Hey Mike; No escape now. Get on with it!. Mayka
--- On Tue, 12/4/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality? To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 1:54 Mike, Share away! I enjoy hearing ALL accouns of experiences and insights. I'm a big boy and can navigate my way through the world of forms - like chakras and chi. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Hi Mayka, > > I'd love to share some of my experiences and insights from my recent > Vipassana > retreat, but it involves things such as opened chakras and more kundalini > happenings. Not very Zen, I'm afraid and could make poor old Bill! cough up > his > tea. : ) > > Mike > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 7 April, 2011 8:19:52 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality? > > > Mike: > Would you be so kind to post and sharing something about whatever your > experience will be on that retreat?. This kind of sharing while the energy > of a > retreat is still fresh is usually most helpful. > > And don't worry it will pass.... > Mayka > > --- On Wed, 6/4/11, mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > > >From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> > >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality? > >To: [email protected] > >Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 11:50 > > > > > > > >Steve, > > > >Thanks mate, I'm well and hope you are, too. I don't have a great deal of > >time > >to answer your previous post as I'm preparing for a 3 day Vipassana retreat > >starting tomorrow. Lot's of new doors to open and explore so I'm looking > >forward > >to returning and carrying on this diescussion! Just one thing that jumped > >out at > >me that I'd like to ask you. You wrote below: > > > >>..if Ultimate Reality is without inherent qualities such as intentionality, > >>and > >>all phenomena are unreal illusion, thenhow did this unreal illusion ever > >>arise > >>at all? The Advaita Vedanta people give no answer to this. > > > >Ok. Can you tell what you agree/disagree with in the below quote from Ramana > >Maharshi (which also, btw, seems to point at a particular meaning of > >'emptiness'). For me, I think that he is much like Buddha in that he doesn't > >concern himself about where the universe began or came from (i.e. questions > >about the metaphysical), but rather concerns himself about how we can free > >ourselves from the illusion. > > > > > >"“Without consciousness > >Time and space do not exist; > >They appear within Consciousness > >But have no reality of their own. > >It is like a screen on which > >All this is cast as pictures and move > >As in a cinema show. > >The Absolute Consciousness > >Alone is our real nature” > > > >Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: SteveW <eugnostos2000@...> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Wed, 6 April, 2011 7:58:30 > >Subject: [Zen] Re: Does Zen contain spirituality? > > > > > > > > > >--- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > >> > >> Steve, > >> > >> What you describe below sounds very much like the Buddhist doctrine of > >> annicca. > >> > >> In Vipassana meditation, the discomfort caused by sitting for prolonged > >> periods > >> > >> of time gives us the insight that pain is not one 'block' of unchanging > >> experience, but is arising/passing in a kind of continous 'flicker' > >> (pretty > >>much > >> > >> like a light bulb appears to be solid but isn't). Likewise, there is no > >> solid > > >> reality called 'you' (or anything else, for that matter) for this to be > >> happening to Is this something like what you mean by the below? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> Hi Mike. I hope you are well today. Yes, of course it includes the > >>understanding that all phenomena are impermanent. But one point I wished to > >>convey was that the traditional Buddhist idea of The Twelvefold Chain of > >>Dependant Origination may not be the final word. This is hinted at in the > >>Tantric teachings (Anthony, I am NOT talking here about fucking my way to > >>enlightenment!) as well as the Tathagatagarbha teachings. The traditional > >>Twelvefold Chain teaching is based upThe obvious philosophical objection to > >>this > >>is that, if Ultimate Reality is without inherent qualities such as > >>intentionality, and all phenomena are unreal illusion, then how did this > >>unreal > >>illusion ever arise at all? The Advaita Vedanta people give no answer to > >>this.on > >>the conventional idea of an unbroken chain of deterministic > >>cause-and-effect. My > >>experience in meditation convinced me that phenomena are really > >>discontinuous > >>because time-sequence itself is an illusion. Because all that really exists > >>is > >>Now, there can be no talk of this leading to that. But what about the > >>relationship between Being and phenomena? In my opinion, the Advaita > >>Vedanta > >>ALMOST get it right. But they seem to side with Being over Becoming, in > >>much the > >>same way as the ancient Greek philosopher Parminides. They discount > >>phenomena as > >>a mere appearance upon the face of static Being. For them, the world is > >>unreal. > >>Not only that, but they assert that the Self is NirGuna, without qualities. > >> > >>Also, if this were so, then theoretically, the moment that any one person > >>became > >>liberated in Moksha, the entire illusion would disappear. I agree with the > >>Heart > >>Sutra when it says that Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form. I also > >>think > >>that I get what the Mahaparanirvana Sutra means when it depicts the Buddha, > >>on > >>the final night before his Paranirvana, telling his monks that, although up > >>until now they have meditated on Impermanence, No-Self and Suffering, they > >>have > >>deluded themselves and must see that the Buddha is really Permanence, Self > >>and > >>Purity. Of course, this one word, "Emptiness" has been no end of vexation > >>for > >>Buddhists. The Prasinga Madhyamaka define it as "Emptiness of Inherent > >>Existence." The Yogacara define it as "Emptiness of Subject and Object". > >>The > >>Tathagatagarbha (of which the Mahaparanirvana Sutra is an example) define > >>it as > >>"Emptiness of Other." You may be interested to know that there is a modern > >>movement among the Theravada which seems to endorse the Tathagatagarbha > >>view-point! The people in that movement are hermit-meditators who claim > >>that > >>traditional Theravada teachings are mistaken because they are based upon > >>the > >>talking of scholars and not the actual experience of meditators. I have > >>meditated diligently my entire life, and I must say I agree with them. IMO, > >>the > >>traditional teachings of Dependant Origination, Impermanence, No-Self and > >>Suffering apply only to the relative plane of understanding. IMO, The > >>Buddha > >>transcends all such conceptualization. The Kashmir Shaivite people say > >>that the > >>world is certainly real in the way that a reflection is real. You know, > >>without > >>reflected phenomena, Being would not be aware of Being. Can you see this? > >>Form > >>is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Together they are the Mystery of What Is > >>looking at What Is. What Is is What? If all things return to the One, to > >>what > >>does the One return? To all things. I bow to all things as to the One! IMO. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
