Bill; I thought that wasn't any level for emotions. If one experiences sadness this also could involve other emotions on the experienced lote and yeas at times could be the one of as dissapointment. Do you make a distintion between different emotions?. It called my attention this insight. Mayka
--- On Sun, 20/3/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] First Master of Dzogchen To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 20 March, 2011, 9:07 Kirsty and Mike, I did not comment on Kristy's previous post because she did correctly remark that I said zen was a-ethical. I beleive it is a-moral also. I never said however that zen was un- or a-emotional. Kristy also never indicated or even insinuated that I did. Zen does have the reputation of being unemotional (or a-emotional), but as Mike has pointed out that is just wrong. In my practice I certainly feel happiness, sadness, anger, love, etc... The point of departure with zen is that there is no evaluting of these emotions. In other words being happy is not 'good' while being sad is 'bad'. Being happy is just happy, and sad is just sad. When I'm happy I'm totally happy, in fact the whole world is happy. When I'm sad I'm totally sad. Neither is better or worse than the other. They just are. I think some of the confusion is that there are some feelings we call 'emotions' that I think should be called 'psuedo-emotions' or 'hybrid emotions' because they are really not pure emotions. They are emotions that have been mixed with valuations associated with attachment and self. An example is 'dissapointment'. I would break down dissapointment as being a pure emotions (sadness), but we associate the CAUSE of the sadness with some attachment we have (such as a goal or expectation). The result is a more complex feeling we call 'disappointment'. So, IMNSOHO, zen practice is not un-emotional or a-emotional - but it does not go on to asign dualistic qualties to emotions, such as 'good' or 'bad'. They are qualities in the same category as 'hungry' and 'tired'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > 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 <healthyplay1@...> > 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 > > >  > > > > > >
