Hi Ed, I was about to ask your views on non-dualism, but I am guessing your view is represented by the article here and in your other post. And I agree with what is being said here.
The other article was fine too, in terms of putting non-dualism and zen into words. My view is that non-dualism is here and now (as in Hakuin's song), instead of some destination point, which you seemed to imply in your previous post. siska -----Original Message----- From: "ED" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:17:55 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse Hi siska, You may want to ask Bill, Mike, Steve and Mayka their views on Zen and non-dualism. --ED PS: Excerpt from: http://crazycloudnz.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/a-discussion-of-the-book-of\ -atheist-spirituality-by-arthur-wells/ <http://crazycloudnz.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/a-discussion-of-the-book-o\ f-atheist-spirituality-by-arthur-wells/> " Why do I say that Zen Buddhism in particular has no true parallel in Western thought? Because Zen is the realisation of the non-dual nature of reality. Strange to say, such radical non-dualism is not cultivated in any Western system of thought or religious practice. Non-dualism does appear at times in Western thought, mainly as the polarised positions of Idealism and Materialism. No middle ground that would fit the Zen position has been well worked over in Western philosophy, although mystical non-dualism has a rich presence in Western literature, for example in the poetry of Wordsworth and Blake. How is Zen radically non-dualist? Take Hakuin's "Song of Zazen," for example. At the climax of the poem he says "Singing and dancing are the voice of the law…Nirvana is right here, before our eyes, this very place is the Lotus Land, this very body the Buddha." This is clearly Hakuin's expression of his religious ecstasy, but the content is completely of this world. No hidden world or level of reality is implied. This is the hallmark of Zen. Nothing in Zen is viewed as more real or valuable than that which is vividly apparent through our senses: "Great mystery, wonderful powers of mind, chopping wood and drawing water!" Or, as Ross Bolleter Roshi is fond of saying, "Nothing is more profound than breakfast!" As a brief aside here, Zen is significantly different even from its closest relative in Eastern thought, Advaita Vedanta, because Vedanta maintains that the physical universe is illusory (the only reality being the spiritual substrate, Brahman, which from the Buddhist point of view is an example of the heresy of Eternalism). Hegelians wouldn't have much trouble with that, but they would with Zen, because Zen, as Hee-Jin Kim says, is "mystical realism," (the term is in the title of Kim's book on Dogen). Here is the core of the problem – Kim has put together two terms that don't cohabit in Western thought, because Western thought is still deeply mired in the dualisms of God and the world, spirit and matter, heaven and earth. I can find only a few contemporary scientists who in the way they think and write are getting close to the non-dualism of Zen." --- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > That is true, if non-dualism is an end point for us to arrive to :-) > > siska > Hi siska, > > Perhaps 'same, similar or different' do not matter provided the same > end-point (nondualism) is arrived at. > > --ED > > Hi Ed, > > > > Based on the article, Sri Ramana's view on 'I-mind' is similar to that > of Jiddu Krishnamurti. The method, however, does not seem to be really > similar. > > > > --------------- > > Sri Ramana taught that since the individual `I'-thought cannot exist > without an object, if attention is focused on the subjective feeling of > `I' or `I am' with such intensity that the thoughts `I am this' or `I am > that' do not arise, then the individual `I' will be unable to connect > with objects. > > --------------- > > > > I don't know much about zen yet, so I don't know if it is similar to > zen. > > > > siska
