Transmission is something to be experienced.   It is not politics and 
not a ceremony.  Similarly spirituality does not exist in the domain of 
words.  It is a  "connection" beyond description, ideas and logic.

Anything written is called "formed Dharma", while "true Dharma" is not 
limited to the spoken words or written words. True Dharma exists in 
every moment, every incident, every existence.  Formed Dharma is true 
only relative to a particular moment and a particular dimension. 

No formed Dharma is permanently valid.  Be ware of our own thinking, 
most of the time it is logic or word based.          

If so, then it is no different than drunk, addict, etc.   just 
labels...........           :-)

Edgar Owen wrote:
> Bill,
> Thanks for your response. First I wasn't intending to criticize your 
> views personally, I was simply discussing the issues, so don't worry 
> about that. 
> I don't make the distinction you do between thoughts and emotions. 
> Both just are, and as such are part of reality, both can be seen as 
> what they are, veils of illusion, or the world can be experienced 
> through them, from inside them, in which case the nature of things is 
> not clearly seen.
> Let me clarify a little. True as you say that sad is sad, sad just is. 
> That is not in question. The distinction I wanted to make is that one 
> can simply experience the emotion of sadness as passing by, or one can 
> become attached to it and have it color and distort one's whole world 
> view. That is the distinction, but the distinction is the same for 
> thoughts as well. One can simply experience a thought passing by in 
> the mind, or one can become attached to that thought and keep adding 
> thought after thought after thought to it so that one's mind is in the 
> thoughts rather than in the world, and the world is seen only through 
> the thoughts, not directly. Just as the emotion just is, so the 
> original thought just was, and one can become attached to either the 
> thought or the emotion, or one can just experience them and let them 
> go. Same same.
> Glad you agree with the transmission paragraph. I've had some really 
> crazy arguments on that one, especially with those who have strong 
> sect attachments.
> Best,
> Edgar
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:49 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> Edgar,
>> Thank you for your post.
>> I disagree with several points of the first paragraph of your recent post
>> attached below.
>> First of all I DO include intellect in the category of maya - 
>> illusion/not
>> real. Intellect arises AFTER experience of reality, and creates dualism
>> which then distorts and misrepresents all experiences. I DO NOT, however,
>> believe emotions are illusory. They are real, they are reality. They do
>> not distort experience. They are experience. Sad is sad. Happy is happy.
>> This is not illusion. Sad just is. I do however agree with you (in your
>> last two difficult but important sentences in that first paragraph) that
>> both rationality (the product of intellect) and emotions need to be taken
>> 'as is', and not given undo importance. They just are. They're no big
>> deal, and certainly not the be-all and end-all of reality. 
>> Second of all I don't equate zen and satori. I define 'satori' as a 
>> 'small
>> or first breakthrough', a first glimpse of reality unfiltered through
>> intellect. It is short-lived and temporary. I believe there is more 
>> to zen
>> then just that. I do include satori as part of zen, but believe zen
>> practice starts before satori, continues on after satori as 
>> cultivation and
>> complete integration of buddha mind into your life (or you could say
>> becoming completely absorbed into buddha mind), and culminates in the
>> realization that zen practice, satori, buddha mind, and everything else
>> associated with this is all maya - illusion. There is after all only 
>> THIS!
>> I do agree however with the second paragraph of your post which correctly
>> calls me on my use of the word 'transmission'. I am guilty of just
>> regurgitating popular, but inaccurate, terms used in describing zen. As
>> you've pointed out there is nothing transmitted. There is only a
>> realization or discovery. I agree with the all the rest of that 
>> paragraph.
>> Thanks...Bill!
>> From: 
>> <> [ 
>> <>] On Behalf
>> Of Edgar Owen
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 6:25 PM
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: [Zen] zazen
>> Bill,
>> Good post with which I'm pretty much in agreement. Zen, or satori, is
>> certainly nothing above anyone's head as it is the natural state of all
>> being. Satori is simply a matter of looking and seeing what is actually
>> there right now unmediated by intellect or emotion - but that is with a
>> caveat since one also must realize that intellect and emotions are 
>> part of
>> that reality. The trick is to see them for what they are rather than 
>> seeing
>> the world through them. In other words satori involves recognizing that
>> illusion is part of reality, but seeing the illusion as illusion 
>> rather than
>> taking it for reality.
>> I do have a little quibble with the notion of 'transmission' however. In
>> reality enlightenment is never transmitted from a teacher to a 
>> student. The
>> realization of the student is always entirely his own, the teacher merely
>> directs his attention to that realization which he already had but hadn't
>> yet realized. The only really legitimate use of the term 
>> 'transmission' in
>> Zen is the transmission of the worldly authority to head a sect or temple
>> from one head to the next, but that is politics not Zen.
>> Edgar
>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> <>> wrote:
>> Sean,
>> I think the fundamental meditation practices of both zen and Vispassana
>> Buddhism are the same. There is a zen saying that when you're meditating
>> and thoughts appear, you should treat them like you would treat a visitor
>> knocking on your door while you are busy doing some important task. You
>> should answer the door and acknowledge the visitor, tell him that you are
>> busy right now but assure him that he is welcome to come back later - but
>> above all, no matter how tempting, you DO NOT invite them in for tea and
>> conversation.
>> 'Non-verbal' transmission has to do with the way zen is taught. It
>> especially concerns how the actual experience of Buddha Mind is passed
>> between teacher and student. The basis for it comes from the story of how
>> Siddhartha Buddha passed on his enlightenment to one of his disciples 
>> during
>> a teaching session at Vulture Peak. Instead of preaching to the 
>> multitudes
>> assembled, Siddhartha only held up a flower. Mahakashyapa smiled and
>> Siddhartha knew that he now understood. The point of the story and 
>> the term
>> is that experience of Buddha Mind cannot be transmitted via words, 
>> spoken or
>> written. The act of understanding words and the concepts they represent
>> will not lead you to experiencing Buddha Mind. The actual experience is
>> indescribable and any attempt to do so is not only ineffectual, but 
>> usually
>> misleading and can in fact be counterproductive.
>> That leads me into the last sentence of your post. Zen is not 'ABOVE your
>> head', as some eclectic knowledge that you can't understand. Zen in 
>> fact is
>> very, very simple, so simple that it exists everywhere all the time
>> unnoticed. Zen has nothing to do with your head at all, as in your
>> intellect or any type of rational thinking. Zen is unfiltered,
>> unadulterated, direct and immediate experience of reality, which can 
>> only be
>> done in the ABSENCE of your intellect which creates all dualism, 
>> including
>> the concept of self. When you stop your intellectual (rational) processes
>> you will lose your sense of self and all dualism. It is then and only 
>> then
>> that you will be able to experience Buddha Mind, which has been there all
>> along hidden behind all the rational static. Zazen is the only thing 
>> I know
>> that can help you do that, although there are other techniques such as
>> bowing or chanting that can reportedly bring you to the same place. 
>> I think all religions were initially established to bring you to this 
>> very
>> point. Unfortunately all religions I know of have lost sight of that and
>> instead have fallen back to stress rules and rituals. This is a good
>> example of the saying 'Can't see the forest for the trees.'
>> Enough for now. Thanks for your post. Please respond and let me know how
>> you see things. In the meantime, JUST SIT!
>> ...Bill!
>> From: 
>> <> [ 
>> <>] On Behalf
>> Of Sean Lukens
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:32 AM
>> To: <>
>> Subject: [Zen] zazen
>> Hi Bill,
>> I agree with your description of the two practices. Yes, I do 
>> differentiate
>> non-grasping and repressing or avoidance, although when I find myself
>> avoiding something I will sometimes label it as such - "avoidance" - and
>> then let go of that internal process.
>> I am new to the conceptual practices of Zen, so ideas such as "non-verbal
>> transmission" are still above my head. Maybe some things Zen will 
>> always be
>> "above my head." Thanks for your input.
>> Sean
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Bill Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <>>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 10:53:17 PM
>> Subject: [Zen] Re: zazen
>> Sean, Sorry for the tardy reply, but I did not get your posting via 
>> email as I normally do. I logged into the site today and saw your post.
>> I am not an expert in Vipassana, but I do live in Thailand where 
>> Vipassana is widely practiced and have spent a short time at a 
>> Vipassana training center and believe I do have some knowledge of it 
>> and its teachings.
>> Your description of Vipassana meditation, '...sitting and not grasping 
>> any thoughts, emotions, experience, etc,...', is also completely 
>> applicable to zazen. I think it is important, however, to emphasis 
>> that 'not grasping' does not mean 'rejecting' or 'avoiding'. 'Not 
>> grasping' means 'not holding onto', or 'not forming attachments to' 
>> thoughts, emotions, experience, etc...
>> From my experiences and observations the major differences between 
>> Vispanna and zen are in the rites and rituals, rather than the 
>> meditation. Also, as far as I can tell Vipassana does not recognize 
>> mind-to-mind (non-verbal) transmission which goes to the core of zen 
>> teaching.
>> Hope this helps. Let me know what you thnk.
>> ...Bill! 
>> __________ NOD32 3347 (20080811) Information __________
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> <>
>> __________ NOD32 3360 (20080815) Information __________
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> <>


Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to