Ah no! This is confusing the issue with levels of dependance upon instinct. The word instinct is often used innapropriately in this way, to describe cognitive processes too complex to be easily described accurately. Instinct is entirely unconscious although the trigger and resulting drive response can and often is accompanied by cognitive processes. In this way people spend a great deal of energy rationalising instinctive responses. Making excuses, that's normal, it's o'k it's only 'natural' and so on.
--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Rewrisk, > > My comments are imbedded below: > > > Instinct is the antithesis of cognition. > > I disagree. I don't see them as being antithetical, at least as I understand > the meaning of the term 'antithetical. Instinct can operate both in or > without the presence of cognition; and cognition can operate both in or > without the presence of instinct. They are not mutually exclusive. As I > said before they are different and may produce different results, but that > doesn't make them antithetical. > > > Instinct is an impulse that arises mechanically without cognitive awareness > > in response to a trigger. > > Agreed. > > > Instinct belongs to the lizard brain the most primitive part of the brain. > > No lo contendre. That means I won't challenge that statement. It's accuracy > is not important to me. > > > Brain not mind. > I agree with your distinction between 'brain' and 'mind' but fail to see how > that furthers your argument that 'instinct is the enemy of zen' - if that > indeed is what your argument is. You still haven't clarified that. > > > Frigin phillosophers. > > I assume that' supposed to be an offhanded refernece to me or at least what I > have posted in this thread. Why? Isn't is philosophers who rely on > cognition? I can assure you that zen practice does not rely on cognition. > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Rewrisk, > > > > > > Welcome to the Yahoo! Zen Forum. > > > > > > I completely disagree with your conclusions below. At least I think I do > > > depending on what you meant in one important statement that is not clear > > > to me the way you wrote it. I will quote you and then embed my > > > understanding of what you said with my comments. > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > Instinct is the enemy of cognition. > > > I wouldn't say instinct is the 'enemy' of cognition, but it certainly is > > > not the same as cognition. Instinct is an experientially-based > > > 'hard-wired' response and cognition is a rationally-based process. > > > > > > > The enemy of Zen. > > > This is the statement that I am unsure of your meaning. Are you saying > > > 'INSTINCT is the enemy of zen', or 'COGNITION is the enemy of zen'? It's > > > not clear to me. For this post I'll assume you are stating that > > > 'instinct is the enemy of zen', and I disagree with that. > > > > > > Using your phraseology I would say that 'COGNITION is the enemy of zen', > > > although I wouldn't phrase it that way myself. I would rather say the > > > ATTACHMENT to cognition obscures or occludes Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > Instinct is hard wired into the primal brain. > > > I agree with this statement and would only add that the 'primal brain' is > > > Buddha Nature'. > > > > > > > For this reason the master says that upon awakening one must not again > > > > sleep. > > > This is good advice, but obviously would mean different things to you and > > > me. You seem to be saying this means to ignore your instincts (I don't > > > believe you could ever stop them) and rely on your cognition. I would > > > say just the opposite (or at least something different): discard your > > > attachments to cognition (illusions) which will allow you to become > > > better aware of your primal sensory experiences (Buddha Nature). > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "rewrisk" <rewrisk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi I'm a new forum member long time zen practitioner. > > > > I quote this from the previous post, "Illusion arises because the mind > > > > constructs a simulation of the actual reality in which we think we > > > > live." This is the manifestation of instinct. A cognitive shortcut > > > > designed to minimise the use of processing capacity. > > > > The heart of the brain is called the lizard brain, it is the first > > > > rudimentry brain from which all instinctive impulses arise and the only > > > > part of the brain that remains unaffected by alchohol. (Biology, > > > > Griffith University). > > > > Instinct is the enemy of cognition. > > > > The enemy of Zen. > > > > Instinct is hard wired into the primal brain. > > > > For this reason the master says that upon awakening one must not again > > > > sleep. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], yonyonson@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > LET US NOT MAKE ARBITRARY CONJECTURES > > > > > ABOUT THE GREATEST MATTERS. -- Heraclitus > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and JM, > > > > > > > > > > > > Tao is the universal life force that is and moves the universe. My > > > > > > name > > > > > > for it is ontological energy, the energy of being. This is the > > > > > > single > > > > > > substance of the universe. All the individual things of the > > > > > > universe are > > > > > > empty forms that arise in ontological energy as waves and ripples > > > > > > and > > > > > > currents arise in an ocean of water. Just as waves are forms only > > > > > > of water > > > > > > and have no self substance, all the things of the world have no self > > > > > > substances but consist only of the sea of ontological energy in > > > > > > which they > > > > > > arise. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chi is this Tao or ontological energy manifesting as the life force > > > > > > of > > > > > > some individual being or thing. Buddha nature is another name for > > > > > > the same > > > > > > thing. These are words we use when talking about individual > > > > > > manifestations > > > > > > of Tao. It's like saying the real underlying substance of this > > > > > > being or > > > > > > thing is ontological energy; the substance of this wave is water. > > > > > > > > > > > > The present moment is the same thing as ontological energy. They > > > > > > are both > > > > > > the living substance of the universe = the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is an individual observer's participation in this > > > > > > reality > > > > > > from the perspective of its particular singularity. > > > > > > > > > > > > All that exists is the underlying sea of ontological energy and > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > forms arise within it in the present moment. It defines and creates > > > > > > the > > > > > > present moment because for something to be real and actual it must > > > > > > also be > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is reality. Realization is the direct experience of reality. > > > > > > Illusion > > > > > > is experiencing the forms as things in themselves rather than > > > > > > manifestations of ontological energy. Illusion arises because the > > > > > > mind > > > > > > constructs a simulation of the actual reality in which we think we > > > > > > live. > > > > > > This simulation models the world in terms of its individual things > > > > > > and > > > > > > fleshes them out with qualities such as color and hardness and > > > > > > meaningfulness and attachments and desires, none of which actually > > > > > > exist in > > > > > > the external world of forms which consist only of information. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world of forms is not a physical world but a world of forms > > > > > > which > > > > > > consist only of in-form-ation. The actual being of this form world > > > > > > is not > > > > > > at all like our mind's simulation of it. It has no colors, sounds, > > > > > > attachments, meanings. Those are added in our mind's simulation to > > > > > > make it > > > > > > easier and more meaningful for us to function within even though > > > > > > they are > > > > > > illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world of forms evolves according to the innate logical rules of > > > > > > ontological energy just as water waves can evolve only according to > > > > > > the > > > > > > nature of the water in which they arise. This is called causality > > > > > > but there > > > > > > is no causality in the sense of prior states determining subsequent > > > > > > states, > > > > > > there is actually only the evolution of forms according to rules in > > > > > > clock > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll stop here as I suspect people are getting bored... > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one last note: The observer (you or I) is also just another > > > > > > empty > > > > > > form that arises in the formless sea of ontological energy = Tao = > > > > > > reality > > > > > > = the present moment.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:19 PM, 覺å¦ç²¾æ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I need to be careful here, Bill. Please note there is this > > > > > > word of > > > > > > "universal" also in the definition. Some chi are localized and not > > > > > > universal. Some chi are dirty and unclean... :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/2012 7:03 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > z*** Repost to correct typos *** > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > > > > > So...without any intention of trying to trap you with words and > > > > > > terms > > > > > > because I know how difficult it is to explain things like in text... > > > > > > > > > > > > You described 'Buddha' as "universal life force and wisdom". I > > > > > > think (I > > > > > > didn't go back to check) that I've seen you describe 'chi' as > > > > > > 'universal > > > > > > life force'. That would lead me to believe the difference between > > > > > > 'Buddha' > > > > > > and 'chi' might be the 'wisdom' part. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that right? Or am I reading these defintions too literally? > > > > > > > > > > > > And if that's not right, what is the difference and relationship > > > > > > between > > > > > > your concepts of 'Buddha' and 'chi'? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 覺å¦â¢Ã§Â²Â¾Ã¦ËŽ > > > > > > <chan.jmjm@><chan.jmjm@>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, Chi means energy in general, or life force. That's all > > > > > > > chi > > > > > > > means. In the Chinese culture, Fengshui, acupuncture, Taichi, > > > > > > > etc. are > > > > > > > all based on chi. Perhaps ask some China men in Thailand may give > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > more detailed examples. In short, most China may tell you that, > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > chi, the world is dead. jm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/2012 6:16 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMJM, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As always, thanks for your contribution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does "Buddha in the general term is the "universal life > > > > > > > > force and > > > > > > > > wisdom"" differ from your concept of 'chi' - or are the two just > > > > > > > > different terms for the same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com><Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > èæúÃ¥æââ¢Ã§Ã²Ã¾Ã¦ÃÅ"à ½ > > > > > > > > <chan.jmjm@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill & Mel and All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the interpretation so far are close. Let me say a bit > > > > > > > > > more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buddha in the general term is the "universal life force and > > > > > > > > > wisdom". > > > > > > > > > When someone is "in sync" to it, this person is honored with > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > title > > > > > > > > > of Buddha, such as Guatama Buddha, Guanyin Buddha, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because it is the "universal life force and wisdom", it is > > > > > > > > > everywhere > > > > > > > > > and in everything, because it manifested all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this universal life force and wisdom possess certain > > > > > > > > > characteristics. Or in ordinary language, it functions by > > > > > > > > > following a > > > > > > > > > certain set of laws. This set of principles is also called > > > > > > > > > the Laws > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Nature, the Nature of the Universe, or Buddha Nature, or Self > > > > > > > > > Nature. > > > > > > > > > Everything in the universe functions according to this set of > > > > > > > > > principles. My teacher has identify seven of them. If you are > > > > > > > > > interested, I can share with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, meditate to enhance our chi is critical to be in > > > > > > > > > sync with > > > > > > > > > the universal life force and wisdom. Like a radio receiver, it > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > > power to be sensitive. As our energy enhances, then we can > > > > > > > > > witness > > > > > > > > > spiritual healing, karma transfer, the TriKaya, etc., > > > > > > > > > phenomena in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > spiritual domain. Then we could intuitively witness our own > > > > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > > > Nature and its manifestation in everyday life, without having > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > rely on > > > > > > > > > external teachings through unreliable words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we are able to "just get it" within ourselves. > > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/2012 2:02 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. You said a lot and I don't want to > > > > > > > > > > comment > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > every little thing, but one thing you talked about is worth > > > > > > > > > > a few > > > > > > > > words: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word/name 'Buddha' is confusing to many because it is > > > > > > > > > > both the > > > > > > > > > > name (title actually) given to Guatama Siddartha after he > > > > > > > > > > became > > > > > > > > > > enlightened - or so the story goes. I think 'Buddha' is a > > > > > > > > > > title > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > means 'one who has awakened'. This historical person is > > > > > > > > > > called > > > > > > > > > > 'Buddha' or 'the Buddha' by many, but he was not the first > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > certainly only Buddha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Buddha' is also used as a shortened version of 'Buddha > > > > > > > > > > Nature' or > > > > > > > > > > 'Buddha Mind'. You'll hear many people say things like > > > > > > > > > > 'everyone > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > Buddha', or 'everyone has a Buddha inside him'. What they > > > > > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > > > saying (IMO) is 'everyone has Buddha Nature' and it is just > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > > of realizing or becoming aware of Buddha Nature which you > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mel or anyone else, let me know if you understand these > > > > > > > > > > terms in a > > > > > > > > > > different way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > <Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > <Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > Mel <gunnar19632000@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Bill and all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People refer to that Great All out there as 'god', and yet > > > > > > Taoists > > > > > > > > > > have come up with TAO...and many involved with Zen in > > > > > > > > > > today's world > > > > > > > > > > have referred to it as 'buddha'. I suppose it really > > > > > > > > > > depends from > > > > > > > > > > which religious background the individual comes from. I > > > > > > > > > > have not > > > > > > > > > > succeeded yet in going through the whole Bible(both Old and > > > > > > > > > > New, > > > > > > plus > > > > > > > > > > the Apocrypha) but I do believe that Christians at least > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > enquired(judging from what I had read so far in online > > > > > > > > > > scriptural > > > > > > > > > > discussions) whether the One and Supreme Creator has hands, > > > > > > > > > > wings, > > > > > > > > > > feet, etc....in other words, an actual, physical being or > > > > > > > > > > make. > > > > > > Being > > > > > > > > > > so, the atheist camp would then say things such as,"If so, > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > Yahweh > > > > > > > > > > can't possibly be in more than one place at the same > > > > > > > > > > time"....and > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > all of the Big 3 Faiths teach their followers that the Holy > > > > > > > > > > Father > > > > > > > > > > sees all, and knows all. This then brings the question > > > > > > > > > > of....how > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > is God exactly? Huge to the point that he sees and knows > > > > > > > > > > all? Is > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > size? How is He exactly...everywhere? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buddha. The world knows he was just a man. According to > > > > > > > > > > > the late > > > > > > > > Zen > > > > > > > > > > teacher Deshimaru-sensei, there are sources to indicate > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > died > > > > > > > > > > from eating poisoned food, or pork. However, we do not > > > > > > > > > > worship(in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > religious sense) the man who lived long ago. I personally > > > > > > > > > > do not > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > yet where the idea of 'buddha' being the same as 'god' or > > > > > > > > > > 'tao' > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > all and one...and the same thing. I personally accept > > > > > > > > > > it(minus the > > > > > > > > > > Yahwe part). Let me first point out however, that my only > > > > > > > > > > source > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the moment is Zen Mind Beginners Mind...and > > > > > > > > > > TaoTeChing(trans., > > > > > > John H > > > > > > > > > > McDonald) to a very limited extent. With Buddha, there are > > > > > > > > > > no arms, > > > > > > > > > > legs, eyes...and so forth...to mention, and yet the late Zen > > > > > > teacher > > > > > > > > > > (Shunryu) Suzuki-sensei say that Buddha is everywhere. One > > > > > > > > > > may then > > > > > > > > > > conclude...does Yahweh rest within Buddha's realm? If > > > > > > > > > > Yahweh has an > > > > > > > > > > actual physical form, does He then exist within Buddha's > > > > > > > > > > embrace? I > > > > > > > > > > personally do not know, but I can only speak of what I > > > > > > > > > > believe, or > > > > > > > > > > > what my personal interpretation(s) is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have 2 'buddha'-like statues in my room that I bow to > > > > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > after zazen, or when I leave. However, this bowing is no > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > different to me when I bow to my meal before I eat, and > > > > > > > > > > afterwards. > > > > > > > > > > With this in mind, there is a parallel here with the > > > > > > > > > > Christian and > > > > > > > > > > Jewish faiths(I'm lacking on info for the moment with Islam > > > > > > > > > > on this > > > > > > > > > > one). But, these little 'buddhas' I own are not > > > > > > > > > > representative of > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > Being out there. They are worthy of respect because they > > > > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > something much higher and worthy than my own dualistic > > > > > > > > > > desires...especially greed and attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having said the above so far, is Buddha then made of air > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > travels around the planet and therefore sees and knows all, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > therefore everywhere? To me personally, Buddha has not got > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > actual, > > > > > > > > > > physical form I had described above...and yet Buddha is > > > > > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > People new to Zen will not comprehend this easily, nor will > > > > > > > > > > it sit > > > > > > > > > > easily with them if they understand, because there are no > > > > > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > > descriptions, instructions, directions of faith or > > > > > > > > > > worship...and > > > > > > so on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Buddha's grace > > > > > > > > > > > Mel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. I have mentioned the need for sincerity when it comes > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Zen...or Buddha if one prefers. What this means for the new > > > > > > > > > > seekers > > > > > > > > > > is....how badly do you want Buddha? For my part as a Karate > > > > > > student, > > > > > > > > > > the only way I can get through works such as... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - A Book of 5 Rings > > > > > > > > > > > - Hagakure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...is through Zen/Buddha. No goal, no attainment...if one > > > > > > > > > > > must > > > > > > die, > > > > > > > > > > then one must die. It's all about living this moment, and > > > > > > > > > > the next, > > > > > > > > > > and the next, and the next.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > <Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> <Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012 6:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] New to Group > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to get you to share a little more with us I'll > > > > > > > > > > > respond to > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > post below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'God' is supposed to be everywhere too, just like you said > > > > > > > > Buddha was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, do you think they're both (God and Buddha)in the same > > > > > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > > > (everywhere) together? Or do you think they are the same > > > > > > > > > > thing? Or > > > > > > > > what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...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/
