No 'transmission' of Zen is possible. You can't transmit direct
experience of reality from one person to another. It's just a matter
of opening one's own eyes. A teacher or whatever may help trigger
such an awakening, but that is not 'transmission'.
As I've said before the only thing that is transmitted in the Zen
sects is the leadership over temples, eg. one patriarch to another,
but that is transmission of a worldly political authority, not Zen
On Oct 3, 2008, at 11:18 AM, jmcgeach48 wrote:
Great explanation Bill. I always understood zen to be the following.
A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the human mind;
Seeing into one's own nature and attaining Buddhahood.
These 4 lines are what attracted me to zen. It is also why it is
plausible to be a Christian, Jew, etc and still practise zen. That is
my understanding at least.
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jue Miao Jing Ming - è¦ºå¦™ç²¾æ˜Ž
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right on, Brother Bill. Anything written down, spoken about are just
> forms to describe a direct "connection" to the universal life
> As Edgar stated numerous times, "nothing else matters..."....
> let go of our mind, we let go of our frame of reference. No more
> capable of judgment, comparison, categorization. No more
> To lock in this synchronization, a chi based practice helps..
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Chris,
> > In a recent post you wrote:
> > >I do disagree with Bill's point that Zen has always
> > >stood alone and that other beliefs have tried to
> > >incorporate it, I believe it is the opposite, Zen
> > >has been isolated from Zen Buddhism and incorporated
> > >into other people's beliefs. Or something like that.
> > This is an important point to me so I'd like to try to clarify it.
> > If zen is indeed a 'direct experience of reality', then the
> > that experience that has existed 'forever', or at least as long as
> > sentient
> > (self-aware) beings have existed. This experience certainly pre-
> > Siddhartha Gautama Buddha. That is why I say 'zen' pre-dates
> > Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc...
> > I don't believe that 'other beliefs' (religions) have tried to
> > it (zen)'; I believe a direct experience of reality (zen) is the
> > all these other beliefs, and that the differences we see today are
> > different culturally-based terms used to describe this experience,
> > lots
> > and lots of extraneous add-ons.
> > For example when I read the Bible I interpret accounts of directly
> > communicating with God (like Moses) or with the Archangel Gabriel
> > Mohammed), or the experiences Jesus had after fasting for 40 days
> > wilderness as equivalent to the Japanese Zen Buddhist term
> > believe these are accounts of people directly experiencing
> > and then
> > trying to describe it in the best way they could. When Jesus says,
> > the Way, the Truth and the Light; and no one can come to the
Father but by
> > me', to me he is saying 'I am not 'me' any longer. I am no longer
> > man, I'm the way, the truth, the light. I am no longer under the
> > delusion I
> > have a self that is different and separate from other beings
> > things. I am no longer under the delusion of duality. 'I' cease to
> > There is Only THIS. 'I' am my experience, nothing more and nothing
> > And having this experience (direct experience of reality - zen) as
> > is the only way for you to 'come to the Father' (come home, return
> > origin, realize your Buddha Nature, become enlightened).
> > This is what I believe because I do believe most of the major
> > religions were
> > started with good intent, and since I don't believe in actual
> > I can
> > only assume the impetus for all of these is from the same source:
> > 'God', or
> > a direct experience of reality - or what I choose to call zen.
> > All of this is just a comforting thought for me. It's not really
> > in the long run. It's just a way I've found to rationalize other
> > without completely negating them.
> > ...Bill!