The difference is love which is an internal state one can share with a lover and being dependent or attached to getting your love from someone else. Love arises from within and is experienced directly. It is not dependent on getting something from a lover... One can experience the same feeling of love for reality itself even without a lover. Buddha nature can be experienced as love..
Edgar On Nov 20, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Anthony Wu wrote: > > It is difficult, if not impossible not to attach to romantic relationships. > Do you have a specific example? > > Anthony > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011, 0:16 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > 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! >> >> > > > > >
