Enjoy it for what it is but don't be attached to it. Just like everything else...
Edgar On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:49 AM, ED wrote: > > > Hi sis > > Hi siska, Bill, All, > > I wonder what the consequences of applying the Zen perpective to a romantic > relationship might be. Your thoughts on this matter would be welcome. > > --ED > > > > Hi Bill, All, > > > > > From a zen perspective `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are in fact > > > the very ILLUSIONS that are created by your discriminating mind that > > > prevent you from experiencing your sensory input directly ˆ in a raw, > > > unfiltered, uncategorized, un-judged manner. In other words `feelings, > > > perceptions and volitions' are the very illusions which obscure Buddha > > > Nature. > > > > > > From a zen perspective, whether it is the zen you practise or other zen > > practices, does it mean that these feelings, perceptions and volitions, aka > > illusions, are not present in the presence Buddha Nature or are they > > present and yet the 'Buddha Nature consciousness' is not affected by it? > > > > Siska > > > > ED, > > > > Thanks for this reference. > > > > I obviously don't agree with what is presented here ˆ not that I disagree > > that this is a faithful representation of Buddhist thought, but I disagree > > that it is a correct view. It might be okay from a Buddhist religious > > perspective, but it doesn't speak to me from a zen perspective at all. > > > > First of all and although I can understand and even sympathize with > > Buddhist and Western thought that leads to the separation and > > categorization of sentient quality in 5 (or 6) categories: external objects > > (transmitters) and `internal' sense organs (receptors) ˆ ex., visible > > object/eye. That is the logical thing to do: create a dualistic, structured > > framework which our rational, discriminating mind can grasp and feel > > comfortable with. > > From my experience when Buddha Nature is manifest there is not a > > separation. There is not a dualistic separation such as `external' and > > `internal' such as `sound' and `ear', nor is there a separation between > > `internal organs' such as ear and eye. Sound and sight is not separate from > > nor distinct pieces of Buddha Nature. When `you hear a sound', there is no > > `you', there is no `hear', there is no `sound'. There is Just THIS! When > > `you hear a sound and see a sight', there is no `you', no separation > > between `hear' or `see' or `sound' or `sight'. It is all just one thing: > > Buddha Nature ˆ Just THIS! > > > > Now, as to how Buddhist thought adds in the paired, external/internal > > category of `feelings, perceptions and volitions'/mind is really beyond me. > > When I'm operating in a nice cozy, logical, dualistic mode I could > > understand the grouping of the first 5 `external objects' since the source > > of all of them are vibrations ˆ something physical. However my logic tells > > me that `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are NOT the same as external > > physical objects transmitting vibrations which are picked up by my paired > > `internal' 5 sense organs. `Feelings, perceptions and violations' are NOT > > something physical nor external at all. They are in fact internal creations > > of my mind (unless you want to assign their origin to something > > supernatural ˆ like a god. The proceeding as I said was an argument and > > perspective using logic. > > > > From a zen perspective `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are in fact > > the very ILLUSIONS that are created by your discriminating mind that > > prevent you from experiencing your sensory input directly ˆ in a raw, > > unfiltered, uncategorized, un-judged manner. In other words `feelings, > > perceptions and volitions' are the very illusions which obscure Buddha > > Nature. > > > > This mismatch of the two perspectives described above concerning sentient > > qualities (aka as the 5 senses) and mind (aka in Buddhism as the 6th sense) > > is in fact the difference I see/sense/experience between Buddhism proper > > and the zen I practice. > > > > ∑Bill! > > > > > Five or six? See below. --ED > > > > > > "Ayatana (Pali; Sanskrit) is a Buddhist term that has been translated as > > > "sense base", "sense-media" or "sense sphere." In Buddhism, there are > > > six internal sense bases (Pali: ajjhattikani ayatanani; also known as, > > > "organs", "gates", "doors", "powers" or "roots") and six external sense > > > bases (bÄ™hirÄ™ni Ä™yatanÄ™ni or "sense objects"; also > > > known as vishaya or "domains"). Thus, there are six internal-external > > > (organ-object) pairs of sense bases: > > > > > > * eye and visible objects > > > * ear and sound > > > * nose and odor > > > * tongue and taste > > > * body and touch > > > * mind and mental objects > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)> > > > > > > Buddhism and other Indian epistemologies identify six "senses" as > > > opposed to the Western identification of five. > > > > > > In Buddhism, "mind" denotes an internal sense organ which interacts with > > > sense objects that include sense impressions > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phassa> , feelings > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedana> , perceptions > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%C3%B1%C3%B1a> and volition > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra> ." > > > > > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > Truthfully I haven't thought about that a lot. > > > > > > Just off-the-cuff I'd say I would object to saying that the awareness of > > > mentation was a sixth sense. All your other senses bring you awareness > > > of real > > > things. Mentation is not a real thing, it is a collection of illusions, > > > so I > > > believe it is not in the same category as the other senses. > > > > > > This answer was arrived at without much thought so don't hold me to it > > > to > > > closely in the future... > > > > > > ...BIll! > > > > > > Do you disagree that the awareness of mentation is a sixth sense? (as > > > I have > > > considered the heart sutra et alia to imply? And which I personally find > > > to be > > > a very freeing bit of Buddhist insight). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris Austin-Lane > > > > > > ED, > > > > > > > > > > I'll answer your questions below in the reverse order that you asked > > > them: > > > > > > > > > > [ED] By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: ... > > > > > > > > > > I do mean what we call the five senses. > > > > > > > > > > From an illusory dualistic and discriminating (categorizing/judging) > > > perspective there is a 'me/I' (self) so 'I have 5 senses. I see > > > something blue > > > and it is pretty.' > > > > > > > > > > Contrast this with a non-dualistic, non-discriminating perspective > > > which > > > would be: 'Just THIS!' - just awareness. That is no distinction between > > > 'self' > > > and 'sight', no catagorization of the awareness as 'blue' and no > > > judgement made > > > that it is 'pretty'. > > > > > > > > > > Just THIS! That is Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > > > [ED] Was it the position of your Zen teachers? > > > > > > > > > > I've never discussed Buddha Nature in this manner with my Zen > > > Buddhist > > > teachers. If I had they would have probably told me to 'empty my bowls' > > > - > > > meaning 'don't try to intellectualize Buddha Nature'. But to directly > > > answer > > > your question, no - none of my teachers ever told me this. > > > > > > > > > > [ED] Is this position traditional in Zen? > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if there's anyone or any organization that could > > > officially > > > speak for Zen Buddhism. I think it is the 'traditional position' because > > > most > > > of the traditional koans and stories (mondos) of historical zen adepts > > > that I've > > > read or heard about support this position - at least it seems that way > > > to me. > > > > > > > > > > In the end however I don't need any validation from traditional zen > > > or from > > > living Zen Buddhist teachers. I have experienced it myself. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > >> Bill, > > > > >> > > > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses ... > > > > >> > > > > >> Is this position traditional in Zen? > > > > >> > > > > >> Was it the position of your Zen teachers? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, ED > > > > >> > > > > >> PS: By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: seeing, > > > hearing, > > > > >> touch, tasting, smelling. > > > > > > >>> ED, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I consider the 'root of Buddhism' to be the sutras, and especially > > > > >> those that are presented as a first-hand account of the teachings > > > of > > > > >> Siddartha Buddha. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I consider the 'root of Zen Buddhism' to be the account of > > > Siddartha > > > > >> Buddha's 'Flower Sermon' on Vulture Peak when he is reported to > > > have > > > > >> wordlessly trasmited the Dharma to Mahakasyapa. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses: Just THIS! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ...Bill! > > > >
