Chris, Of course, the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. Words are clumsy tools and can only symbolise and point at 'it', but without words we'd have no Zen forum and people here would have to go back to hanging around street corners again (or orgyhouses).
Mike ________________________________ From: ChrisAustinLane <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, 4 April, 2011 3:02:20 Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse There is no 'thing' which is not born and does not die. No it. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Apr 3, 2011, at 3:46, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: Mayka, > >To be honest, I don't think we are talking about the same thing simply known >by >another name. What you describe about mindfulness below is 100% correct, but >doesn't describe the full story. I think that comment (from the Nisargadatta >maharaj video) says it all. "What is it that never changes? Experience that >directly." Now, what you describe below admits that at times (most of the >time?) >we're simply 'not there' and employ mindfulness to "bring the body and mind >together." This means we're constantly changing from one state (mindlessness) >to >another (mindfulness). By definition,this cannot be the unborn, undying >Supreme >Reality. When you're not being mindful and are "lost in your thoughts", have >you >simply vanished and ceased to be? No. There is still an awareness of being (I >Amness) - this is not the same as mindfulness because it IS what never >changes. >Where mindfulness comes in is in the cultivation of this awareness and is >never >ending. By the way, IMO this where Chris's quote about 'glimpsing the Supreme >Reality is still yet not Awakening' applies. > >Mike > >rom: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sun, 3 April, 2011 18:42:51 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > > >Mike: > >Just one think to be pointed out from this insightful post of yours that Siska >has brought back: > >The activity of bringing the mind back to the present moment is also called >mindfulness. You may have paid already attention in yourself that often while >walking, doing different activities. The body is in one place and the mind >is >lost in thoughts in another place. The body and the mind at those moments are >not in togetherness, they are separated. Mindfulness brings the body and mind >together at those moments. > > >There are many different vehicles to be in contact with, find the heart of >reality. Mine is the one of mindfulness. Not necessarily anyone else. > > >As ED pointed out some time ago; "Different strokes for different people" > > >Enjoy your Sunday >Mayka > > >--- On Sat, 2/4/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>To: [email protected] >>Date: Saturday, 2 April, 2011, 14:24 >> >> >> >>Hi Mike, >> >>Like like like >> >>:-) >>siska ________________________________ >>From: mike brown <[email protected]> >>Sender: [email protected] >>Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:45:28 +0100 (BST) >>To: <[email protected]> >>ReplyTo: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >> >> >>Mayka, >> >>Yes, that would be an "extraordinary thought"!! It's not the living in the >>present moment that's the problem, it's the belief that there are moments >>we're >>not *always* living in the now (i.e "Damn, I was caught up in my thoughts for >>a >>while there. Better start being mindful and get back into living in the now." >>This is wrong thinking. We're always living in the now - it's never not now. >>Mindfulness doesn't "take" us there. As Alan Watts said, 'Where ever you go - >>there you are." >> >>Mike >> >> >> >> ________________________________ From: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Fri, 1 April, 2011 7:08:42 >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >> >> >>Mike; >> >>How it comes that living the present moment in awareness could become a >>double >>edged sword?. It never crossed my mind thinking "I've got mindfulness, >>yup-iii!", what an extraordinary thought!. >> >> >> However, I admit that I only practise diligent mindfulness most of times >> when >>I'm in my last legs. A bit like the Christians praying to God when they want >>something, with the difference that here the miracle is operated by oneself >>work. Well, at least I found the door and also know how to open it. Are >>there >>more doors than this?. >> >> >>Mayka >> >> >>--- On Thu, 31/3/11, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>From: mike brown <[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>>To: [email protected] >>>Date: Thursday, 31 March, 2011, 22:31 >>> >>> >>> >>>Mayka, >>> >>>We just have to be careful with mindfulness - it's very much a double-edged >>>sword in that it can be the catalyst for awakening to reality, but it can >>>also >>>make us think we've 'got it' when in fact it's nothing but our ego taking a >>>very >>>subtle rest. Also, we need to get past the way we think of mindfulness. In >>>the >>>beginning we tend to find ourselves consciously employing it at specific >>>times. >>>"Right, I've done the tidying up, taken a shower and washed the dishes. Now >>>I'm >>>going to take the dog out and really focus on what I'm doing, feel the wind >>>on >>>my face, not zone out and follow any thoughts and really be here" All well >>>and >>>good. But what we've also done there, by definition, is to separate >>>ourselves >>>between not being mindfull and being mindful which in turn also reinforces >>>the >>>sense of separateness from our intrinsic awareness of Budhha. In simple >>>terms, there is an awareness that is unborn and undying right now whichin >>>Vedanta is expressed as 'I Am'. That awareness is right there with you when >>>you're washing the dishes and putting out the rubbish and is there prior to >>>just >>>when you think, "Now I'm going to practice mindfulness" and it's there when >>>you >>>stop being mindful. >>> >>>Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ From: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> >>>To: [email protected] >>>Sent: Thu, 31 March, 2011 7:39:29 >>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>> >>> >>>Mike: >>> >>>That's right Mike. However, previous indications in the map and tools were >>>most >>>useful to experience reality as it is, and not as we imagine it to be. >>> >>> >>>Mayka >>> >>> >>>--- On Wed, 30/3/11, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>From: mike brown <[email protected]> >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>>>To: [email protected] >>>>Date: Wednesday, 30 March, 2011, 22:21 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Mayka, >>>> >>>>>Bill has a point. The less adds on the most likely to experience reality >>>>>as it >>>>>is. >>>> >>>>Taken to the ultimate conclusion being that we don't need *any* of the >>>>precepts >>>>in mind to "experience reality as it is". >>>> >>>>Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ From: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> >>>>To: [email protected] >>>>Sent: Thu, 31 March, 2011 4:52:54 >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>>> >>>> >>>>Bill has a point. The less adds on the most likely to experience reality as >>>>it >>>>is. >>>> >>>>At the same time Steve also has a point. Living philosophies may embrace >>>>in >>>>compassion the whole universe. >>>> >>>> >>>>Mayka >>>> >>>>--- On Wed, 30/3/11, SteveW <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>From: SteveW <[email protected]> >>>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse >>>>>To: [email protected] >>>>>Date: Wednesday, 30 March, 2011, 17:52 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> I fundamentally disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Buddhism, as well as Judiasm/Christianity/Islam, and all other religions >>>>>> I know >>>>>>about are based on the essense of zen. They are all, including Buddhism, >>>>>>just >>>>>>layers that have been built up around zen and serve to occlude the >>>>>>essense of >>>>>>zen to varying extents. I will say that Buddhism has the least occluding >>>>>>layers >>>>>>of the religions I have read about, but it still has a lot. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Bill! >>>>>> >>>>>Hi Bill! In my opinion, there are two aspects to the human phenomenon of >>>>>religion. One aspect is the evolved religios which binds society together >>>>>in a >>>>>shared identity. This is just an evolved trait that is useful from the >>>>>view-point of group selection. The other aspect is the awakened insight >>>>>into >>>>>Suchness. But some religions as they exist now are more effective vehicles >>>>>for >>>>>encouraging awakened insight into Suchness than others. Within each of the >>>>>Big >>>>>Three Abrahamic traditions, there have arisen minority mystical movements >>>>>that >>>>>are a spontaneous expression of Enlightened Mind, but they have always >>>>>been >>>>>regarded as heretical. Even the most literal-minded Pureland Buddhist >>>>>realizes >>>>>that the ultimate goal is awakening. They just want to go to Buddhist >>>>>Heaven >>>>>where they imagine that awakening will be easier. But they still >>>>>understand that >>>>>ultimately it is more than just going to Heaven. And so, as you yourself >>>>>note, >>>>>Buddhism has the least occluding layers. The average Christian would not >>>>>regard >>>>>Meister Eckhart as being a real Christian. >>>>>Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> ncnBzcElkAzE3MDc1ODkwMTAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDaHBmBHN0aW1lAzEzMDE4Mjc2MDM-"> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > >
