day-by-day activities. > > > > > > But in that case, what is Right Action? By accepting that I am > > > endangering myself just by living, am I abdicating my duty to Right > > > Action? > > > > > > PArt of my anxiety is also that certain products may or may not have > > > animal products. The OCD initial response is to check all labels for > > > animal products. But 1) that's impossible, and 2) that's feeding my OCD. > > > > > > But is it Right Action not to check? > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, M
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Agree with Chris. Very well explained and what I also think about JMJM. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 20:09 When I read JMJM's dismissal of his speach, it comes across to me as a way of acknowledging that words are imperfect ways to share experience. I find it humble and honest, not with the negative connotation I associate with sophisty. He's not attacking people then pretending he said nothing; he's sharing the words his group uses for their "Theory of Zen Practise" and then disclaiming those words as being just words. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Mark Perew wrote: Regardless of the derivation of the word, to say something then dismiss it is sophistry. Words cannot be unsaid.
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony; I take your remark as an affectionate opinion you have about Bill. Our Bill is unique in his multiple skillful ways of presenting zen even when he's not a vegetarian. Don't you think?. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:40 Mayka, You can see from your experiences that how magnanimous and liberal our Bill roshi is on this site. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 8:20 AM Bill: I'd like partially disagree with your statement about that there is no preaching in zen. Perhaps in real zen you're right there is no preaching but in the zen found in the Internet groups where a Teacher or Roshi is present there, Not only there is preaching but also there is an enormous repression imposed over its members. It's a zen borne in the USA and it's perverse, fanatic, psychological violent to its members. In this respect I'm very lucky and websites of that kind they usually put me soon into moderation. And at those moments I know that I'm in a faking pretentious zen group. This was the case in the Zen Living Group yesterday in which I've been put into moderation for no real serious transgression done but just giving responses to mails received. And I've been put into moderation without been warned, told and neither the participants of the group have been inform about it. And someone who came out asking to be deleted from the group after reading the response from the Roshi to me. He was insulted with nasty language by one of the fanatic Roshi followers.Not that I care much as I don't usually am an active participant over that group. Saying this only to illustrate that preaching, perversion, agresion, represion, imposition of views and ideas do exist in American zen. Mayka --- On Mon, 25/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 25 July, 2011, 2:34 Mayka, Thanks for your excellent definition of 'preaching'. I agree with it. In that sense I do not beleive zen teachers 'preach'. If they do they've lost the immediateness and sponteneiety that characterizes zen. I do suspect many Buddhist teachers preach. Chrisitians, Jews and Muslims preach a lot. IMO. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED and Bill; >  > The word "Preaching" sounds to me as a monotonous repetitive lethany of > religious catechisms.  There are times in which we all "preach" which > means that what we say is not alive in us at the moment of being expressed > out. We only repeat what we heard or even maybe occasionally have > experienced. But that is not alive in us at the present moment of > talking. Then, there are other times in which the receiver has a complex > with "preaching" and as a result of that mental formation,  everything > he/she hears is received as preaching. >  > Mayka >  >  > --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, 24 July, 2011, 9:03 > > >  > > > > ED, > > I had to look up the word 'sententious'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression > b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing > > Then I had to look up 'aphoristic'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as: > a: a concise statement of a principle > b: terse formulation of a truth or sentiment > > With those definitions in mind I'd say: > - zen defnitely favors aphorisitic expressions but does absolutely no > moralizing > - Christianity favors aphorisitic experssions and defintitely likes to > moralize. > > So my answer to your question below is, "No, not entirely." > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it the case that sententious preaching, rational and/or non-rational, > > is an element that Zen and Christianity tend to hold in common? > > >
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Chris: One thing is to protect our self body and health and therefore kill bacteria because is damaging ones health and a different thing is not to be aware of what we ingest. Reducing or lessen suffering in a different forms of life is the real issue here. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:43 How about bacteria? I don't remember whether they belong to the animal or plant kingdom. But they 'feel' the pain when confronted with medicine and react quickly by transformation into a drug resistant species. So don't kill bacteria. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 9:11 AM Everwalked around a forest near an area where land was cleared for a farm? I think one could argue that on some appropriate time scale there is suffering in a distressed forest. I think it is time to give up notions of purity or impurity. Please note that I am generally vegetarian but when offered only meat that will be thrown away if I do not eat it, I will eat it. On Jul 25, 2011 3:40 PM, "Edgar Owen" wrote: There is an obvious difference between plants and animals. Animals suffer and experience pain. Plants do have automatic protective and response mechanisms but no one would argue that they feel pain. That argument is used by evil doers to justify killing and eating animals. Edgar On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > > > Edgar, > > Your remarks echoe Bill's s... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it t...
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Chris: Yes, You're right and anything should be taken as an absolute. One should always first testing and experience by oneself whether that is real or not, applicable to ones life reality or not. As you may have read in past postings, I've been a vegetarian many years before I ever heard about zen. It was a personal choice. I'm amongst the first vegetarians known in Spain and the first in the town I was brought up. There was not religion, information of any kind involved that pushed me to be a vegetarian. It was purely a personal choice when still I was almost a child getting into early teens. These days unfortunately seems that being a vegetarian have become almost a fashion in our culture. And, Saying "unfortunately" because fashions lack of the real awareness, sensitivity, empathy for other forms of life as it would be a personal choice that comes out by ourselves alone and not because a religion or fashion dictates. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 7:56 The below post seems to be a common outcome of engagmemt with zen practice in these modern days with so much information about industrial food production. But I wouldn't make it an absolute. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Jul 26, 2011, at 13:36, Maria Lopez wrote: Edgar and Bill: Reducing the suffering of all forms of life in my view involves to be a vegetarian if conditions are adecuate for it. Though It's true that being a vegetarian is a very personal choice to make. If one is not a vegetarian then needs to pay attention to the procedence of that meat, how was brought the animal, the kind of food the animal ate, if the animal was in a free land or hold under cruelty, the transport in which the anymal was taken to the manslaughter, , the form in which the animas was killed.One has to be very cautious about what one ingests as we are what we eat. and that is not buddhist, christian, zenbut the awareness of the reality as a fact about not being separated from the rest of life forms. True that we have to survive and that in order to survive we have to kill different forms of life but awareness of what we ingest will make one become a vegetarian most of times as there is a reduction in the suffering caused to other forms of life. This is only my personal view. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 15:16 Edgar, If someone directs a question specifically to me I always try to answer, but I must admit that sometimes the content of your posts, like the one below, are a mystery to me. I will however try to answer and have embedded my responses in your post : --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Bill are you telling us you aren't a vegetarian? [Bill!] No, I wasn't trying to indicate whether or not I was a vegetarian in my post below. I was not talking about myself at all. DP had interpreted one part of the Buddhist Eightfold Path- Right Action - as a prohibition of the eating of animal products. I was pointing out that Right Action ( as well as all of the Eightfold Path) is Buddhist doctrine. As you well know I do not believe zen is merely a sub-set of Buddhism nor has a co-dependency on Buddhism. As such I do not believe that the Eightfold Path has any relevancy to zen, at least as far as being a doctrine, dogma or set of rules that need to be followed. And anyway there are no translations of Right Action that I have seen that specifically prohibit the eating of animal products or that requires vegetarianism. The translations I have seen define Right Action as 'abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from illicit sex [or sexual misconduct]'. But since you are asking (in an oblique way) I will now tell you that I am not a vegetarian. >If so how do you justify taking the lives of sentient creatures to eat? [Bill!] Are your questions just ill-thought out, or do you purpose pose them in such a curious manner? I don't try to justify my conduct. To whom would I justify it? You? The Zen Forum? Buddha? God? What do you mean by 'sentient creatures'? Do you mean 'animals' as opposed to 'plants'? Do you think that this is relevant to the Eightfold Path of Right Action? It says you should abstain from 'taking life'. I read that as all life, not just the life of 'sentient creatures' or animals or sentient beings. Why do you single out 'sentient creatures' from other life forms? Isn't life all life? What ma
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Chris: Eating in mindfulness involves everything including reading the labels contains of the food we purchase, procedence, source, ingredientsand this is a direct teaching about eating by TNH. I was doing that anyway but I was glad to hear that TNH feels alike myself here. With the difference that his standard up of eating is a lot of more sophisticate than mine. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 8:08 My point was more that eating mindfully is not the same as knowing stuff like where the farms are or what goes into Tilapia production or shrimp production. Eating and maintaining awareness as a form of practice is not the same as responsible shopping or whatever. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Jul 26, 2011, at 23:44, Maria Lopez wrote: Chris: One thing is to protect our self body and health and therefore kill bacteria because is damaging ones health and a different thing is not to be aware of what we ingest. Reducing or lessen suffering in a different forms of life is the real issue here. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:43 How about bacteria? I don't remember whether they belong to the animal or plant kingdom. But they 'feel' the pain when confronted with medicine and react quickly by transformation into a drug resistant species. So don't kill bacteria. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 9:11 AM Everwalked around a forest near an area where land was cleared for a farm? I think one could argue that on some appropriate time scale there is suffering in a distressed forest. I think it is time to give up notions of purity or impurity. Please note that I am generally vegetarian but when offered only meat that will be thrown away if I do not eat it, I will eat it. On Jul 25, 2011 3:40 PM, "Edgar Owen" wrote: There is an obvious difference between plants and animals. Animals suffer and experience pain. Plants do have automatic protective and response mechanisms but no one would argue that they feel pain. That argument is used by evil doers to justify killing and eating animals. Edgar On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > > > Edgar, > > Your remarks echoe Bill's s... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it t...
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Hi Chris: Not sure what are you trying to tell me in this last posting. What is your point?. One can do everything one wishes to do including gathering with friends for eating, going out, having funeverything. What does it make you think you couldn't do that?. Don't understand Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 16:26 I am sure I am merely stumbling over your words, but that does not sound correct to me. Eating is eating. Shopping is shopping. Reading Science News weekly to keep up on the hunting of tuna to extirpation is reading Science News weekly. We should by all means attend to reality when we eat, shop whole heartedly, and stay informed as citizens of a global and technological society, but these are quite different. Perhaps I am oversensitive here, because I perhaps over value the sacredness of simply eating. To share food with your friends, to take stuff that is offered from "out there" and move it right on "in here", to respond to hunger, to know taste and smell and texture, I would hate to miss this because I am thinking about the principles of sustainable living. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:05, Maria Lopez wrote: Chris: Eating in mindfulness involves everything including reading the labels contains of the food we purchase, procedence, source, ingredientsand this is a direct teaching about eating by TNH. I was doing that anyway but I was glad to hear that TNH feels alike myself here. With the difference that his standard up of eating is a lot of more sophisticate than mine. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 8:08 My point was more that eating mindfully is not the same as knowing stuff like where the farms are or what goes into Tilapia production or shrimp production. Eating and maintaining awareness as a form of practice is not the same as responsible shopping or whatever. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Jul 26, 2011, at 23:44, Maria Lopez wrote: Chris: One thing is to protect our self body and health and therefore kill bacteria because is damaging ones health and a different thing is not to be aware of what we ingest. Reducing or lessen suffering in a different forms of life is the real issue here. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:43 How about bacteria? I don't remember whether they belong to the animal or plant kingdom. But they 'feel' the pain when confronted with medicine and react quickly by transformation into a drug resistant species. So don't kill bacteria. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 9:11 AM Everwalked around a forest near an area where land was cleared for a farm? I think one could argue that on some appropriate time scale there is suffering in a distressed forest. I think it is time to give up notions of purity or impurity. Please note that I am generally vegetarian but when offered only meat that will be thrown away if I do not eat it, I will eat it. On Jul 25, 2011 3:40 PM, "Edgar Owen" wrote: There is an obvious difference between plants and animals. Animals suffer and experience pain. Plants do have automatic protective and response mechanisms but no one would argue that they feel pain. That argument is used by evil doers to justify killing and eating animals. Edgar On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > > > Edgar, > > Your remarks echoe Bill's s... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it t...
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering from other forms of life. In whatever way one may understands this will act consecuently. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 23:00 Mayka, Vegetarianism is a good thing, for health reasons and others. But living in this 'evil' world involves killing one way or the other. Killing bacteria, to begin with, then plants, and further small living beings unwittingly, for example, ants and cockroaches. For thousands of years, that is the contention between the Jains and Buddhists. The former is always on the alert not to kill anything unintentionally. So he uses a broom while he walks to drive away any small insects in the way in front. But the Buddhist is more pragmatic to allow killing insects for the purpose of cleaning a pond. By the way, the Jains survive up to now, impressing the world by beautiful temples donated by merchants who make their money in an honest way. You finds some Jains even in the UK. Thus have I heard. Anthony --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 2:37 PM Anthony; I take your remark as an affectionate opinion you have about Bill. Our Bill is unique in his multiple skillful ways of presenting zen even when he's not a vegetarian. Don't you think?. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:40 Mayka, You can see from your experiences that how magnanimous and liberal our Bill roshi is on this site. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 8:20 AM Bill: I'd like partially disagree with your statement about that there is no preaching in zen. Perhaps in real zen you're right there is no preaching but in the zen found in the Internet groups where a Teacher or Roshi is present there, Not only there is preaching but also there is an enormous repression imposed over its members. It's a zen borne in the USA and it's perverse, fanatic, psychological violent to its members. In this respect I'm very lucky and websites of that kind they usually put me soon into moderation. And at those moments I know that I'm in a faking pretentious zen group. This was the case in the Zen Living Group yesterday in which I've been put into moderation for no real serious transgression done but just giving responses to mails received. And I've been put into moderation without been warned, told and neither the participants of the group have been inform about it. And someone who came out asking to be deleted from the group after reading the response from the Roshi to me. He was insulted with nasty language by one of the fanatic Roshi followers.Not that I care much as I don't usually am an active participant over that group. Saying this only to illustrate that preaching, perversion, agresion, represion, imposition of views and ideas do exist in American zen. Mayka --- On Mon, 25/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 25 July, 2011, 2:34 Mayka, Thanks for your excellent definition of 'preaching'. I agree with it. In that sense I do not beleive zen teachers 'preach'. If they do they've lost the immediateness and sponteneiety that characterizes zen. I do suspect many Buddhist teachers preach. Chrisitians, Jews and Muslims preach a lot. IMO. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > ED and Bill; >  > The word "Preaching" sounds to me as a monotonous repetitive lethany of > religious catechisms.  There are times in which we all "preach" which > means that what we say is not alive in us at the moment of being expressed > out. We only repeat what we heard or even maybe occasionally have > experienced. But that is not alive in us at the present moment of > talking. Then, there are other times in which the receiver has a complex > with "preaching" and as a result of that mental formation,  everything > he/she hears is received as preaching. >  > Mayka >  >  > --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, 24 July, 2011, 9:03 > > >  > > > > ED, > > I had to look up the word 'sententious'. Merriam-Webster Online defines it a
Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death
Thanks for the response Chris, I get you where are coming from. As we previously discussed in this same forum, there are many aspects of mindfulness. Although mindfulness doesn't have any level in order to get into its whole rainbow of awareness, let's say that every little helps in order to awake it to its endless awareness. Mindfulness doesn't separate the form and the non form. They both are inter-related with each other, both are one. This is also the principle of the self, there is self but there is no self=form is not form. If the reading of a label is done with the tools that produce the energy of mindfulness, then will be mindfulness of reading a label. It could also be consider as part of mindfulness of eating at its base. There is the direct eating of mindfulness in a way: When I eat I only eat and that awareness this action involves and there is the previous mindfulness action in which mindfulness helps in the selection criteria about what one is going to ingest. Keep asking me if explanation are not clear. It's worthy to clarify any kind of doubt one may have over this practise as it's most practical and useful teaching applied to any of us daily reality. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of death To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 2:48 Reading labels and knowing stuff about where our food comes from is not at all mindful eating, in the sense of eating with awareness. On Jul 27, 2011 5:42 PM, "Maria Lopez" wrote: Hi Chris: Not sure what are you trying to tell me in this last posting. What is your point?. One can do everything one wishes to do including gathering with friends for eating, going out, having funeverything. What does it make you think you couldn't do that?. Don't understand Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: > > > From: ChrisAustinLane > Subject: Re: [Zen] Need help with the fear of ...Date: Wednesday, 27 July, > 2011, 16:26 > > > I am sure I am merely stumbling over your words, but that does not sound > correct to me. Eat... Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it t...
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony: That sounds to me a faulty concept as it leads one to think in terms of discrimination such as small/big and so on. While practising mindfulness of eating or pre-preparation of eating, there are not small or big living beings but just different forms of life present there that ones try to preserve. But when preservation is not possible due to our own survival and health, then the practicioner can only be aware of what is there and what one is doing with what is there. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 10:51 Mayka, In this case, I think the Buddhist concept is reasonable. The degree of the sin on killing depends on the degree of development of the life that is killed. If one kills an arahant, his sin is much more serious than killing an ant. On the matter of suffering, if we can quantify it, it would be a good idea. For instance, we can put weights on different life forms, the more developed they are, the higher weights they get. Then you get a high mark, if you only kill, maybe unintentionally some cockroaches, but not a single monkey. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 8:53 AM Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering from other forms of life. In whatever way one may understands this will act consecuently. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 23:00 Mayka, Vegetarianism is a good thing, for health reasons and others. But living in this 'evil' world involves killing one way or the other. Killing bacteria, to begin with, then plants, and further small living beings unwittingly, for example, ants and cockroaches. For thousands of years, that is the contention between the Jains and Buddhists. The former is always on the alert not to kill anything unintentionally. So he uses a broom while he walks to drive away any small insects in the way in front. But the Buddhist is more pragmatic to allow killing insects for the purpose of cleaning a pond. By the way, the Jains survive up to now, impressing the world by beautiful temples donated by merchants who make their money in an honest way. You finds some Jains even in the UK. Thus have I heard. Anthony --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 2:37 PM Anthony; I take your remark as an affectionate opinion you have about Bill. Our Bill is unique in his multiple skillful ways of presenting zen even when he's not a vegetarian. Don't you think?. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:40 Mayka, You can see from your experiences that how magnanimous and liberal our Bill roshi is on this site. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 8:20 AM Bill: I'd like partially disagree with your statement about that there is no preaching in zen. Perhaps in real zen you're right there is no preaching but in the zen found in the Internet groups where a Teacher or Roshi is present there, Not only there is preaching but also there is an enormous repression imposed over its members. It's a zen borne in the USA and it's perverse, fanatic, psychological violent to its members. In this respect I'm very lucky and websites of that kind they usually put me soon into moderation. And at those moments I know that I'm in a faking pretentious zen group. This was the case in the Zen Living Group yesterday in which I've been put into moderation for no real serious transgression done but just giving responses to mails received. And I've been put into moderation without been warned, told and neither the participants of the group have been inform about it. And someone who came out asking to be deleted from the group after reading the response from the Roshi to me. He was insulted with nasty language by one of the fanatic Roshi followers.Not that I care much as I don't usually am an active participant over that group. Saying this only to illustrate that preaching, perversion, agresion, represion, imposition of views and ideas do exist in American zen. Mayka --- On Mon, 25/7/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 25 July, 2011, 2:34 May
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony: When we are unaware of what we are eating then we get into the mecanics of forgetfulness and live in forgetfulness. Like in a night dream in which during the dream we are unware of having a dream and we exchange the dream for the reality. Only when we awake from the dream we are aware of having had a dream. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 14:22 Mayka, When you are aware of eating meat for whatever reasons, where is the difference from you being unaware or not wanting to know that you are eating meat? Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 7:24 PM Anthony: That sounds to me a faulty concept as it leads one to think in terms of discrimination such as small/big and so on. While practising mindfulness of eating or pre-preparation of eating, there are not small or big living beings but just different forms of life present there that ones try to preserve. But when preservation is not possible due to our own survival and health, then the practicioner can only be aware of what is there and what one is doing with what is there. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 10:51 Mayka, In this case, I think the Buddhist concept is reasonable. The degree of the sin on killing depends on the degree of development of the life that is killed. If one kills an arahant, his sin is much more serious than killing an ant. On the matter of suffering, if we can quantify it, it would be a good idea. For instance, we can put weights on different life forms, the more developed they are, the higher weights they get. Then you get a high mark, if you only kill, maybe unintentionally some cockroaches, but not a single monkey. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 8:53 AM Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering from other forms of life. In whatever way one may understands this will act consecuently. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 23:00 Mayka, Vegetarianism is a good thing, for health reasons and others. But living in this 'evil' world involves killing one way or the other. Killing bacteria, to begin with, then plants, and further small living beings unwittingly, for example, ants and cockroaches. For thousands of years, that is the contention between the Jains and Buddhists. The former is always on the alert not to kill anything unintentionally. So he uses a broom while he walks to drive away any small insects in the way in front. But the Buddhist is more pragmatic to allow killing insects for the purpose of cleaning a pond. By the way, the Jains survive up to now, impressing the world by beautiful temples donated by merchants who make their money in an honest way. You finds some Jains even in the UK. Thus have I heard. Anthony --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 2:37 PM Anthony; I take your remark as an affectionate opinion you have about Bill. Our Bill is unique in his multiple skillful ways of presenting zen even when he's not a vegetarian. Don't you think?. Mayka --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 22:40 Mayka, You can see from your experiences that how magnanimous and liberal our Bill roshi is on this site. Anthony --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011, 8:20 AM Bill: I'd like partially disagree with your statement about that there is no preaching in zen. Perhaps in real zen you're right there is no preaching but in the zen found in the Internet groups where a Teacher or Roshi is present there, Not only there is preaching but also there is an enormous repression imposed over its members. It's a zen borne in the USA and it's perverse, fanatic, psychological violent to its members. In this respect I'm very lucky and websites of that kind they usually put me soon into moderation. And at those moments I know that I'm in a faking pretentious zen group. This was the case in the Zen Living Group yester
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony wrote: "we eat what the cook prepares." For as long as the Cook does a healthy eating based of not cruelty, I'll be eating whatever the cook cooks. However, we have a choice so we choose the Cook too!. But if we didn't have a choice and such is the case in some very poor Countries then we would have no more choice than to eat whatever there would be available for our life survival. Wild animals from the jungle are very good teachers in this respect. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 22:34 Mayka, I cannot agree less with you. As you say, we should live from moment to moment at present, including when we are eating. As regards what we should eat, it is a different question. In this case, I would agree with Bill that we eat what the cook prepares, except that he should not propose to kill a chicken just to entertain me. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 11:17 PM Anthony: When we are unaware of what we are eating then we get into the mecanics of forgetfulness and live in forgetfulness. Like in a night dream in which during the dream we are unware of having a dream and we exchange the dream for the reality. Only when we awake from the dream we are aware of having had a dream. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 14:22 Mayka, When you are aware of eating meat for whatever reasons, where is the difference from you being unaware or not wanting to know that you are eating meat? Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 7:24 PM Anthony: That sounds to me a faulty concept as it leads one to think in terms of discrimination such as small/big and so on. While practising mindfulness of eating or pre-preparation of eating, there are not small or big living beings but just different forms of life present there that ones try to preserve. But when preservation is not possible due to our own survival and health, then the practicioner can only be aware of what is there and what one is doing with what is there. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 10:51 Mayka, In this case, I think the Buddhist concept is reasonable. The degree of the sin on killing depends on the degree of development of the life that is killed. If one kills an arahant, his sin is much more serious than killing an ant. On the matter of suffering, if we can quantify it, it would be a good idea. For instance, we can put weights on different life forms, the more developed they are, the higher weights they get. Then you get a high mark, if you only kill, maybe unintentionally some cockroaches, but not a single monkey. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 8:53 AM Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering from other forms of life. In whatever way one may understands this will act consecuently. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 23:00 Mayka, Vegetarianism is a good thing, for health reasons and others. But living in this 'evil' world involves killing one way or the other. Killing bacteria, to begin with, then plants, and further small living beings unwittingly, for example, ants and cockroaches. For thousands of years, that is the contention between the Jains and Buddhists. The former is always on the alert not to kill anything unintentionally. So he uses a broom while he walks to drive away any small insects in the way in front. But the Buddhist is more pragmatic to allow killing insects for the purpose of cleaning a pond. By the way, the Jains survive up to now, impressing the world by beautiful temples donated by merchants who make their money in an honest way. You finds some Jains even in the UK. Thus have I heard. Anthony --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 2:37 PM Anthony; I take your remark as an affectionate opinion you have about Bill. Our Bill is u
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Anthony:; Why...What for?...It seems as if we went out of context.. Mayka --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 29 July, 2011, 14:08 Mayka, Right, we have a choice to select a cook. However, if we have no choice on that, we always have a choice on hunger strike. Anthony --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 29 July, 2011, 6:09 PM Anthony wrote: "we eat what the cook prepares." For as long as the Cook does a healthy eating based of not cruelty, I'll be eating whatever the cook cooks. However, we have a choice so we choose the Cook too!. But if we didn't have a choice and such is the case in some very poor Countries then we would have no more choice than to eat whatever there would be available for our life survival. Wild animals from the jungle are very good teachers in this respect. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 22:34 Mayka, I cannot agree less with you. As you say, we should live from moment to moment at present, including when we are eating. As regards what we should eat, it is a different question. In this case, I would agree with Bill that we eat what the cook prepares, except that he should not propose to kill a chicken just to entertain me. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 11:17 PM Anthony: When we are unaware of what we are eating then we get into the mecanics of forgetfulness and live in forgetfulness. Like in a night dream in which during the dream we are unware of having a dream and we exchange the dream for the reality. Only when we awake from the dream we are aware of having had a dream. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 14:22 Mayka, When you are aware of eating meat for whatever reasons, where is the difference from you being unaware or not wanting to know that you are eating meat? Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 7:24 PM Anthony: That sounds to me a faulty concept as it leads one to think in terms of discrimination such as small/big and so on. While practising mindfulness of eating or pre-preparation of eating, there are not small or big living beings but just different forms of life present there that ones try to preserve. But when preservation is not possible due to our own survival and health, then the practicioner can only be aware of what is there and what one is doing with what is there. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 10:51 Mayka, In this case, I think the Buddhist concept is reasonable. The degree of the sin on killing depends on the degree of development of the life that is killed. If one kills an arahant, his sin is much more serious than killing an ant. On the matter of suffering, if we can quantify it, it would be a good idea. For instance, we can put weights on different life forms, the more developed they are, the higher weights they get. Then you get a high mark, if you only kill, maybe unintentionally some cockroaches, but not a single monkey. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 8:53 AM Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering from other forms of life. In whatever way one may understands this will act consecuently. Mayka --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 23:00 Mayka, Vegetarianism is a good thing, for health reasons and others. But living in this 'evil' world involves killing one way or the other. Killing bacteria, to begin with, then plants, and further small living beings unwittingly, for example, ants and cockroaches. For thousands of years, that is the contention between the Jains and Buddhists. The former is always on the alert not to kill anything unintentionally. So he uses a broom while he walks to drive away any small insects in the way in front. But the
Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements?
Ok Anthony; Mind that some of my responses here are a memory experience of awareness and not real awareness of eating at the present moment posting was sent. Eating also involves mental food, images, conversations, images, movies.etc, etc. Thought important to point it out this so that you know where to stand. Mayka --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 29 July, 2011, 22:47 Mayka, I don't propose you go on hunger strike, neither do I do it. We are in agreement for the rest. Anthony --- On Sat, 30/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 30 July, 2011, 2:47 AM Anthony:; Why...What for?...It seems as if we went out of context.. Mayka --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 29 July, 2011, 14:08 Mayka, Right, we have a choice to select a cook. However, if we have no choice on that, we always have a choice on hunger strike. Anthony --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 29 July, 2011, 6:09 PM Anthony wrote: "we eat what the cook prepares." For as long as the Cook does a healthy eating based of not cruelty, I'll be eating whatever the cook cooks. However, we have a choice so we choose the Cook too!. But if we didn't have a choice and such is the case in some very poor Countries then we would have no more choice than to eat whatever there would be available for our life survival. Wild animals from the jungle are very good teachers in this respect. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 22:34 Mayka, I cannot agree less with you. As you say, we should live from moment to moment at present, including when we are eating. As regards what we should eat, it is a different question. In this case, I would agree with Bill that we eat what the cook prepares, except that he should not propose to kill a chicken just to entertain me. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 11:17 PM Anthony: When we are unaware of what we are eating then we get into the mecanics of forgetfulness and live in forgetfulness. Like in a night dream in which during the dream we are unware of having a dream and we exchange the dream for the reality. Only when we awake from the dream we are aware of having had a dream. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 14:22 Mayka, When you are aware of eating meat for whatever reasons, where is the difference from you being unaware or not wanting to know that you are eating meat? Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 7:24 PM Anthony: That sounds to me a faulty concept as it leads one to think in terms of discrimination such as small/big and so on. While practising mindfulness of eating or pre-preparation of eating, there are not small or big living beings but just different forms of life present there that ones try to preserve. But when preservation is not possible due to our own survival and health, then the practicioner can only be aware of what is there and what one is doing with what is there. Mayka --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 10:51 Mayka, In this case, I think the Buddhist concept is reasonable. The degree of the sin on killing depends on the degree of development of the life that is killed. If one kills an arahant, his sin is much more serious than killing an ant. On the matter of suffering, if we can quantify it, it would be a good idea. For instance, we can put weights on different life forms, the more developed they are, the higher weights they get. Then you get a high mark, if you only kill, maybe unintentionally some cockroaches, but not a single monkey. Anthony --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen elements? To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 8:53 AM Anthony; It's about reducing as much suffering
Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable
Following this thread so far I'd like to say that Bill first post made an interesting insightful observation. As a contrarst of statement would like to share that , my, resting in peace, father left the resident town he was living in Spain and went to the mountain on his own after years of experiencing how polluted to the spirit was to live amongst human beings. He was not a buddhist, christian and had not much empathy for any religious people. Yet he reached to similar conclusions as the elders in the movie as far as the heart concerns. Mayka --- On Tue, 2/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 2 August, 2011, 3:00 Zendervish, Persuasive speech which appeals to emotion is called 'rhetoric'. I don't think my response below was so much rhetorical as sarcastic. However you want to classify it I was using my speech (writing in this case) to point out the fundamental error in the message of this Zen Fable (which I didn't find so much to be a ZEN fable as a BUDDHIST fable). Zen teaching does not suggest you have to remove and isolate yourself from the world. Maybe Buddhism does. Zen practice gives you the ability to integrate yourself seamlessly INTO the world so there is no separation. No world, no you, Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: > > Dear Bill > > The display of sympathy is an interesting human emotion, also apparently a > slippery slope when used to make a point through your own agenda. > > best wishes > > zendervish > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Poor Haejin has been mislead by his elders. He's been told that the 'world' > > is something different and apart from him, that he was once part of it but > > now is spearate. Just has he has been told his tooth, once pulled from his > > mouth, is now something apart and separate. > > > > Perhaps one day Haejin will be able to travel down the mountain and > > discover that the 'world' down there is not different than the 'world' up > > where he now lives. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVL2M_G6lm4 > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable
...The difference between the elders in the movie and my father is that he didn't have the complex of superiority the elders show in the movie with the ones who live in the world. He didn't have any religious brain wash either. His conclusion was entirely personal to him after having experienced what it meant to live in societies lead and dominated by by ignorance. The man found a feedback to his way of sense life in nature and leading a very simple life. Mayka --- On Tue, 2/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 2 August, 2011, 12:58 Following this thread so far I'd like to say that Bill first post made an interesting insightful observation. As a contrarst of statement would like to share that , my, resting in peace, father left the resident town he was living in Spain and went to the mountain on his own after years of experiencing how polluted to the spirit was to live amongst human beings. He was not a buddhist, christian and had not much empathy for any religious people. Yet he reached to similar conclusions as the elders in the movie as far as the heart concerns. Mayka --- On Tue, 2/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 2 August, 2011, 3:00 Zendervish, Persuasive speech which appeals to emotion is called 'rhetoric'. I don't think my response below was so much rhetorical as sarcastic. However you want to classify it I was using my speech (writing in this case) to point out the fundamental error in the message of this Zen Fable (which I didn't find so much to be a ZEN fable as a BUDDHIST fable). Zen teaching does not suggest you have to remove and isolate yourself from the world. Maybe Buddhism does. Zen practice gives you the ability to integrate yourself seamlessly INTO the world so there is no separation. No world, no you, Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: > > Dear Bill > > The display of sympathy is an interesting human emotion, also apparently a > slippery slope when used to make a point through your own agenda. > > best wishes > > zendervish > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Poor Haejin has been mislead by his elders. He's been told that the 'world' > > is something different and apart from him, that he was once part of it but > > now is spearate. Just has he has been told his tooth, once pulled from his > > mouth, is now something apart and separate. > > > > Perhaps one day Haejin will be able to travel down the mountain and > > discover that the 'world' down there is not different than the 'world' up > > where he now lives. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVL2M_G6lm4 > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] zen fable
Hi Kirk: Thank you for the video movie. Is not one of the elder the same actor who also play the role of a Teacher in the movie "The Four Seasons"? I always enjoy this type of exotic movies as they're very relaxing to the spirit. There is this other complete movie that I discovered by a chance in the you tube website yesterday and made a playlist with it. This movie is a base real story about a child who found himself with many more children in the war of Salvador. All war sides push these children to be recluted by force and kill people but the children don't want to do that. They're very afraid and don't understand the grown ups ways of violence and killing. They just want to play and enjoy life. It's an amazing movie seeing under the eyes of these children. It contains an enourmous teachings under many aspects. I have inserted this movie in my FB, and would you believe that any of the people who keep talking about the buddha dharma, zen haven't even give a tick of like to such a really good movie as this one?. Reality is out of fashion. No doubt about it. Have you all a look into it and tell me what do you think. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL84301A44AC04F181 Mayka --- On Sun, 31/7/11, salik888 wrote: From: salik888 Subject: [Zen] zen fable To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 31 July, 2011, 22:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVL2M_G6lm4
Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable
;>>> best wishes >>>> >>>> zendervish >>>> >>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Kirk, >>>>> >>>>> I assume from your post below that Zen Fable is a movie - a longer work. >>>>> You did not indicate that when you first posted, in fact you didn't >>>>> indicate anything - just posted the link to the video on YouTube. >>>>> >>>>> If you'd have said something like 'Here's an interesting scene from a >>>>> movie called Zen Fable I enjoyed' it would have helped. >>>>> >>>>> Then you wouldn't have had me spinning around (no pun intended) trying to >>>>> relate to it...Bill! >>>>> >>>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Bill and ZenHeads >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you have effectively made the point, or a point, which may or >>>>>> may not be relevant. However, since you have not seen the movie, as John >>>>>> Lennon said, "now we have all this." >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion would be, as it was meant from the beginning, see the >>>>>> movie. You might, if you are open to "mystery" and "inquiry" and not too >>>>>> filled up with these preconcieved perceptions, find something that moves >>>>>> you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Approach it with a little zen, no pun intended. >>>>>> >>>>>> zendervish >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mayka and ZenDervish, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mayka's last two posts and then Anthony's post listing DT Sukuki's take >>>>>>> on differing types of zen got me thinking a little more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Back to the so-called Zen Fable video and parallels to Mayka's account >>>>>>> of her father's experience... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My criticism of the two adult teachers, one appeared to be junior and >>>>>>> one senior, was that although the act of withdrawing from and isolating >>>>>>> yourself from the world (which is used in the video as a metaphor for >>>>>>> withdrawing from and isolating your self from attachments)can indeed be >>>>>>> an important and very useful stage of zen practice, it is not intended >>>>>>> to be a place where you stop to dwell. It is a place of refuge where >>>>>>> you can build up your practice to a point where you can fully integrate >>>>>>> it in your everyday life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the video the small monestary on the top of the mountain which is far >>>>>>> removed from the 'world' below is even analagous to meditation - zazen. >>>>>>> Zazen is a place you can go to find refuge from the turmoil of everyday >>>>>>> life, a place of quiet where you can more easily let go of your >>>>>>> attachments - especially the attachment to self - and discover/uncover >>>>>>> Buddha Nature. But again, it is not intended that you sit zazen the >>>>>>> rest of your life. You need to bring the practice of zazen and >>>>>>> realization of Buddha Nature up off of the cushion and into your >>>>>>> everyday life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is well-represented in the teaching tool called The Ten Ox-Herding >>>>>>> Pictures. A version of them can be found at >>>>>>> http://www.jaysquare.com/ljohnson/ox-herding.html >>>>>>> <http://www.jaysquare.com/ljohnson/ox-herding.html> . They represent >>>>>>> the artist's experience of the path from interest in zen to a fully >>>>>>> mature practice. At some point in these pictures depending on your >>>>>>> point-of-view lies the point where the teachers in the 'Zen Fable' video
Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable
Mike: One of the two or You missed the point or I failed to explain myself properly which often happens to me in Internet medium communication. Clarifying: It's not about one being acknowledge as "I" or not but to acknowledge something of interest such as a theme, a post That's all. Mayka Getting piss with the beer?haha...!!! --- On Wed, 10/8/11, mike brown wrote: From: mike brown Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2011, 14:44 Mayka, Why is it important for you to be acknowledged? I remember my old zendo used to be open early on Sunday mornings, and if people came.. great. If people didn't come.. that was also great. Noone took either outcome personally. Mike ps if you don't reply I'll be really pissed. From: Maria Lopez To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2011, 19:32 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable Chris: I feel in the same way as you here. There wasn't any reply of the movie "Innocent Voices" I inserted. Not even a simple:"Thank you" from anyone. And yet it is a very good movie to be discuss and that one is reality and not exotic fantasies. There has been other times in which I have inserted other themes too and hardly ever they developed or perhaps they never even got acknowledged. We keep in the continuous wave of philosophy. I suppose it's much easier to talk about philosophy rather than getting wet while talking about ourselves. And as far as I concern with yours posting, I do like most of them and read them with attention. I don't often reply you back because sometimes I wouldn't know what to say. I could only give you a FB tic for it. But some of your posting is very good and insightful. Mayka --- On Wed, 10/8/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2011, 2:34 I find waiting a bit and then writing a reply much more satisfying as a writer, but it is a practice which seems at odds with the nature of this forum. I almost never get meaningful replies to my more fully developed writing but often when I fire off a missive immediately. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Aug 9, 2011, at 2:44, "Bill!" wrote: > ZenDervish, > > You're right of course, but I don't know how that would work exactly in a > forum like this. The purpose of the forum (IMO) is to exchange ideas. I could > certainly wait and think about a response for a while I guess, but I try to > treat each post that interests me as a real-time conversation so I usually > respond immediately upon reading it. > > Also I think responding with 'Is that so?' to everything would result in a > pretty small forum. > > I'm willing to respond immediately and face the consequences if I've pulled > the trigger prematurely. > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "salik888" wrote: >> >> Dear Bill >> >> No problem with the sarcasm, not at all, you don't have to refrain from any >> response. I am not offended. But I wanted to shed a little light on >> "speaking too soon, " which I sense that everyone on these lists could >> investigate. You may be right, or wrong, but it seems to me a "rush to >> judgement." You know the assumption thing. But I do it all the time, so no >> big deal, but well, other than wall sitting, there are some things to >> consider, in terms of our goal-less goal. >> >> zendervish >> >> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: >>> >>> Zendervish, >>> >>> I thought we were doing all this together - in a forum. >>> >>> From my perspective you posted something and I responded with my views on >>> it. I'm completely open to your views or even a rebuttle, in fact I welcome >>> it. >>> >>> Was the fact that I used sarcasm in my reply the problem here? If so I can >>> refrain from that when reponding to you. I did so because I like sarcasm. >>> It is used a lot in zen - for example one zen master calling another zen >>> master a 'doting old grandmother' because he tried to explain things to his >>> students. Or even the well-known phrase 'Kill the Buddha'. These types of >>> responses, in my opinion, serves both to carry a message, but also to 'wake >>> up' the other person by presenting him with an unexpected response, or a >>> response encapsul
Re: [Zen] Re: zen fable
ED; Did you watched the movie yourself?. By the way, It wasn't a clip but a whole movie collected in a playlist. Mayka --- On Wed, 10/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: [Zen] Re: zen fable To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2011, 15:38 Mayka, Perhaps they did not even view the youtube clip you posted. --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > Chris: I feel in the same way as you here. There wasn't any reply of the movie "Innocent Voices" I inserted. Not even a simple:"Thank you" from anyone. And yet it is a very good movie to be discuss and that one is reality and not exotic fantasies. There has been other times in which I have inserted other themes too and hardly ever they developed or perhaps they never even got acknowledged. We keep in the continuous wave of philosophy. I suppose it's much easier to talk about philosophy rather than getting wet while talking about ourselves. And as far as I concern with yours posting, I do like most of them and read them with attention. I don't often reply you back because sometimes I wouldn't know what to say. I could only give you a FB tic for it. But some of your posting is very good and insightful. Mayka
Re: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret
Hi JMJM; Missed out this posting. What is your own comment about it?. Mayka --- On Tue, 9/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 9 August, 2011, 18:42 This youtube is really rare. What is your comment? :-) jm Original Message http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liFXQEEc5_s
Re: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret
The most plain heart on Earth The driest heart, It showed me its tenderness. And I had shame of mine. I was afraid of the long hymns, of the spilled constellations of the bridal sparkling gestures, of the rossettes of love. of the dawn overthrowed And I was afraid. Fear of words that do not sing, Fear of the images left over when so much being is missed. The most plain heart on earth It made me learnt to jump into the Chaos with only one glance. Roberto Juarroz --- On Sat, 13/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret To: "Maria Lopez" Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2011, 16:22 Thank you, Maria. It is beautiful. I felt the rhythm. Heart is the pulse of the universe. It enables all lives. Heart is the pulse of our lives. It connects us to the truth. It is the heart that matters. jm Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 8/12/2011 8:18 PM, Maria Lopez wrote: Hi JMJM; I've translated this poem for you. It's the Roberto Juarroz.. It's difficult to translate poetry from one language to other. So apologies if during translation I may have lost the strenght of it. There are hearts without an owner that had never had the opportunity Of being governed like an almost atrocious pendulum The labourious spam of the flesh There are replacement hearts waiting wisely or who knows what mandate the moment to assume its madness There are hearts surplus that hang like fists smuggling of contraband from the permanent anomaly of being a heart And there is also a lost heart, a bell of silence, that nobody nevertheless has found between all the lost things on earth. But all hearts are a witness and a sure test of that the life is an inadequate scale to plan the map of the life. Mayka --- On Thu, 11/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Cc: "Maria Lopez" Date: Thursday, 11 August, 2011, 17:22 Hello Mayka, How is everything with you? I am swamped lately. Unable to find time to share on the forum. In our school, we are trained to ignore the form and sync with the heart. Therefore, all the "facts" or "descriptions of events" of her talk is not important to me. Yet I did feel the energy of her heart and I teared. JM Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 8/11/2011 3:47 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: Hi JMJM; Missed out this posting. What is your own comment about it?. Mayka --- On Tue, 9/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Fwd: A secret To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 9 August, 2011, 18:42 This youtube is really rare. What is your comment? :-) jm Original Message http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liFXQEEc5_s
Re: [Zen] Re: why I'm here
Hi Pandabanasock:
When I was studying English in England the biggest frustation was that in
English one has to write over and over the pronoum "I" while not in Spanish.
We were told to built up sort sentences with the pronoum. So if you see many
of my posting with the pronoum "I" blame the Cambridge University Teachers for
that. And don't worry about the posting because everybody posts whatever feel
like it to post. And if not ask ED.
Mayka
--- On Tue, 16/8/11, pandabananasock wrote:
From: pandabananasock
Subject: [Zen] Re: why I'm here
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 16 August, 2011, 4:20
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Mel wrote:
>
> That's what I like about Zen, but you still haven't taught anything here.
> However, I'll view some more of your postings. The Zen Buddhist monks I've
> come across face-to-face tend to be quite direct and straightforward, but
> without any grandstanding or making spectacles of themselves. Take care that
> you don't put too much of the attention on your dualistic self. Bow with the
> Buddha, be Buddha
> Â
> in Buddha's grace
> Mel
> That's what I like about Zen, but you still haven't taught anything here.
> However, I'll view some more of your postings. The Zen Buddhist monks I've
> come across face-to-face tend to be quite direct and straightforward, but
> without any grandstanding or making spectacles of themselves. Take care that
> you don't put too much of the attention on your dualistic self. Bow with the
> Buddha, be Buddha
> Â
> in Buddha's grace
> Mel
I'm not trying to teach anything. I have nothing to teach, and I don't mean
that in an "enlightened" manner, I REALLY have NOTHING to teach. I will
continue posting my very small, inoffensive posts until kicked out of the
group. I will not fight being kicked out should this circumstances elicit
itself, but until such time, I will continue to post at my own volition,
regardless of the Zenometric caliber of my posts. I am not a Zen Buddhist monk.
I do not plan to be or not to become one.
I have a brain problem. I can understand what I say to others; others can not
understand what I say to them; I can not understand what others say to me;
others can understand what they say to me. This problem is exponentially worse
in the presence of white noise.
Help me out with this please:
In the presence of white noise, most notably shower static & rubber tires
against highway & air fans & running water, I hear my own thoughts out loud -
literally as if on a radio somewhere in the room.
I have practiced meditation to the point that I could almost hear the shape of
the ventilation when then fan turned on in the middle of sitting. I really
could tell the difference between different ventilation shapes depending on the
building in which I was at the time. Many, many, many doctors have said I am
schizophrenic, and deteriorating over time, and that this is what I was
hearing.
I say "humbug". I have been hearing voices all my life. They never tell me to
do things, only whisper my name or I hear my own thoughts out loud. I know what
I know, and what some others know but express differently. You want a
behind-the-scenes look? Here's a bit as far as I know. There IS a context to
express which is the macro-analogous universal standard. There ARE objective
reference points which CAN be determined by the subjective cross-reference of
the senses & thought combined. Just as there would be no horizon without the
concurrence of the sky and the ground/sea, so would there be no Zen (and there
is no Zen, just as there is no actual horizon to which one could travel and
plant a flag {[(FLAG)]}.
So maybe my brain is fucked up and that's why I can't do anything superficial
IOR practical IOR experimentally relevant to a satisfactory degree of
performance. The skill I've cultivated to a greater degree than even music is
staying out of the hospital. Going into a mental hospital is just boot camp.
They basically teach you what to say and do to get out.
So I love you all, and kiss my ass; you're starving: I'm only giving you my
shit to pick corn seeds from.
By the way, not being ready to die is not a reason to die LATER. The less ready
one is to die, the sooner t'would be better for one to do so.
Sincerely,
helpy helpy helpy helpywhatthefuck and I know what I say, and I'm always gonna
say it,
pandanaspschizosock
PS ((did you notice how many times "I" said "I" in this post... and you're
still reading this?! "I" woulda said "fuck that!"))
[Zen] Questions To All List
The questions below have arising in me. I should be grateful for any of you honest feedback based in personal experience with zen. 1 - Does zen looks for the causes of suffering as Buddhism does?. 2- If one has noticed of having expectations, does one has to look deeply and search where that or those expectations were originated, come from, its roots...as Buddhism does?. 3 - Explain different ways of expressing anger out without having the negative consequences of doing so. Mayka
Re: [Zen] Form vs Formless Practice
Edgar: What do you observe and What do you observe with?. ... That is the illusion!. But not:: Mu, where is the mind when there is no mind to observe?. When the experience occurs in the present moment there is no time left for an observation as one has to choose at those moments of living the experience as it is as a non separation between the present moment and one, in a way that one is the present moment itself or to use the mind for its observations. It's in the use of the mind activity that illusion occurs but not in the experience free from mind which is expressed with the koan "Mu". Not sure if this is explaining well. Mayka --- On Thu, 18/8/11, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Form vs Formless Practice To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, seeking-the-tr...@yahoogroups.com, futurolog...@yahoogroups.com, evolutionary-psychol...@yahoogroups.com, spacetimeandconsciousn...@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 18 August, 2011, 13:46 The problem with the Diamond Sutra's 'everything is as it is' is realizing what is actually is. Things are NOT as they appear to be because reality is always filtered through human nature to the human observer. It takes a deep understanding to see through this illusion. Though much of this illusion can be seen through, much simply cannot be. Of that part we simply have to realize that that illusion seen as illusion is reality. Illusion is how things are. Everything is as it is is illusion. Illusion is the fundamental nature of reality. Because every living being always has to experience reality through its own nature as observer, the reality of every living being is always illusion. The illusion of the world seen by particular observers is reality. The best we can do is to actually realize and experience the illusion of reality as illusion and the reality of illusion as reality directly. Anything else is just fooling ourselves. Edgar On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: Dear All, Diamond Sutra continues to remind us that everything is as is, no matter how we label, analyze, describe, tear it apart, or look under a microscope. It was trying to tell us that This is the practice in form. This practice is connected with our five senses and consciousness, or the seven consciousness. No matter how we practice in form, we will never surpass the influence of the eighth consciousness, which is our subconsciousness, or what we called karma in Buddhism. Many of us may recall, the intuitive notions arising from within, usually are wrestled with our logical mind, self doubt, insecurity, emotions, past experiences, etc. etc. When we are under the gun, we usually resort our decision to our habitual ones. More often than not we regret that we are victimized by ourselves again. Often these notion wrestling occurs within a short instance, and usually in that split second, our lives are changed forever. This is the power of karmic influence. In other words, relying on all seven consciousness is fine as long as we have no life changing decision to make. The important practice is the practice in the formless, or the practice of "no mind", no knowledge, no experience, no all seven consciousness, or no form. Or you may call this practice the practice of pure spirit, pure heart, pure energy. Only through this formless practice can we eliminate the karma in our eighth consciousness. Then you may ask, "how do we function with no mind after we get up from the cushion." Yes, critically important question. The anwser lies in "the synchronization with the wisdom of the universe at that moment". Everything is manifested by the universe, all we have to do is to "ask" it. It will tell us. But then how to "ask"? Develop enough Qi then synchronize our Qi with that of the universe. Is there another way? For many years, I have stressed the importance of a "right practice". Only through the right cultivation of our internal Qi, can we surpass our physical hindrance, than our mental hindrance, then our inner spirit can shine through. Chan practice is a complete practice integrating our body, mind and spirit. And only through our heart can we integrate all three. After all, two out of the three, our spirit and our physical connection, are in our heart. How do you feel love or joy or energy? Otherwise, we just continue to live within our mind without awakening. In other words, as soon as we started to think, we fall back into our own dream constructed by ourselves. There are not much time left. JMJM Head Instructor Order Of Chan -- Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org
Re: [Zen] Form vs Formless Practice
Edgar: In a direct experience with reality nothing gets attained, released, gained, lost, transformed... There is a very , very fine line between the illusion and reality happening all at once in the present moment. When one manages to get into that very fine line between them both all mental activity stops and one experience being the present moment itself. All sensors are still very intact and active there too, the mind is also still there, the whole body is there too as part of the same body of the present moment. Mind that my experience here is still rather limited and this description could well change. Enjoyed reading your posting as you made very good observations though. Mayka --- On Thu, 18/8/11, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Form vs Formless Practice To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, seeking-the-tr...@yahoogroups.com, futurolog...@yahoogroups.com, spacetimeandconsciousn...@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 18 August, 2011, 16:15 Hi Mayka, I understand your meaning fine and agree with it as far as it goes and it is the proper way to release some of the illusions specifically the illusion of thoughts. But there is a deeper level of illusion that cannot be released just by releasing thoughts. Because even after we release all thoughts and stop experiencing the world through our thoughts we are still seeing the world through human eyes, and experiencing it through human senses. It is only through our human senses that we can experience reality. But we know that our human senses lie to us and that other species which have different sensory organs experience reality much differently. So which is the true reality? What is the true nature of reality beyond the illusion of our human sensory organs? The truth is that the true reality cannot be experienced at all except in terms of some observer's sense organs. That means that everything without exception that is or can be experienced is illusion. That is why I say that illusion is the only reality and the true reality, but only when we fully understand that it is not the reality we think it is but the illusion it actually is do we attain realization. Only when this becomes immediately clear and present do we truly see into the true nature of things and experience reality directly as it is. Edgar On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: Edgar: What do you observe and What do you observe with?. ... That is the illusion!. But not:: Mu, where is the mind when there is no mind to observe?. When the experience occurs in the present moment there is no time left for an observation as one has to choose at those moments of living the experience as it is as a non separation between the present moment and one, in a way that one is the present moment itself or to use the mind for its observations. It's in the use of the mind activity that illusion occurs but not in the experience free from mind which is expressed with the koan "Mu". Not sure if this is explaining well. Mayka --- On Thu, 18/8/11, Edgar Owen wrote: From: Edgar Owen Subject: Re: [Zen] Form vs Formless Practice To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, seeking-the-tr...@yahoogroups.com, futurolog...@yahoogroups.com, evolutionary-psychol...@yahoogroups.com, spacetimeandconsciousn...@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 18 August, 2011, 13:46 The problem with the Diamond Sutra's 'everything is as it is' is realizing what is actually is. Things are NOT as they appear to be because reality is always filtered through human nature to the human observer. It takes a deep understanding to see through this illusion. Though much of this illusion can be seen through, much simply cannot be. Of that part we simply have to realize that that illusion seen as illusion is reality. Illusion is how things are. Everything is as it is is illusion. Illusion is the fundamental nature of reality. Because every living being always has to experience reality through its own nature as observer, the reality of every living being is always illusion. The illusion of the world seen by particular observers is reality. The best we can do is to actually realize and experience the illusion of reality as illusion and the reality of illusion as reality directly. Anything else is just fooling ourselves. Edgar On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: Dear All, Diamond Sutra continues to remind us that everything is as is, no matter how we label, analyze, describe, tear it apart, or look under a microscope. It was trying to tell us that This is the practice in form. This practice is connected with our five senses and consciousness, or the seven consciousness. No matter how we practice in form, we will never surpass the influence of the eighth consciousness, which is our subconsciousness, or what we called karma in Buddhism. M
Re: [Zen] Re: Questions To All List
Thank you Anthony, ED and Bill for your all posting.. I re-write parts of the conversation in order to follow better the thread of this conversation and colour over the names to facilitate the reading of dialogues. Responses from this post are written in pink. Mayka - 1 - Does zen looks for the causes of suffering as Buddhism does?. Bill - Zen is not a religion so is not specifically concerned with such things as suffering. Suffering is maya (illusion) so is swept away with all illusion when Buddha Nature is realized. Mayka - When Buddha Nature manifests itself like a night in/off bright sparkling star appearing and disappearing, a) Does it mean that in/off movement between illusion and reality that one has not realised Buddha Nature yet?. b) Does the realisation of Buddha Nature involves a permanent awakening state or it can dynamic and be covered up by in/off mist, clouds, sunshine? -- Mayka- 3 - Explain different ways of expressing anger out without having the negative consequences of doing so. Bill - You could yell 'mierda!', or hit the floor, or stamp your feet, etc... In other words you could express your anger (or happiness, or love, etc...) however you feel like expressing it. Just let the expression come naturally. As long as the expression is a true expression and done without a concept of self - that is done without it being a projection of your self . Mayka - How will I know when that expression has the concept of self or not on it?. Bill- I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'negative consequences' so I can't answer that part of the question. Mayka - A plain imaginative situation: For instance say that I say something very offencive to you out of anger and as a consequence of that you decide not to be friends with me anymore. Wouldn't matter how well I tried to explain to you afterwards that I didn't mean etc, you still refuse my explanation. So you punish me by taking away your friendship with you. --- On Fri, 19/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 19 August, 2011, 10:08 Mayka, My responses are embedded in the copy of your post below and are subject to the following disclaimer: Not Zen Advice or an Offer of Instruction This information is intended to assist those interested in zen. The information does not constitute zen advice or an offer to instruct or to provide zen services and is subject to correction, completion and amendment without notice. Any such offer, if made, will only be made by means of a confidential prospectus or offering memorandum or teacher/student agreement. It is not our intention to state, indicate or imply in any manner that current or past results are indicative of future results or expectations. As with all zen practice, there are associated risks and you could be just wasting your time. Prior to making any commitment to practice zen, a prospective practitioner should consult with its own life-style, medical, psychological and spiritual advisers to evaluate independently the risks, consequences and suitability of zen practice. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > The questions below have arising in me. I should be grateful for any of you > honest feedback based in personal experience with zen. > > 2- If one has noticed of having expectations, does one has to look deeply and > search where that or those expectations were originated, come from, its > roots...as Buddhism does?. Again, zen is not a religion so is not specifically concerned with such things as expectations. Expectations are maya (illusions) and are swept away with all illusions when Buddha Nature is realized. There is only one source of expectations (and of suffering you mention above) and that is the illusion of self. When you realize Buddha Nature the illusory concept of self will be seen for what it is - an illusion - and all attachments to it (such as expectations) will be disolved. > 3 - Explain different ways of expressing anger out without having the > negative consequences of doing so. You could yell 'mierda!', or hit the floor, or stamp your feet, etc... In other words you could express your anger (or happiness, or love, etc...) however you feel like expressing it. Just let the expression come naturally. As long as the expression is a true expression and done without a concept of self - that is done without it being a projection of your self . I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'negative consequences' so I can't answer that part of the question. Hope these help...Bill! > Mayka >
Re: [Zen] Re: Questions To All List
e end, however, and in either case your friend's descisions and responses are ultimately his/her responsibility - not yours. ...Bill! Not Zen Advice or an Offer of Instruction This information is intended to assist those interested in zen. The information does not constitute zen advice or an offer to instruct or to provide zen services and is subject to correction, completion and amendment without notice. Any such offer, if made, will only be made by means of a confidential prospectus or offering memorandum or teacher/student agreement. It is not our intention to state, indicate or imply in any manner that current or past results are indicative of future results or expectations. As with all zen practice, there are associated risks and you could be just wasting your time. Prior to making any commitment to practice zen, a prospective practitioner should consult with its own life-style, medical, psychological and spiritual advisers to evaluate independently the risks, consequences and suitability of zen practice. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Thank you Anthony, ED and Bill for your all posting.. I re-write parts of > the conversation in order to follow better the thread of this conversation > and colour over the names to facilitate the reading of dialogues. Responses > from this post are written in pink. >  > Mayka -  1 - Does zen looks for the causes of suffering as Buddhism does?. > Bill - Zen is not a religion so is not specifically concerned with such > things as suffering. Suffering is maya (illusion) so is swept away with > all illusion when Buddha Nature is realized. >  > Mayka - When Buddha Nature manifests itself like a night in/off > bright sparkling star appearing and disappearing, a) Does it mean that > in/off movement between illusion and reality that one has not realised Buddha > Nature yet?. > b) Does the realisation of Buddha Nature involves a permanent awakening > state or it can dynamic and be covered up by in/off mist, clouds, > sunshine? > -- > Mayka- 3 - Explain different ways of expressing anger out without having the > negative consequences of doing so. > Bill - You could yell 'mierda!', or hit the floor, or stamp your feet, > etc... In other words you could express your anger (or happiness, or love, > etc...)  however you feel like expressing it. Just let the expression > come naturally. As long as the expression is a true expression and done > without a concept of self - that is done without it being a projection of > your self . > Mayka - How will I know when that expression has the concept of self or > not on it?. > > Bill- I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'negative consequences' so I > can't answer that part of the question. > Mayka - A plain imaginative situation: For instance say that I say > something very offencive to you out of anger and as a consequence of that you > decide not to be friends with me anymore. Wouldn't matter how well I tried > to explain to you afterwards that I didn't mean etc, you still refuse my > explanation. So you punish me by taking away your friendship with you. >  > > > --- On Fri, 19/8/11, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: > > > From: Bill! BillSmart@... > Subject: [Zen] Re: Questions To All List > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, 19 August, 2011, 10:08 > > >  > > > > > Mayka, > My responses are embedded in the copy of your post below and are subject to > the following disclaimer: > Not Zen Advice or an Offer of Instruction > This information is intended to assist those interested in zen. The > information does not constitute zen advice or an offer to instruct or to > provide zen services and is subject to correction, completion and amendment > without notice. Any such offer, if made, will only be made by means of a > confidential prospectus or offering memorandum or teacher/student agreement. > It is not our intention to state, indicate or imply in any manner that > current or past results are indicative of future results or expectations. As > with all zen practice, there are associated risks and you could be just > wasting your time. Prior to making any commitment to practice zen, a > prospective practitioner should consult with its own life-style, medical, > psychological and spiritual advisers to evaluate independently the risks, > consequences and suitability of zen practice. > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez flordeloto@ wrote: > > > > The questions below have arising in me. I should be grateful for any of > > you honest feedback based in perso
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
ED; I don't consider the teaching of anger being amongst the best teachings from TNH. Nonetheless they do give very good tips to be taken into consideration. In Buddhism everything that is a negative emotion is treated with discrimination in a lot of more sophisticated way that would be in a western religions. For instance: anger is unwanted, compassion is a goal. All our emotions are there for a reason. They're not good or bad and it all depends of how those emotions are used. But Buddhism discriminates against anger as it's considered one of the poisons. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 12:41 Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > ED, > > Once you eat your cake, you digest it into your body parts, and will be 'one > with it'. I don't see why it is impossible. > > Anthony > Anthony, > > I think Mayka is asking: How can I eat my cake and have it too. > > --ED > > ED, > > > > I don't understand your reasoning. 'Negative consequences' of course > are in regard to the angry person. > > > > Anthony > > Negative consequences are unlikely (except to the person > himself/herself) if the other person has mastered his/her own anger. > > --ED > > Mayka, > > > > You ask: 'Explain different ways of expressing anger out without > having the negative consequences of doing so.' > > > > I think expressing anger always has negative consequences. No way to > avoid that. > > > > Anthony
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
Anthony: Nature is wise but the mind of human beings is arrogant and think that knows better than nature. We don't like the emotion anger and then we invent a number of things to rid off it. Nature also gives plants highly poison and yet the clever ones have learnt how to use that poison to create medicines, oinments with it. Couldn't be done with anger the same?. If nature has provided us with the seed of anger there must be a reason for that. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 14:01 ED, Yes, anger is something we must deal with correctly. It is one of the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. So Buddha himself thinks it is important. I agree it is rooted in the sense of self. To this effect, zen practice should be able to at least lessen it, when the sense of self is reduced. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 7:41 PM Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > ED, > > Once you eat your cake, you digest it into your body parts, and will be 'one > with it'. I don't see why it is impossible. > > Anthony > Anthony, > > I think Mayka is asking: How can I eat my cake and have it too. > > --ED > > ED, > > > > I don't understand your reasoning. 'Negative consequences' of course > are in regard to the angry person. > > > > Anthony > > Negative consequences are unlikely (except to the person > himself/herself) if the other person has mastered his/her own anger. > > --ED > > Mayka, > > > > You ask: 'Explain different ways of expressing anger out without > having the negative consequences of doing so.' > > > > I think expressing anger always has negative consequences. No way to > avoid that. > > > > Anthony
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
Anthony: I wouldn't know either how to make medicines and ointments from poison plants and yet some know how to do that. Which bad guys are you referring to in your post?. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 22:52 Mayka, Nature provides us with anger as well as compassion. Plant poison can be used for our benefit, but I don't see anger can be utilized in any good way. In Christianity, good and bad people are both created by God. How do we treat bad guys? Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 1:49 AM Anthony: Nature is wise but the mind of human beings is arrogant and think that knows better than nature. We don't like the emotion anger and then we invent a number of things to rid off it. Nature also gives plants highly poison and yet the clever ones have learnt how to use that poison to create medicines, oinments with it. Couldn't be done with anger the same?. If nature has provided us with the seed of anger there must be a reason for that. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 14:01 ED, Yes, anger is something we must deal with correctly. It is one of the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. So Buddha himself thinks it is important. I agree it is rooted in the sense of self. To this effect, zen practice should be able to at least lessen it, when the sense of self is reduced. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 7:41 PM Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > ED, > > Once you eat your cake, you digest it into your body parts, and will be 'one > with it'. I don't see why it is impossible. > > Anthony > Anthony, > > I think Mayka is asking: How can I eat my cake and have it too. > > --ED > > ED, > > > > I don't understand your reasoning. 'Negative consequences' of course > are in regard to the angry person. > > > > Anthony > > Negative consequences are unlikely (except to the person > himself/herself) if the other person has mastered his/her own anger. > > --ED > > Mayka, > > > > You ask: 'Explain different ways of expressing anger out without > having the negative consequences of doing so.' > > > > I think expressing anger always has negative consequences. No way to > avoid that. > > > > Anthony
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
JMJM; We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This is a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience turns out unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told us to give away in the first place!. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute emptiness. I shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the English I use more than likely will not match your search result online. Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not arise from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our compassion is from our mind and not from our heart. A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and result oriented, otherwise it can not balance itself. The compassion rises from our hearts are pure giving. Our heart syncs with the hearts of others, and "knowing" that we are all deluded by our mind and not "seeing" that everything is just endless illusions of cause and effect. Our hearts are one of the same. Upon this "synchronization" of hearts, our mind would quiet. We would be able to function with joy and dedication, continuously, effortlessly, naturally and instinctively, with our pure heart. Thank you for your time, JMJM Head Teacher Order of Chan -- Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
JMJM; Just giving different perspectives of the theme giving away. If the giving away is out of a notion then the giving away will be in the self. If the giving away is in the self then that given away is not a real giving away but a giving away with a purpose, the purpose of feeling good about ourselves. We think that we do that giving away for others but that is not true, we do that for the pleasure we get out through that giving away. Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 15:47 Hi Mayka, Not sure you are making a statement or a question. It is wonderful for us to give. Just initiating the notion of giving without being told is respectable. At the least, it is so written in Bibles and taught by many. If we dig deeper into this notion, there are two kinds of notions. One is produce through the reaction to all the forms of our conscious mind, the other is pure heart detached from all forms. Feeling deceived is because we still have an ego, an conscious mind. When the notions is from our heart, it is pure. Pure compassion. This is what Vilamakirti is talking about. Thank you for responding. jm Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 8/23/2011 6:23 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: JMJM; We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This is a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience turns out unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told us to give away in the first place!. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute emptiness. I shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the English I use more than likely will not match your search result online. Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not arise from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our compassion is from our mind and not from our heart. A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and result oriented, otherwise it can not balance itself. The compassion rises from our hearts are pure giving. Our heart syncs with the hearts of others, and "knowing" that we are all deluded by our mind and not "seeing" that everything is just endless illusions of cause and effect. Our hearts are one of the same. Upon this "synchronization" of hearts, our mind would quiet. We would be able to function with joy and dedication, continuously, effortlessly, naturally and instinctively, with our pure heart. Thank you for your time, JMJM Head Teacher Order of Chan -- Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
Hi Chris: I have some experience on that one and can tell you that the outcome is: Disappointment, most of times. What do you think? Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 17:21 If you give something away and then learn that you gave with some expectations, that is also interesting to see. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:03, Maria Lopez wrote: JMJM; Just giving different perspectives of the theme giving away. If the giving away is out of a notion then the giving away will be in the self. If the giving away is in the self then that given away is not a real giving away but a giving away with a purpose, the purpose of feeling good about ourselves. We think that we do that giving away for others but that is not true, we do that for the pleasure we get out through that giving away. Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 15:47 Hi Mayka, Not sure you are making a statement or a question. It is wonderful for us to give. Just initiating the notion of giving without being told is respectable. At the least, it is so written in Bibles and taught by many. If we dig deeper into this notion, there are two kinds of notions. One is produce through the reaction to all the forms of our conscious mind, the other is pure heart detached from all forms. Feeling deceived is because we still have an ego, an conscious mind. When the notions is from our heart, it is pure. Pure compassion. This is what Vilamakirti is talking about. Thank you for responding. jm Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 8/23/2011 6:23 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: JMJM; We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This is a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience turns out unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told us to give away in the first place!. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute emptiness. I shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the English I use more than likely will not match your search result online. Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not arise from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our compassion is from our mind and not from our heart. A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and result oriented, otherwise it can not balance itself. The compassion rises from our hearts are pure giving. Our heart syncs with the hearts of others, and "knowing" that we are all deluded by our mind and not "seeing" that everything is just endless illusions of cause and effect. Our hearts are one of the same. Upon this "synchronization" of hearts, our mind would quiet. We would be able to function with joy and dedication, continuously, effortlessly, naturally and instinctively, with our pure heart. Thank you for your time, JMJM Head Teacher Order of Chan -- Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
Chris: Can you see yourself at the same occurring present time of having that disappointment or afterwards when you are cool down?. Saying this because I keep reacting. It's only after having been expressed out that disappointment that I start to cool down. Not very zen, or Buddhist way. In my mind I know I should sit down but at those moments and depend upon the intensity of the rainbow emotions, I just can't. There have been times that when I have sat down at those moments emotions calm down but only in the surface and then they come out after days. Exploring expressing myself out at present to see what's happens. Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 17:35 Disappointment or a chance to see myself clearly, which I find usually ends up with a half grin at the funny nature of living as a human: all these thoughts swirling about slightly disconnected from life itself. Both cases occur for me. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:26, Maria Lopez wrote: Hi Chris: I have some experience on that one and can tell you that the outcome is: Disappointment, most of times. What do you think? Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, ChrisAustinLane wrote: From: ChrisAustinLane Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 17:21 If you give something away and then learn that you gave with some expectations, that is also interesting to see. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:03, Maria Lopez wrote: JMJM; Just giving different perspectives of the theme giving away. If the giving away is out of a notion then the giving away will be in the self. If the giving away is in the self then that given away is not a real giving away but a giving away with a purpose, the purpose of feeling good about ourselves. We think that we do that giving away for others but that is not true, we do that for the pleasure we get out through that giving away. Mayka --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 15:47 Hi Mayka, Not sure you are making a statement or a question. It is wonderful for us to give. Just initiating the notion of giving without being told is respectable. At the least, it is so written in Bibles and taught by many. If we dig deeper into this notion, there are two kinds of notions. One is produce through the reaction to all the forms of our conscious mind, the other is pure heart detached from all forms. Feeling deceived is because we still have an ego, an conscious mind. When the notions is from our heart, it is pure. Pure compassion. This is what Vilamakirti is talking about. Thank you for responding. jm Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org On 8/23/2011 6:23 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: JMJM; We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This is a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience turns out unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told us to give away in the first place!. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute emptiness. I shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the English I use more than likely will not match your search result online. Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not arise from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our compassion is from our mind and not from our heart. A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and result oriented, otherwise it can not balance itself. The compassion rises from our hearts are pure giving. Our heart syncs with the hearts of others, and "knowing" that we are all deluded by our mind and not "seeing" that everything is just endless illusio
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
Perhaps the roots of their doings could be found in their childhood. --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 22:51 Mayka, Bad guys? Too many to enumerate: Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Chong Il.. and last but not least, Anthony Wu. Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 9:02 PM Anthony: I wouldn't know either how to make medicines and ointments from poison plants and yet some know how to do that. Which bad guys are you referring to in your post?. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 22:52 Mayka, Nature provides us with anger as well as compassion. Plant poison can be used for our benefit, but I don't see anger can be utilized in any good way. In Christianity, good and bad people are both created by God. How do we treat bad guys? Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 1:49 AM Anthony: Nature is wise but the mind of human beings is arrogant and think that knows better than nature. We don't like the emotion anger and then we invent a number of things to rid off it. Nature also gives plants highly poison and yet the clever ones have learnt how to use that poison to create medicines, oinments with it. Couldn't be done with anger the same?. If nature has provided us with the seed of anger there must be a reason for that. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 14:01 ED, Yes, anger is something we must deal with correctly. It is one of the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. So Buddha himself thinks it is important. I agree it is rooted in the sense of self. To this effect, zen practice should be able to at least lessen it, when the sense of self is reduced. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 7:41 PM Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > ED, > > Once you eat your cake, you digest it into your body parts, and will be 'one > with it'. I don't see why it is impossible. > > Anthony > Anthony, > > I think Mayka is asking: How can I eat my cake and have it too. > > --ED > > ED, > > > > I don't understand your reasoning. 'Negative consequences' of course > are in regard to the angry person. > > > > Anthony > > Negative consequences are unlikely (except to the person > himself/herself) if the other person has mastered his/her own anger. > > --ED > > Mayka, > > > > You ask: 'Explain different ways of expressing anger out without > having the negative consequences of doing so.' > > > > I think expressing anger always has negative consequences. No way to > avoid that. > > > > Anthony
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
Anthony: Manifested conditions were appropiate for Mozart being able to play at 5 years old. Mayka --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 0:30 Mayka, That was possible. However, it was also possible that came from their karma from previous lives. Otherwise, why do you think Mazart was able to compose music at the age of 5? Anthony --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 6:02 AM Perhaps the roots of their doings could be found in their childhood. --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 22:51 Mayka, Bad guys? Too many to enumerate: Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Chong Il.. and last but not least, Anthony Wu. Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 9:02 PM Anthony: I wouldn't know either how to make medicines and ointments from poison plants and yet some know how to do that. Which bad guys are you referring to in your post?. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 22:52 Mayka, Nature provides us with anger as well as compassion. Plant poison can be used for our benefit, but I don't see anger can be utilized in any good way. In Christianity, good and bad people are both created by God. How do we treat bad guys? Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 1:49 AM Anthony: Nature is wise but the mind of human beings is arrogant and think that knows better than nature. We don't like the emotion anger and then we invent a number of things to rid off it. Nature also gives plants highly poison and yet the clever ones have learnt how to use that poison to create medicines, oinments with it. Couldn't be done with anger the same?. If nature has provided us with the seed of anger there must be a reason for that. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 14:01 ED, Yes, anger is something we must deal with correctly. It is one of the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. So Buddha himself thinks it is important. I agree it is rooted in the sense of self. To this effect, zen practice should be able to at least lessen it, when the sense of self is reduced. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 7:41 PM Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > ED, > > Once you eat your cake, you digest it into your body parts, and will be 'one > with it'. I don't see why it is impossible. > > Anthony > Anthony, > > I think Mayka is asking: How can I eat my cake and have it too. > > --ED > > ED, > > > > I don't understand your reasoning. 'Negative consequences' of course > are in regard to the angry person. > > > > Anthony > > Negative consequences are unlikely (except to the person > himself/herself) if the other person has mastered his/her
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
Chris: Very alike yourself here. Though not enough quick as to dissatach the self from the emotion and as a result of that being carried away by its blindness. Nonetheless, would you believe that at those moments of blindness still I'm aware of that blindness but can't stop the strong push of it?. However, there is not a sense of dissapointment or guilt for not suceeding in staying there with that emotion and be pulled by its strong energy. Ideally besides of sitting down with an emotion, we should have close friends, family that give us the space and allowing us of expressing ourselves out in whatever way and give to them in return the same space. That reciprocate space giving to each others creates strong bonds and makes relationships very healthy. As the old teaching of: LOVE AND FORGIVINESS reciprocated gives the fruits of humbleness, patience, tolerance as well as a very sincere and heatlhy relationships. Of course all this taking for granted that the ones involved won't be mentally sick and with full of violence in them. Mayka --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: From: Chris Austin-Lane Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 3:26 At the very instant of anger arising, there is a sliver moment in which I can stay present or leave life and follow the angry thoughts. Often I miss these moments, preferring to hang on to my prior ideas of what I need and what I deserve and how much I've put up with, etc., and go off and get upset, and occasionally, I have the chance to stay present, take some appropriate calming action, and then voila, sitting in the throne of life, some way to transform the world is right there needing my attention and action. Strong emotions are self-limiting when you feel them thoroughly, the faster path is to feel them with eyes open, rather than acting out blindly. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: Can you see yourself at the same occurring present time of having that disappointment or afterwards when you are cool down?. Saying this because I keep reacting. It's only after having been expressed out that disappointment that I start to cool down. Not very zen, or Buddhist way. In my mind I know I should sit down but at those moments and depend upon the intensity of the rainbow emotions, I just can't. There have been times that when I have sat down at those moments emotions calm down but only in the surface and then they come out after days. Exploring expressing myself out at present to see what's happens.
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
Bill: I did think about to write this one too. At this time, You say dog and I say, woof woof! Mayka --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 4:00 The teaching from Jesus about this is: Matthew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..." ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > JMJM; > Just giving different perspectives of the theme giving away. >  > If the giving away is out of a notion then the giving away will be in the > self. If the giving away is in the self then that given away is not a > real giving away but a giving away with a purpose, the purpose of feeling > good about ourselves. We think that we do that giving away for others but > that is not true,  we do that for the pleasure we get out through that > giving away. > Mayka >  >  > --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: > > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 15:47 > > >  > > > > Hi Mayka, > > Not sure you are making a statement or a question. > > It is wonderful for us to give. Just initiating the notion of giving > without being told is respectable. At the least, it is so written in Bibles > and taught by many. > > If we dig deeper into this notion, there are two kinds of notions. One is > produce through the reaction to all the forms of our conscious mind, the > other is pure heart detached from all forms. > > Feeling deceived is because we still have an ego, an conscious mind. When > the notions is from our heart, it is pure. Pure compassion. > > This is what Vilamakirti is talking about. > > Thank you for responding. > jm > Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... > http://www.chan-meditation.org > Chan in everyday life... > http://www.chanliving.org > To be enlightened in this life... > http://www.heartchan.org > To save our world... > http://www.universal-oneness.org > > > On 8/23/2011 6:23 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: >  > > > > > > > JMJM; > We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This is > a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience turns out > unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told us to give > away in the first place!. > Mayka >  >  > --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: > > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness > To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, > chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com > Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 > > >  > > In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute emptiness. I > shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the English I use more than > likely will not match your search result online. > > Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying > others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... > > It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not arise > from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our compassion is > from our mind and not from our heart. > > A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, > balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and > result oriented, otherwise it can not balance itself. > > The compassion rises from our hearts are pure giving. Our heart syncs with > the hearts of others, and "knowing" that we are all deluded by our mind and > not "seeing" that everything is just endless illusions of cause and effect. > Our hearts are one of the same. > > Upon this "synchronization" of hearts, our mind would quiet. We would be able > to function with joy and dedication, continuously, effortlessly, naturally > and instinctively, with our pure heart. > > Thank you for your time, > JMJM > Head Teacher > Order of Chan > -- > Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... > http://www.chan-meditation.org > Chan in everyday life... > http://www.chanliving.org > To be enlightened in this life... > http://www.heartchan.org > To save our world... > http://www.universal-oneness.org >
Re: [Zen] Questions To All List
Anthony: What do you mean?. Ok, I paste Bill response and so you have both responses in the same thread post: "Mozart had a good agent..." No need to choose and you can have both! Mayka --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 22:36 Mayka, Please refer to Bill's answer as an enlightened remark. Anthony --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 8:04 PM Anthony: Manifested conditions were appropiate for Mozart being able to play at 5 years old. Mayka --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 0:30 Mayka, That was possible. However, it was also possible that came from their karma from previous lives. Otherwise, why do you think Mazart was able to compose music at the age of 5? Anthony --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 6:02 AM Perhaps the roots of their doings could be found in their childhood. --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 22:51 Mayka, Bad guys? Too many to enumerate: Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Chong Il.. and last but not least, Anthony Wu. Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 9:02 PM Anthony: I wouldn't know either how to make medicines and ointments from poison plants and yet some know how to do that. Which bad guys are you referring to in your post?. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 22:52 Mayka, Nature provides us with anger as well as compassion. Plant poison can be used for our benefit, but I don't see anger can be utilized in any good way. In Christianity, good and bad people are both created by God. How do we treat bad guys? Anthony --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 1:49 AM Anthony: Nature is wise but the mind of human beings is arrogant and think that knows better than nature. We don't like the emotion anger and then we invent a number of things to rid off it. Nature also gives plants highly poison and yet the clever ones have learnt how to use that poison to create medicines, oinments with it. Couldn't be done with anger the same?. If nature has provided us with the seed of anger there must be a reason for that. Mayka --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 14:01 ED, Yes, anger is something we must deal with correctly. It is one of the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. So Buddha himself thinks it is important. I agree it is rooted in the sense of self. To this effect, zen practice should be able to at least lessen it, when the sense of self is reduced. Anthony --- On Mon, 22/8/11, ED wrote: From: ED Subject: Re: [Zen] Questions To All List To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 7:41 PM Anthony, There is Karma, the Law of Cause and Effect. Anger breeds anger. I am not aware of any Buddhist teaching that recommends expressing anger as a means of dealing with anger. Anger is deeply rooted in the sense of self. The self is angry when the world and especially other humans do not meet the self's expectations. Excellent brief article on Buddhism and Anger: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm "Don't Feed Anger It's hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into pillows or to scream at the walls to "work out" our anger. Thich Nhat Hanh disagrees. "When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out of your system, but that's not true," he said. "When you express your anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you." Only understanding and compassion can neutralize anger." --ED --- In Zen_Forum@ya
Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness
Woof woof...! --- On Thu, 25/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, 25 August, 2011, 2:44 You say 'woof woof' and I say 'dog'! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > Bill: > I did think about to write this one too. At this time,  You say dog and I > say, woof woof! > Mayka > > --- On Wed, 24/8/11, Bill! wrote: > > > From: Bill! > Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, 24 August, 2011, 4:00 > > >  > > > > The teaching from Jesus about this is: > > Matthew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know > what your right hand is doing..." > > ...Bill! > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez wrote: > > > > JMJM; > > Just giving different perspectives of the theme giving away. > >  > > If the giving away is out of a notion then the giving away will be in the > > self. If the giving away is in the self then that given away is not a > > real giving away but a giving away with a purpose, the purpose of > > feeling good about ourselves. We think that we do that giving away for > > others but that is not true,  we do that for the pleasure we get out > > through that giving away. > > Mayka > >  > >  > > --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 15:47 > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Hi Mayka, > > > > Not sure you are making a statement or a question. > > > > It is wonderful for us to give. Just initiating the notion of giving > > without being told is respectable. At the least, it is so written in > > Bibles and taught by many. > > > > If we dig deeper into this notion, there are two kinds of notions. One > > is produce through the reaction to all the forms of our conscious mind, the > > other is pure heart detached from all forms. > > > > Feeling deceived is because we still have an ego, an conscious mind. > > When the notions is from our heart, it is pure. Pure compassion. > > > > This is what Vilamakirti is talking about. > > > > Thank you for responding. > > jm > > Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... > > http://www.chan-meditation.org > > Chan in everyday life... > > http://www.chanliving.org > > To be enlightened in this life... > > http://www.heartchan.org > > To save our world... > > http://www.universal-oneness.org > > > > > > On 8/23/2011 6:23 AM, Maria Lopez wrote: > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM; > > We often give away because that makes us feel good about ourselves. This > > is a kind of giving away based in self. And so when the experience > > turns out unpleasant then we feel as we were deceived. But no one told > > us to give away in the first place!. > > Mayka > >  > >  > > --- On Mon, 22/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 > > Subject: [Zen] An example of Absolute Emptiness > > To: zenliv...@yahoogroups.com, Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, > > chan-socal-engl...@googlegroups.com > > Date: Monday, 22 August, 2011, 17:50 > > > > > >  > > > > In chapter V of Vimalakirti sutra, he talked about absolute > > emptiness. I shall translate from Chinese for your reference, the > > English I use more than likely will not match your search result online. > > > > Why do we often feeling "tired" or "disgusted" on our journey of ferrying > > others with kindness and good intentions? If you do, please read on... > > > > It is so because our compassion in our hearts derives from form and not > > arise from within. In other words, we feeling tired is because our > > compassion is from our mind and not from our heart. > > > > A consciousness-based compassion is based on form, logic, give and take, > > balance, purpose and objective. This kind of compassion has a purpose and > > resu
Re: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences.
Hi Anthony: There is this modern treatise an eastern Buddhist practicioner sent to me that is a little bit more reliable as far as Buddhist teachings concerns. Mind that some of the words have not been correctly translated into English and therefore that may give raise to enthusiastic discussion in the forum. Nonetheless, If you read it with lots of attention, slowly slowly allowing it to permeate in you, you will get at once the process of gradual awareness taking place by the following of all steps. In spite of the lenght long go, I've founded excellent!. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/practical/satipatthana_meditation.asp Mayka --- On Sat, 27/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 27 August, 2011, 6:08 I have extracted an episode from the Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau. The author is a 'Canadian housewife', who is said to be Kapleau's wife. I would call the article a Buddhist way of enlightenment. It implies the existence of karma and rebirth Are there other ways of enlightenment? I don't know. Please show me. A Canadian housewife had the following ‘revealed’ to her: 1) The world as apprehended by the senses is the least true (in the sense of complete), the least dynamic (in the sense of the eternal movement), and the least important in a vast ‘geometry of existence’ of unspeakable profundity, whose rate of vibration, whose intensity and subtlety are beyond verbal descripton. 2) Words are cumbersome and primitive-almost useless in trying to suggest the true multidimensional workings of an indescribable vast complex of dynamic force, to contact which one must abandon one’s normal level of consciousness. 3) The least act, such as eating or scratching an arm, is not at all simple. It is merely a visible moment in a network of causes and effects reaching forward into Unknowingness and back into an infinity of Silence, where individual consciousness cannot even enter. There is truly nothing to know, nothing that can be known. 4) The physical world is an infinity of movement, of Time-Existence. But simultaneously it is an infinity of Silence and Voidness. Each object is thus transparent. Everything has its own special character, its own karma of ‘life in time’, but at the same time there is no place where there is emptiness, where one object does not flow into another. 5) The least expression of wheather variation, a soft rain or a gentle breeze, touches me as a-what can I say?-miracle of unmatched wonder, beauty and goodness. There is nothing to do; just to be is a supremely total act. 6) Looking into faces, I see something of the long chain of their past existence, and sometimes something of the future. The past ones recede behind the outer face like ever-finer tissues, yet are at the same time impregnated in it. 7) When I am in solitude I can hear a ‘song’ coming forth from everything. Each and everything has its own song; even moods, thoughts, and feelings have their finer songs. Yet beneath this variety they intermingle in one inexpressibly vast unity. 8) I feel a love which, without object, is best called lovingness. But my old emotional reactions still coarsely interfere with the expressions of this supremely gentle and effortless lovingness. 9) I feel a consciousness which is neither myself nor not myself, which is protecting or leading me into directions helpful to my proper growth and maturity, and propelling me away from that which is against that growth. It is like a stream into which I have flowed and, joyously, which is carrying me beyond myself.
Re: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences.
Yes Anthony is not zen but a summary treatise buddhist test from Burma. But it doesn't matter whether is zen or buddhist, it's a very good reading all the same. Mayka --- On Sat, 27/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: Re: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 27 August, 2011, 22:52 Mayka, Thank you for the article. I glanced at the text and thought this is a typical Theravada teaching. It is excellent, but different from zen. As it is so long, I saved it in my folder and will read in detail later. Anthony --- On Sat, 27/8/11, Maria Lopez wrote: From: Maria Lopez Subject: Re: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 27 August, 2011, 11:41 PM Hi Anthony: There is this modern treatise an eastern Buddhist practicioner sent to me that is a little bit more reliable as far as Buddhist teachings concerns. Mind that some of the words have not been correctly translated into English and therefore that may give raise to enthusiastic discussion in the forum. Nonetheless, If you read it with lots of attention, slowly slowly allowing it to permeate in you, you will get at once the process of gradual awareness taking place by the following of all steps. In spite of the lenght long go, I've founded excellent!. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/practical/satipatthana_meditation.asp Mayka --- On Sat, 27/8/11, Anthony Wu wrote: From: Anthony Wu Subject: [Zen] Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 27 August, 2011, 6:08 I have extracted an episode from the Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau. The author is a 'Canadian housewife', who is said to be Kapleau's wife. I would call the article a Buddhist way of enlightenment. It implies the existence of karma and rebirth Are there other ways of enlightenment? I don't know. Please show me. A Canadian housewife had the following ‘revealed’ to her: 1) The world as apprehended by the senses is the least true (in the sense of complete), the least dynamic (in the sense of the eternal movement), and the least important in a vast ‘geometry of existence’ of unspeakable profundity, whose rate of vibration, whose intensity and subtlety are beyond verbal descripton. 2) Words are cumbersome and primitive-almost useless in trying to suggest the true multidimensional workings of an indescribable vast complex of dynamic force, to contact which one must abandon one’s normal level of consciousness. 3) The least act, such as eating or scratching an arm, is not at all simple. It is merely a visible moment in a network of causes and effects reaching forward into Unknowingness and back into an infinity of Silence, where individual consciousness cannot even enter. There is truly nothing to know, nothing that can be known. 4) The physical world is an infinity of movement, of Time-Existence. But simultaneously it is an infinity of Silence and Voidness. Each object is thus transparent. Everything has its own special character, its own karma of ‘life in time’, but at the same time there is no place where there is emptiness, where one object does not flow into another. 5) The least expression of wheather variation, a soft rain or a gentle breeze, touches me as a-what can I say?-miracle of unmatched wonder, beauty and goodness. There is nothing to do; just to be is a supremely total act. 6) Looking into faces, I see something of the long chain of their past existence, and sometimes something of the future. The past ones recede behind the outer face like ever-finer tissues, yet are at the same time impregnated in it. 7) When I am in solitude I can hear a ‘song’ coming forth from everything. Each and everything has its own song; even moods, thoughts, and feelings have their finer songs. Yet beneath this variety they intermingle in one inexpressibly vast unity. 8) I feel a love which, without object, is best called lovingness. But my old emotional reactions still coarsely interfere with the expressions of this supremely gentle and effortless lovingness. 9) I feel a consciousness which is neither myself nor not myself, which is protecting or leading me into directions helpful to my proper growth and maturity, and propelling me away from that which is against that growth. It is like a stream into which I have flowed and, joyously, which is carrying me beyond myself.
Re: [Zen] Re: Words attempting to describe experiences.
Like --- On Wed, 31/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 31 August, 2011, 1:47 ED, A non-verbal response is often times preferable to a verbal/written response. This is becaue of the fundamental problem that words communicate concepts, and concepts are at best just a represenation of reality, and at worst are incomplete and misleading. A slap is IMO a good device to communicte Buddha Nature because upon receiving the slap your discriminating mind is halted or at least overridden by the feeling. At that split second you receive the slap all you are experiencing is the slap (later you might describe it as 'pain'). That split second is a brief period of Buddha Nature acting alone and unhindered by your discriminating mind. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > > Bill and Anthony, > > Is this slapping busniness in consonance with the reputed spontaneity of > Zen? > > Is a traditional slap a more creative response than a conventional > verbal response? > > --ED > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Wu wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > You have to come closer to my protective demon first to find out if > you can slap him or he slaps you. > > > > Anthony >
Re: [Zen] Re: Words attempting to describe experiences.
Bill: What about our recorded past memories brought back to the present moment and bringing with them odours, sensations, images, conversations.Would that be considered a real or illusion experience in the present moment? Mayka --- On Wed, 31/8/11, Bill! wrote: From: Bill! Subject: [Zen] Re: Words attempting to describe experiences. To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 31 August, 2011, 1:51 One may indeed call it anything one pleases, but fantasizing about being able to read people's lineage and seeing into the future is delusion in my book. It's not experience, it's intellection. Experience, at least the way I define it, is provided through the senses, not the intellect. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" wrote: > > > > Bill,Anthony - > > One may call it anything one pleases, but it is an experience; whether > this experience is real or delusionary is a subjective judgment call. I > think the Buddha was credited with possessing such-like powers. > > --ED > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" wrote: > > > > Anthony, > > > > I would call that delusion...Bill! > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > How do you explain the following: Looking into faces, I see > something of the long chain of their past existence, and sometimes > something of the future. > > > > > > Anthony >
Re: [Zen] Mahayana
Hi JMJM: I've never been very clear about all those different splits and ramification es spread all over the place. So I have done as ED and check into the wiki what has to say about Mahayana. The teachings still go back are: The Heart of the Prajnaparamita Sutra which is to me the equivalent to:MU. Apart from this Sutra there are many teachings in Buddhism in general I'm not aware of them, Also I keep very close to me the Sutra of the breathing and the Sutra on the eight realizations of the great beings. Others such as the lotus Sutra doesn't awake much interest in me, others I left behind such as the one of the Four Noble Truths, Others I read them when I feel like it such as the Heart of the Buddha Teachings, Mayka --- On Wed, 31/8/11, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 wrote: From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 Subject: [Zen] Mahayana To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 31 August, 2011, 8:09 Dear Forum, Do you consider "Zen/zen/your practice" a Mahayana practice? If so, how does Mahayana actually practice? What is its core teaching? Thank you in advance, jm -- Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation... http://www.chan-meditation.org Chan in everyday life... http://www.chanliving.org To be enlightened in this life... http://www.heartchan.org To save our world... http://www.universal-oneness.org
