Hi Daniel: Thank you for the warmth energy coming from your mail.
Whatever I write with the pronoun "I" doesn't is done in that way as a meanings to express Mayka personal experience. It's not meant to be an individualistic "I". In the TNH tradition when the Ven. Master talk about himself he refers to himself as "Thay". "Thay" means Teacher in Vietnamese Language. For instance if the Ven wanted to express that he was happy, then he would say "Thay is happy". We had during a retreat a dharma sharing discussion about western an eastern languages. Apparently in Vietnam they don't usually mention the "I" but their names as they were talking in a third person. About the list and lists. Initially I wrote in third person the comment but then changed with the personal "I" implying in that way that the list was irrelevant to me but perhaps not necessarily to others. I couldn't talk for others. You're right and this or any other list can be very useful specially to beginners embracing Buddhism. Besides, It may be also useful to all the others elder practitioners too as it's always handy to have lists specially when one gets lazy in the practise and as a result forgetfulness starts to take place . Bill will say that the remedy to forgetfulness is zazen and he'll be right too. I'm originally from San Sebastian, Basque Country, North of Spain and very close to France. If you're from California you may speak Spanish, or are you not?. I hear there are really beautiful beach over there with fantastic sunrise and sunset....I didn't know that when I came about with the idea of the visualisation. Enjoy your Sunday! Mayka --- On Sat, 21/5/11, empty0grace <[email protected]> wrote: From: empty0grace <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Response to Mayka To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 19:05 Hi Mayka, I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, so I will just insert a few words below following your comments... --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > Daniel: You say there > is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of what > is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going > into a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states > or in delusion about your present experience? It seems to me from > what you say that understanding is very present. Do you think I am > wrong? I think we are getting caught up in words here. I just read a > new post you have up where you stated: > > Mayka: In previous post > you wrote something in connection with understanding. I said that > there is an understanding that is rational and that is not within > buddha nature. Then my statement was there is an understanding that > is not understanding, implying that the rational thinking mind is not > taking place on it. Afterwards my question was if that is the sort > understanding you were referring to (the non rational one). I'm sorry mayka, I was "thrown off" by your use of the word "non-rational" we are indeed speaking of the same thing. Your understanding that is not understanding, is I think, the same thing I am speaking of. > > Daniel: You say, > recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of > re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what > is meant by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only > to help define our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and > misunderstanding that are occurring here. The Buddha made a very good > attempt at creating an "objective" yogic language for his > followers to share, not perfect of course, but still it is helpful. > Mayka: The list may be > useful to Theravada students but it's not of much use to me at the > present moment because at present I'm finding more practical and much > more simple to stay with what arises in me. But Mayka, don't you see that if we were all working off the same "list," we would not have this trouble communicating? It is not just about what is useful to your practice in this moment. There are others to consider, in teaching, sharing etc. You can always define your own terms clearly, but whatever they may be, when you went in to your interview with your teachers, there must have been some kind of language or culture of communication used so you can understand each other, so the Dharma can be communicated. It need not be mine. > >  > Daniel: Like > mindfulness, understanding is a mental factor that is always present > in consciousness. If you don't like the word mental factor, then the > word "consciousness-concommitant" is also sometimes used. > These cetasika are aspects are ways in which consciousness functions. > For example, energy is another one. Low energy, and you are sleepy or > you have sinking mind. Samadhi, or ekagrata is unification of mind, > it is also cetasika or mental factor, as is trust. These five: > mindfulness, understanding, trust, concentration and energy are the > five factors that control the evolution of meditation practice. In > Satipatthana, these are what the teacher looks at when the student > comes in for an interview to see what needs to be balanced out so the > contemplation does not go off track, or get stuck. They are a > very useful tool to generate deeper understanding of practice, once > the student has reached an intermediate level (as I define this). > Mayka: When I'm low of > energy, I'm aware of being low of energy. Then I stop, rest and > practice awareness of my body and mind with conscious in and out > breathing., And that restores energy levels. This paragraph is again > of difficult comprehension to me. It's educative but irrelevant to > my practice. Again, it is not just about your practice, but about truth in general. Let me give you an example. I had a student who was having big problems with sleepiness. I was able to determine over time that this sleepiness was not related to the need for rest, healing, de-stresing. It was actually a hindrance in his practice. The advice he needed was not to take more naps. He needed to generate awakeness in the mind. To make this determination, I had to know what to look for, to understand the nature of this torpidity. This is where such knowledge comes in handy. I have used it myself at time in balancing out my own practice. When I say these things, I am not trying to convince you about something you need. I am not interested in changing your practice. I am discussing the power of truth to open up possibilities in our conscoiusness for development, freedom, cultivation, the power to have real choices. > > Daniel: What do you mean > when you say there is non-duality? You speak of objects such as body > and mind. Is consciousness identical to the objects? If so, then how > do they know themselves? If not, then is this not duality of > consciousness and object? You see, I also am confused when you speak > J > > > Mayka: When I talk about non duality means that > because there is conscious breathing in and out, mindfulness, > awareness, attention, observation, recognition, acceptance,... of > what is going on in body and mind the same conscious breathing, > minfulness, awareness....dissolves by itself before even taking place > the entanglament, attachement to any perception, sensation, feeling, > emotion, mental formation, thought... This is truly wonderful and beautiful. Thank you for sharing this with me. This is homeless mind, eh? "NOt me, not mine" as constant and spontaneous truth of our being. I find that when I am sitting quietly, this reality asserts itself spontaneously, but when my mind is engaged in working (like solving problems on the job) this reality recedes. Perhaps there is a state, like the Theravada arhant, where this condition of constantly open free heart is not overshadowed by the function of the effortful thinking mind? > > > > > Daniel: To me, what is > understood changes at different stages in the development of > mindfulness depending on how the mind apprehends the object. For > example what appears to be a painful knee at one stage later appears > to be only vibrations and unpleasant sensations at another. > Eventually, background and foreground merge, there is only > consciousness functioning with vibrations of energy within it. One > cannot say if the energy is one or separate from consciousness > because there is not point of view outside of consciousness from > which to make the assertion. But still there is understanding > present with consciousness as to what is going down. Still I am aware > "now there is only empty energy vibrations." Not in mental > images or words of course; those cannot survive in that environment, > but simply as understanding. There are in 11 such stages in the > unfolding of the progress of insight (more depending on how you > choose to divide them). Each has it's own "ñana" or > insight knowledge. For example, there is "knowledge of > dissolution" and "knowledge of what is and what is not the > path" and there is "knowledge discerning conditionality" > etc. > > Mayka: I don't understand this paragraph very well. It sounds as > something very complicated and definetely needs from a Teacher to > guide one here. Sorry Mayka, I did not mean to get so technical. All I was trying to say is that knowledge is not absolute but relative to the dimension of experience that we are having in the moment. Mayka, what is your native language? > > Daniel: Do you not have > such noticeable stages of progress in your tradition? They may not be > named, but I am pretty sure that most students will go through a > common set of experiences as their practice matures. Surely there is > some development of concentration and mindfulness over the years and > this must change the way reality appears? > Mayka: I don't know if > there are different stages. If there are I don't about them. I > never received the full education and training face to face you are > receiving. In fact I grow through the years anger and distrust over > the TNH institution in this respect. His institution seem to focus > more in expanding in numbers of people rather than taking first care > and given the appropiate education and training to the people they > already have. So even when one would attend a retreat with them the > same basic for beginers dharma will be repeating over and over again. > In different words any evolution I've been having in the practice it > has to do more with my individual practice and some spare retreats > over the years face to face with the Ven. And Monastics, plus > sessions of sitting down with the local sangha here in Edinburgh. > Therefore, it's natural having evolved more in the pure zen line > rather than any buddhist background. Hope talking in such straight > forward manners won't be offensive to you, your tradition and > anybody else. I consider very important being honest, sincere and to > show to others what we are really about so they don't get confused > about one and the particular way one has evolved. But then again, > the Buddha evolved by himself alone. He just sat down. And that is > exaclty what Dogen considered the chore of zen practice. I have > added to it the very useful teaching interpretated by myself direct > experience with it of mindfulness=awareness Ah Mayka, I am so sorry to hear that these teachers neglected you! It is the same problem in the western world of satipatthana training. To many yogis, not enough time. I was fortunate in that I was able to get some good individual attention by looking for the right teachers, years ago. But again, what we discover for ourselves is, just as you say, the deepest and the most powerful of truths. I admire this spirit of independence in you! It take confidence and dedication. > > > > > About sunrise > visualization. I wanted you to experience the whole rainbow of > awareness. So that you could see by yourself the simplicity of just > being there with what we have in front of us. There is no mention in > your description any sensation from your body, any passing thought in > your mind, the waves of the sea coming and going, its noise, its, > smell, your breathing going in and out as in alike rhythm of the wave > sea, sunrise with sea smells and your response to it, muscles in the > face..............Perhaps visualization wasn't such a good idea after > all and the best is that if you have the chance....then you could do > it for real. Mayka, I do this all the time. I live a block away from the sea cliffs here in Santa Cruz California and I love to watch the sunset over the Pacific Ocean. And yes, it is just as you say, but I misunderstood your instructions, because to me the word "visualize" means only the "vizual" components. (lol) it is almost impossible to have such discussions by email! > > > Thank you for being > there in your full presence > > Mayka Mayka, talking with you is a delight. Thank you for your patience. I think we can let go of this thread. If you have any last words you would like to add, please go ahead. > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 20/5/11, empty0grace empty0grace@... wrote: > > From: empty0grace empty0grace@... > Subject: [Zen] Response to Mayka > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 17:28 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Hello Mayka, >  > Thank you again, for your attention and your questions. This time I also have > some questions for you, since I am having trouble understanding some of your > points. >  > You say there is no understanding, but then are you without understanding of > what is before you or what you are doing? Surely you are not just going into > a trance, lapsing into concentration states, hypnogogic states or in delusion > about your present experience? It seems to me from what you say that > understanding is very present. Do you think I am wrong? I think we are > getting caught up in words here. I just read a new post you have up where you > stated: >  > "The reason because that is an add on is because one only has to pay > ATTENTION and RECOGNISE whatever is there. One does not need from any list > to tell you that you have a sensation of cold, heat, mental formation of > anger, peace...." >  > You say, recognize. This is exactly what I mean: a conscious act of > re-cognition. This is not just bare sensory awareness. This is what is meant > by understanding. The lists are unnecessary. They serve only to help define > our terms so as to minimize the kinds of arguments and misunderstanding that > are occurring here. The Buddha made a very good attempt at creating an > "objective" yogic language for his followers to share, not perfect of course, > but still it is helpful. >  > Like mindfulness, understanding is a mental factor that is always present in > consciousness. If you don't like the word mental factor, then the word > "consciousness-concommitant" is also sometimes used. These cetasika are > aspects are ways in which consciousness functions. For example, energy is > another one. Low energy, and you are sleepy or you have sinking mind. > Samadhi, or ekagrata is unification of mind, it is also cetasika or mental > factor, as is trust. These five: mindfulness, understanding, trust, > concentration and energy are the five factors that control the evolution of > meditation practice. In Satipatthana, these are what the teacher looks at > when the student comes in for an interview to see what needs to be balanced > out so the contemplation does not go off track, or get stuck. They are a > very useful tool to generate deeper understanding of practice, once the > student has reached an intermediate level (as I define this). >  > What do you mean when you say there is non-duality? You speak of objects such > as body and mind. Is consciousness identical to the objects? If so, then how > do they know themselves? If not, then is this not duality of consciousness > and object? You see, I also am confused when you speak J >  > To me, what is understood changes at different stages in the development of > mindfulness depending on how the mind apprehends the object. For example what > appears to be a painful knee at one stage later appears to be only vibrations > and unpleasant sensations at another. Eventually, background and foreground > merge, there is only consciousness functioning with vibrations of energy > within it. One cannot say if the energy is one or separate from consciousness > because there is not point of view outside of consciousness from which to > make the assertion. But still there is understanding present with > consciousness as to what is going down. Still I am aware "now there is only > empty energy vibrations." Not in mental images or words of course; those > cannot survive in that environment, but simply as understanding. There are in > 11 such stages in the unfolding of the progress of insight (more depending on > how you choose to divide them). Each has it's own "ñana" or > insight knowledge. For example, there is "knowledge of dissolution" and > "knowledge of what is and what is not the path" and there is "knowledge > discerning conditionality" etc. >  > Do you not have such noticeable stages of progress in your tradition? They > may not be named, but I am pretty sure that most students will go through a > common set of experiences as their practice matures. Surely there is some > development of concentration and mindfulness over the years and this must > change the way reality appears? >  > In your previous post you asked: >  > "In connection with understanding my comprehension over your post is that you > mean an understanding free from any rational understanding. It's an > understanding coming out the same awareness. Is it this what you meant by > it?" >  > Mayka, I would say that rational understanding if in harmony with insight is > not an obstacle. This would in fact be right understanding, the first step of > the Noble Eightfold Path.  But it does tend to dissolve as the mind learns > to let go and trust the light of wisdom to function naturally. However we > cannot say that they are contradictory, otherwise we say that the natural > light of understanding is occluded by the functioning of the rational mind. > I would say that the purpose of "right understanding" is precisely to bring > about a functioning of the rational mind that is in harmony with direct > understanding or as the Buddha called it "knowledge and vision", and therefor > does not obscure it. You see even in this phrase Knowledge and Vision, much > used in the Pali scriptures, this two fold aspect of the development is > being pointed out. There is the perception of reality, and the understanding > of it. So for example, you are contemplating > impermanence. You see that every aspect of the five aggregates is in a > state of constant change, but then one day you really get it. Oh! I get > it! It's impermanent! Really really really non-abiding, not just a > perception, but the actual reality of all my experience all the time. There > is no refuge anywhere for consciousness. Everything is dissolving all the > time! These are words of course and they cannot convey the depth and power of > the insight. But I am sure you understand. But do you see how this > understanding, even if put into words, mentally, does not obscure the > impact of this realization? This is right understanding.  >  > Then you said to me: >  > "Imagine that you are contemplating one of those coloring sunrise over the > sea. You sit down on the sand. Can you visualize it and give a > description of it? Please, don't write anything that you didn't experience > during your visualization. (This may not be very zen but would like to show > you something)." >  > OK, here I just spent a couple of minutes visualizing a sunset. It is a > beautiful red-orange color. The bottom of the sun it just touching the > horizon; it kind of spreads out a bit. It is a little hard to look at. There > are no clouds. The background light around the sun in greenish yellow fading > into violet above. The waves appear reflective in the distance, and dark as > they get closer. I feel calm and happy. The longer I visualize the more > detail I can bring in. If I now apply mindfulness to this experience, the > entire business begins to dissolve into mental light. >  > Have a wonderful day! And thanks for your patience... >  > Daniel >
