Edgar, (The ILLUSARY Edgar)
Thanks for your post and your considered remarks.
As a result of your post I have changed my idea about the meaning
of the
words 'emotions' and 'feelings', at least the way I use them. This
all has
to do with, as you've also pointed out, the connection with 'self'.
If there is a self to connect with, the experience is an observed
experience. The self, in order to be an observer, separates itself
from the
experience and gives the experience a name (sad/happy/angry) and a
quality
(good/bad). These are emotions. Because these are observed they are
subject a timeframe (more self illusion), emotions can change.
There can be
prior, current and future emotions.
If there is no self, the experience is a direct experience. Because
there
is only the experience (no observer), there is no name and no
quality. The
experience is reality and nothing else exists. These could also be
called
feelings: undifferentiated, unclassified, unfiltered, unadulterated
experience. Because direct experience is not subject to a
timeframe, it is
all that exists. It is JUST THIS! ...and nothing has ever happened
prior,
nor will anything ever happen subsequently. Just THIS! Only THIS!
Thanks for the seed crystal that prompted me to better express this
understanding (feeling).
...Bill!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Edgar Owen
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Zen] zazen
Hi Bill,
Yes, this one is the real me. What a humorous concept since of
course there
is no me to begin with!
Thanks for your very open and considerate response. It's a pleasure
to find
someone who is so non-judgmental and willing to actually consider
every idea
on its merits rather than according to some rigid programmed
mentality. To
my mind there is nothing better than having one's beliefs
intelligently
challenged. After all that is how I can learn things I didn't know
before
and 'poof' away another illusion.
As to emotions and thoughts I think we are both saying things that are
correct but a little different in approach and I think there is an
important
point hidden in the difference. It has to do with the connection
between
emotions and thoughts, and the difference between emotions and
'feelings'.
In almost all cases emotions and thoughts are continually
intertwined. E.g.
one has a sad thought (loss of a friend) and then feels sad, that sad
feeling then engenders more sad thoughts, and one feels even
sadder, and on
and on it goes. That kind of emotion is the kind of emotion I was
referring
to as one of the veils of illusion that keep us from seeing reality
directly. After all the loss of the friend is now in the past and
thus no
longer a part of reality. Thus the sadness can be released merely
by letting
go of it and the thoughts that perpetuate it. Both those thoughts
and the
sadness caused by thoughts rather than reality are illusions.
Almost all
emotions are like this - they are the result of thoughts rather
than actual
here-now occurrences. I would say 99% of emotions moment by moment
have no
connection with anything actually present in the reality of the
here-now. In
this view 99% of emotions can be vanished just by not indulging in
them, not
perpetuating them, letting go of the thoughts that engender them
and turning
the mind elsewhere. The soap opera vanishes if one just ignores it.
Now let's consider sadness at the actual loss of a friend as the
friend
sickens and dies. This kind of emotion is an actual visceral
reaction to an
actual here-now situation in the reality of the moment. Or is it?
In one
sense yes, but it depends entirely on how we view reality. Being
sad at
seeing a friend suffering and dying really depends on thoughts as
well, but
thoughts that are hidden deeper in one's basic internal world view.
That
sadness is a response based on first seeing the friend as a
separate being
rather than as part of the continuous protoplasmic exchange of the
universe,
it depends on seeing death as something unnatural and not the
natural fate
of all compound entities, and it depends on attachment, the
attachment one
has to that friend. At some level all these are illusion and
impediments to
enlightenment, and we can easily find confirmation of this in a
number of
Zen writings. If one really experiences oneself as being the
entirety of
reality rather than a separate being, then there can be no
attachment to a
separate being that does not actually exist.
On the other hand we can complete the circle and recognize our
biological
being trapped in human form as a creature that naturally forms
social bonds
and feels sadness at the loss of friends. In other words we can
experience
that happening as part of reality without seeing the world through
that
sadness. We experience the sadness, but we don't see reality
through that
sadness, we see the sadness as part of reality. So basically it
depends on
who the 'I' is, and where it positions itself relative to thoughts and
emotions. Inside them looking out is not enlightenment.
Now I realize there is some contradiction here, but contradiction
is part of
reality....
Edgar
On Aug 19, 2008, at 9:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Edgar, (The REAL Edgar)
Thank you for your post.
I accept with relief your explanation of the TEST OF CHARACTER
post. At
first I thought it was from Charlie Cruller who occasionally submits
outlandish posts to presumably try to goad the members into rude
replies. I
was very surprised when I double-checked the author and found it
was not
Charlie but you. I'm was having difficulty resolving the juxtaposition
between your very knowledgeable and insightful posts with that
other drivel.
I'm happy to see your explanation.
Don't ever worry about 'criticizing my views personally'. All my
views are
personal, but I am not inseparably attached to them. I'm also not
easily
offended, and if I do read something and feel offended, I know that
is my
shortcoming not yours, and is something I need to address within
myself.
I have always thought of rationality and emotions differently. I
think that
is because when I sit shikantaza (clear mind) and loose my sense of
self, my
rational mind melts away but my emotions are still present. I think of
rationality as something I DO (with the emphasis on I), while
emotions are
something that just IS, without any relationship to self. You are
absolutely right, however, about not becoming attached to either,
but of
course attachment can only occur in the presence of self.
I have the same association I have with emotions that I have with
other
bodily states like hunger, tiredness, pain, etc... I put emotions
in this
same general category, but not intellect.
I did like your reasoning in the second paragraph below. It has
some very
good points which I will have to think more about. (When I say
'think more
about', what I really do is re-read the paragraph over and over,
and then
use my rational mind to pick it apart into its constituent concepts
and
relationships, and then just let the pieces 'lay there' spread out
all over
my mind as see 'how they feel'. Am I comfortable with all the
concepts and
especially the way you have connected them together? That's how I
'think
more about' things.)
Later...Bill!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Edgar Owen
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Zen] zazen
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]>
<[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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Edgar Owen
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 6:25 PM
To: [email protected]
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.
IMNSHO,
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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Sean Lukens
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:32 AM
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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!
