Because you haven't achieved realization? :-) Edgar
On Nov 20, 2011, at 7:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Edgar, > > Why does this sound more like a duality of illusion and reality to me? > > Siska > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:09:24 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > When they are recognized as illusion rather than reality. The reality of an > illusion is that it is an illusion. Illusions recognized as illusions are > reality.. > > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 20, 2011, at 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> I'm not sure I understand you perfectly when you said "When their nature is >> realized". >> >> Objects being passing objects of consciousness is not the same with being >> noted and then ignored. Borrowing your simile, one is without attachment, >> the other is not attached to the attachment. >> >> Siska >> >> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >> Sender: [email protected] >> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:51:20 -0500 >> To: <[email protected]> >> ReplyTo: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >> >> >> Bill and Siska, >> >> >> When their nature is realized such mental objects are usually still present >> but generally fade rapidly because they are just noted and ignored, not >> focused on like they used to be considered the self rather than just passing >> contents of consciousness. Since focusing on them is what perpetuates them >> they tend to gradually diminish. >> >> That's why I like to say 'I still have attachments but I'm not attached to >> them.' >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Bill! wrote: >> >>> >>> Siska, >>> >>> I had to re-read the post below to re-orient myself to this discussion. I >>> might not have brought myself completely up-to-date so please excuse any >>> misunderstandings. >>> >>> I copied the terms 'feelings, perceptons and volitions' from the text >>> below. These are supposed to be the 'mental objects' that are supposed to >>> comprise the '6th sense' that is the subject of the discussion. I replied >>> that it is these very illusions that obscure Buddha Nature, and I still >>> stand by that statement. >>> >>> You asked a very good question: "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?" >>> >>> First of all I can only answer from the zen I practice. I never claim to >>> represent 'standard Zen Buddhism' although I think in this case there is >>> not a great divergence. >>> >>> Buddha Nature is the pure awareness of raw sensory input, and nothing more. >>> All creations of the descriminating mind (the mind that intellectualizes, >>> rationalizes, categorizes, judges, etc..., are illusions. When the >>> discriminating mind is fully engaged it's activites censor, augment, >>> interpret, categorize, etc..., sensory input; and creates pure illusions >>> (fantasies) that don't even have a basis of current sensory input. >>> >>> These activities (thoughts) obscure Buddha Nature. >>> >>> Early in my practice I could not maintain Buddha Nature AND create thoughts >>> at the same time. It was one or the other. Through futher practice I was >>> better able to maintain Buddha Nature and allow thoughts to form and >>> dissipate without loosing awareness of Buddha Nature. The ability to to >>> this came gradually. I call this 'integrating Buddha Nature into my daily >>> life', and that in fact IS my practice - the practice of integrating Buddha >>> Nature into my daily life by holding awareness of Buddha Nature while still >>> being able to operate in the world of illusions - WITHOUT loosing the >>> awareness that all the intellection are indeed illusions. >>> >>> ...Bill! >>> >>> --- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Bill, All, >>> > >>> > I'm still behind with my emails. >>> > >>> > > 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 >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> >>> > Sender: [email protected] >>> > Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:50:27 >>> > To: <[email protected]> >>> > Reply-To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism >>> > >>> > 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! >>> > >>> > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 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 >>> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > 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! >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >> > > > >
