Anthony, As you might recall Hyakujo's living a life of a fox was a life of grace...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Daniel, > Â > To be frank, I don't see Bill's hostility at all. When he says somebody is > filling his insatiable bowl, it is just a harmless metaphor. Bill is very > broadminded. I often 'vilify' him as a wild fox reincarnate and challenge him > to jump off a cliff. He is not upset. > Â > On your part, you made an excellent presentation on Theravada, and I believe > most of us here need you on this forum. > Â > Anthony > > --- On Fri, 20/5/11, empty0grace <empty0grace@...> wrote: > > > From: empty0grace <empty0grace@...> > Subject: [Zen] Reply to Bill > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 1:23 AM > > > Â > > > > Bill, > > I don't much care about name mixing, that's fine. As to your statement: > > "Maybe not so in satipatthana, and if that's is so a practicioner of > satipatthana will be forever filling their insatiable bowl and increasing the > thickness of the layers occluding Buddha Mind." > > Fistly, this is untrue. I have met teachers like Dipa Ma and Taungpulu > Sayadaw whose presence was what can only described as completely resolved and > utterly simple, and certainly with no "bowl to fill." > > Secondly, your words above are hostile, and a vilification. Surely you > capable of expressing a point of view without being rude? I am not interested > in participating in any dialogue in which I am being insulted, or my teachers > disrespected. I would ask you therefore to remain polite and considerate in > your discourse with me. If you don't feel you can do that, then I see no > advantage for you and I to engage each other. > > Daniel > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Beverley, > > > > Japanese Zen Buddhism was the vehicle of my introduction to zen, but many > > of the positions I hold now have departed from that quite a bit. Probably > > the biggest departure is the realization that zen is not at all dependent > > upon or an exclusive sub-set of Buddhism. In order to note that in my posts > > I use the term 'Zen' with an upper-case 'Z' to denote Zen Buddhsim, and > > 'zen' with a lower-case 'z' to denote just 'zen'. You might refer to 'zen' > > as a non-denominational (or more accurately non-religious) zen, or Zen > > Buddhism stripped of the extraneous Buddhist religious dogma and > > connotations. > > > > I know my writing does come across as 'intense'. I've been told that > > before, and not in such a nice way as you have done below. I think > > 'arrogant' and 'authoritarian' are words I've heard used before. That is > > why I posted the 'caveat' that everything I post is my opinion, but > > unfortnately didn't think to do that until after the intial post. > > > > I don't think of myself as 'intense', but after practicing zen for over 40 > > years I do have a pretty solid base of experience from which to speak. I do > > like to hear differing perspectives and that's in part why I participate in > > the Zen Forum. > > > > Your subject post covered a lot of territory. I agree that I'm not > > particularily interested in continuing a comprehensive blow-by-blow dialog, > > but I do believe that one of your central points is completely incorrect - > > at least from a zen perspective, and that is the point about 'developing > > faculties', especially if associated with what you referred to as 'mental > > notation'. This may indeed be the teaching of satipatthana, and maybe the > > central teaching. This also may be compatible with the teachings of > > Buddhism. But for me all that is the exteraneous RELIGIOUS coating that has > > been layered over the fundamental zen core. These add-ons are not only > > unnecessary, but are sometimes misleading and can be extremely > > counter-productive in practice. This notion of your (satipatthana?) is one > > of them. There is nothing that needs to be developed. You already have > > everything you need, in fact you are already Buddha - just as you are. > > Nothing additional is required. > > > > So again, this belief is fundamental to zen. Maybe not so in satipatthana, > > and if that's is so a practicioner of satipatthana will be forever filling > > their insatiable bowl and increasing the thickness of the layers occluding > > Buddha Mind. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "empty0grace" <empty0grace@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > Thank you very much for taking your time, and giving what I said an > > > in-depth read, and for sharing your experience and POV in regards what I > > > wrote. You initial comments as to the lack of clarity, I will definitely > > > address. Your contrasts regarding the differing experience of Japanese > > > Zen, I take interest in as a student of Buddhism, altered states, and a > > > long time yogi. I think this is a good way to try and get some > > > understanding of other people's differing experiences. Obviously, I would > > > not share your conclusions on many of these matters, but I don't think a > > > blow-by-blow discussion would be very profitable for any of us here. By > > > the "intensity" of your remarks, I conclude that you have the answers > > > that you are seeking, and I have no interest in convincing you otherwise. > > > I will continue to give close attention to your remarks during my time > > > here on this board. > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel, My comments are embedded below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > > > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > > > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them > > > > over > > > > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > > > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > > > > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > > > > > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and > > > > assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having a > > > > different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed > > > > your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really > > > > doesn't matter right now. It's your perspective. This is not good and > > > > not bad, but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I > > > > will comment from my perspective which has been built up from my zen > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > > > > > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > > > > > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now > > > > [how] > > > > > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > > > > > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the > > > > second > > > > > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > > > > > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > > > > > goes unoticed. > > > > > > > > [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you start applying > > > > discrimination (categorizing, judging, associating, censoring, > > > > rejecting, augmenting, translating, rationalizing, intellectualizing, > > > > etc...), in other words applying some kind of CHOICE on your sensory > > > > experiences you have entered into the realm of dualism and illusion. > > > > Your choices are the illusions and the myths. > > > > > > > > > Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three > > > > > things particularly difficult: the development of concentration, > > > > insight > > > > > into intention, and the development of effort and energy. When > > > > practice > > > > > is mature in Knowledge of Equanimity, a kind of choiceless awareness > > > > > becomes possible, in that the illusion of the one who attends is now > > > > > absent, but at that point the mind is very developed and will not be > > > > > hindered or deluded by its own act of letting go. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Here you seem to backtrack. In the paragraph above you > > > > indicate 'choiceless awareness' is a myth, but in this paragraph you > > > > admit in the absence of illusion (duality) it 'becomes possible'. So, > > > > is 'choiceless awareness' a myth or not? Or, is it only a myth for some > > > > and not for others? Or, is it a myth for some and not a myth when no > > > > one (self) exists to make choices? > > > > > > > > > The path along which our mind must evolve to come upon the experience > > > > of > > > > > the Unconditioned is quite narrow and precise. The ability to discover > > > > > this precise point of balance in the development of the mind's > > > > > faculties is what made the Buddha so unique. > > > > > > > > [Bill!] There is nothing unique about Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha), or > > > > Buddha (the direct experience of reality we share with all senient > > > > beings). The very fact of this is essential to zen (and to Buddhism). > > > > Otherwise you are elevating Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha) to some special > > > > state like Christianity has mistakenly elevated Jesus. Both Guatama > > > > Siddhartha and Jesus are men, human beings just like you and me, and > > > > anything they have done or accomplished or realized can be done by us > > > > also. > > > > > > > > >There is no room in this > > > > > process for personal predilections or intellectual prejudice. To be > > > > > successful in this path we must train our attention so as to achieve > > > > the > > > > > necessary balance and development of the faculties. There may indeed > > > > be > > > > > more than one system of practice for achieving this, yet every such > > > > > successful system will be discovered to be balanced within itself. > > > > > However, even then, all practice methods must be regularly > > > > > "tweaked" to insure that progress remains on course. In the end, > > > > > it is not the method itself that achieves the goal, but the carefully > > > > > balanced evolution of the faculties that leads the mind to emergence. > > > > > This precision requires refined tuning, something that does not easily > > > > > evolve from free-floating awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] I agree there is not one system of teaching. However, the > > > > practice is not to 'develop faculities'. You already have everything > > > > you need. The practice is to dissolve the sense of dualism you have > > > > created which occludes and interfers with your ability to be aware of > > > > direct sensory experience. So practice is a matter of discarding, not > > > > developing or building. > > > > > > > > > Non-conceptual Awareness is the Goal of Mindfulness The conclusion to > > > > > this logic is that the silent witnessing mind is superior to the use > > > > of > > > > > mental notation. For fuller explanation on the benefits of mental > > > > > notation, please refer to my dedicated chapter on this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Non-conceptual Awareness (aka Buddha Mind) is zen. I don't > > > > know if it is a 'Goal of Mindfulness' or not. Non-conceptual Awareness > > > > is non-dualistic so is not subject to judgement (choices) such as > > > > 'superior'. Mental notation (I think this is the same as I call > > > > discrimnation or using the discriminating mind) is not good and not bad. > > > > It is used to form dualistic concepts. The only caveat here is to be > > > > aware that these concepts, these 'mental notations' are not real but > > > > illusory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conception and preception are so intimately merged that we cannot > > > > > separate them, although we can come to distinguish them. Those who > > > > > pretend that awareness is non-conceptual are lost in their own > > > > concepts > > > > > about practice and are far from seeing the present reality of their > > > > > minds. > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Both 'conception' and 'preception' pre-suppose a discriminating > > > > self. Both are interpretations (post-processing) of sensory experience. > > > > They are illusions created by the discriminating mind which are tagged > > > > to experiences, and often obsure experience to the point of replacing > > > > them as percieved 'reality'. 'Conceptions' and 'preceptions' are part > > > > of the dualistic baggage of the discriminating mind that must be > > > > discarded (or at least suspended) to directly experience reality. > > > > > > > > In ordinary life, the closest we come to non-conceptual awareness > > > > > is in deep sleep, or when we see something in the distance that we do > > > > > not recognize, or when we encounter some new object completely unknown > > > > > and mysterious to us. However, even those last two examples, the mind > > > > is > > > > > busily applying the closest approximate concepts to try and "figure > > > > > it out." > > > > > > > > [Bill!] This is absolutely wrong. There is no awareness in dreamless > > > > sleep, and dreams are all illusions. Intellectual activity as you > > > > describe above is just juggling illusions to try to find one > > > > characterize the sensory experience. Non-conceptual awareness happens > > > > when your teacher slaps your face. It is the awareness of that slap you > > > > have BEFORE you think 'Pain!' or 'Bad'' or 'Embarassed!'. > > > > > > > > Additionally, yogis can experience non-conceptual awareness > > > > > during their practice in that tiny space between sensory impingement > > > > and > > > > > mental recognition. Concepts are not the enemy. The enemy is that > > > > > confusion of mind that cannot distinguish between the two dimensions > > > > of > > > > > conception and perception present in our moment-to-moment cognition. > > > > It > > > > > is this confusion that hides the true nature of both, and not the > > > > > presence of concepts in the mind, which are inevitable and almost > > > > > constantly present. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill] We agree on something! - almost. I'd remove 'yogis' from the > > > > first sentence above. It's not just yogis that can experience this, > > > > it's everyone - all sentient beings. Concepts are not exactly the > > > > enemy, it's the ATTACHMENT to concepts that is the 'enemy'. Concepts > > > > will arise and dissapear. They are illusions. As long as you can > > > > recognize this, concepts are not the 'enemy'; but anything that gives > > > > rise to dualities (the most insiduous being the duality of self/other) > > > > is an 'enemy' to direct awareness (Buddha Mind). > > > > > > > > > Mindfulness Only Reveals What Is > > > > > A common mistake made by many dedicated practitioners of satipathana > > > > or > > > > > other forms of mindfulness as found in various schools of Buddhism, is > > > > > to believe that mindfulness only reveals what is without altering how > > > > > things appear to consciousness. Mindfulness is not a passive process. > > > > It > > > > > radically changes the way the mind experiences its reality. We cannot > > > > > claim therefore that we are merely allowing reality to reveal itself. > > > > > Because the perceptions, insights and states of consciousness that > > > > arise > > > > > in practice are conditioned by the development of the five controlling > > > > > faculties, the jhana factors and the seven factors of enlightenment, > > > > we > > > > > cannot say that we are accessing the reality of the five aggregates as > > > > > they really are in their own objective sphere or even as they would > > > > > appear in some hypothetical state of subjective super clarity. > > > > > Satipathana practice is definitely a system of mental development > > > > > engaging and affecting the mind in many ways and on many levels. All > > > > we > > > > > can say is that mindfulness reveals reality as experienced by a mind > > > > > properly developed in such a way as to experience freedom from greed, > > > > > hatred and delusion. The absence of delusion means something very > > > > > precise: the successful oppositing of the four vipalasas, or > > > > distortions > > > > > of subjective perception. There are the vipalasa that sees the > > > > > impermanent as permanent, the vipalasa that sees the dissatisfactory > > > > as > > > > > satisfactory, the vipalasa that sees a self in what which is no-self, > > > > > and the vipalasa that sees the repulsive as delightful. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] I could not disagree more. I want to reiterate that I'm not > > > > saying your paragraph above is not correct in pointing out what > > > > 'Mindfulness' is and is not. My thoughts below are not from a > > > > 'satipathana perspective. They are from my own zen practice > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > Zen is awareness of only what is. All else is illusory. All > > > > intellectualizations (post-processing) are illusions. And I say again > > > > it is not the illusions that occlude Buddha Mind, it is ATTACHMENT to > > > > illusions that occlude Buddha Mind and that must be dissoved or at least > > > > suspended. > > > > > > > > Clean your bowls! > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
