Hi Kristy, I hear what you're saying and I understand the 'long dark night of the soul' you seem to be going thru. I wonder tho, where have you heard that Zen is "a-emotional"? Sure, if Buddhism is practiced by Vulcans, or in Stepford, then this might be the situation : ). But arising emotions are an inescapable partt of the human condition - 'enlightened' or not - and the suppression of these emotions can lead to unhealthy mental conditions (as I'm sure you're professionally aware). IMO, the practice of Zen doesn't lead us to try to escape emotions, but rather helps us to face them honestly when they arise without listening, or following, the little stories the mind constructs around them. Don't worry about feeling anger, pain, sadness etc because feeling them means you are alive (and a broken heart just might be necessary to enable the light to shine thru the crack).
Mike ________________________________ From: Kristy McClain <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, 19 March, 2011 4:18:34 Subject: Re: [Zen] First Master of Dzogchen Hi Mike... (My comments follow yours below)... > I fully accept Bill's statement that zen is a-ethical. I agree, but this doesn't give us the full picture either. If you look at many of the illustrations of Buddhist iconography you can see that to the right of buddha sits Manjusri (Bodhisattva of Wisdom)) and to his left sits Samantabhadra (Bodhisattva of Compassion). Without these two, Buddha is crippled. Without wisdom, compassion becomes a weak form of sentimentality - without compassion, wisdom becomes cold and abstract. I know this is not about "ethics" per se, but I find in Zen circles too much of the latter is prevalent (I put myself in this category).<< As I understand Bill's practice-- he does not include reference to buddhism, so I don't know if he would ammend his statement with the above, but thats up to him. Yet, you do point to the heart of my "sadness" in all this. I'm feeling that I see zen and similar practices as being a-emotional. I'm troubled with the devotion to becoming "detached" and "mindfully composed". "Benign". Its said that false humility is the worst form of arrogance. I'm not sure thats true, but if so-- then similarly, professing to be ego-less, non-dual yet benignant, seems to be the epitome of self-centered rightiousness. Dunno.. maybe I'm just going thru a stage of cynicism, and like all things, "this too will pass". I like your references to wisdom and compassion. It appeals to my sense of balance. I understand homeostasis in medicine. Equilibrium in economics. I think whats been bugging me is that I also see the value of "passion" in all its connotations. Work, love-- and any chosen contemplative practice. I don't believe in the five poisins. Labelling anything as inherently good or bad is by definition: Dualism. But then-- so is passion as I understand it. Its ironic that you are teaching language as this topic arises. The words we choose to describe our experience-- become our experience. I see great value in anger, greed, hate and the like. I welcome them to my tea table with the rest. They serve me in return, as instructive guides and companions. "Anger", for example can serve as a very benevolent catalyst for change. The associations we create linking emotions with words become thoughts and actions. As Easter is approaching, I happened to read an article about St. Francis. He said, "You must lose your life-- to find your life". Through loss, trauma, crisis, stress and limits, we are offered a doorway to a deeper awareness and clarity of consciousness. Few here know this better than you, as you experience the events in Japan. I know from my own experience that this process is not easy to recognize or embrace. But I also know that "what we resist-- persists". I guess this is a process of 'letting go'. I was disappointed to read that St. Francis spent his whole life "finding himself". Seeking his "God-self" or "Christ-self" or "Buddha-self" , or what I call "authentic self"-- I think it IS important to do this, but I also see it as egotistic. So from this, I conclude that one has to embrace and cherish and even celebrate this ego-drive, to then--release it? The ego as the Great illusion /deluder, yet the priest who wrote the article on St. Francis wrote that moving into the "true" self , is a calling that is so powerful that once set upon this path, one can never get enough of it, because then you are living in the eternal. I would reject this.. as it seems like an addiction. And again--ego-driven. So I am full circle on my dilemma: How to indeed find the "buddha-nature" within --without spending your whole life focused on yourself? Please take care, Mike. I have been watching the debate over forcing all Americans to leave Japan. Reading your other posts.. it does sound horrific. You are in my heart.. Kristy >
