Hyakujo tells the fox that cause and effect also works with Buddha nature. That is the 'turning word'. By zen I mean it in general. In particular that kind of zen that does not agree with the wholesome and unwolsome acts. That means you can kill, loot and rape without retribution unless you are caught by a rogue cop. Anthony
________________________________ From: mike brown <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012, 17:40 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: The Self Illusion Joe, Great post and the closest to what I'm trying to say. Sometimes i think the more experienced (I know, I know - it's not an experience) members on this forum talk about Zen/enlightenment from an absolutist point of view. Yes, compassion may well simply flow from a fully enlightened Buddha, but who here can claim that? Also, the same can be said about the Noble 8-Fold path (I'm talking Zen Buddhism here). Again, this can be seen to just describe the components of a living Buddha. But for most practioners they are at least a reminder of the direction (Yes, the directionless direction; we're already there, yada yada..) we need for realisation, but need to practice before that realisation. One of the multi-layered meanings in Hyakujo's Fox koan points to this: there is the objective truth that cause and effect has no place in Buddha Nature, but in the subjective day to day world it does. Mike --- On Thu, 14/6/12, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >From: Joe <[email protected]> >Subject: [Zen] Re: The Self Illusion >To: [email protected] >Date: Thursday, 14 June, 2012, 12:58 > > > >Oh, howdy, Bill, > >Joe, here, in Arizona. > >Hunger arises naturally, as does compassion, in the awakened sentient being, >a.k.a., a Buddha. > >I think this is what Anthony was getting at, following all the syntax that >I've reviewed in these threads most recently. It's been a good and busy time >in the Group since lately I chimed-in. > >Someone had posted a response that claimed that one need not *practice* >compassion (as Theravadins do, in their meta-studies of Metta), just as little >as one need practice, say, "hunger". > >I don't agree, by the way; the geniuses who came up with the details of >Theravadin practice, which has survived to this day, are not to be slighted in >that way, nor are their beneficiaries (those who practice in that vaunted >tradition). > >Of course, it is not our tradition. > >There are no such doings in zen practice. > >By "zen", Anthony may mean any nonspecific Ch'an or zen tradition. > >I think that the unequivocal answer to Anthony's Q. is that there is >definitely a notion of compassion in Zen, and that it is perfectly the >behavior and comportment of a Buddha. That's a high standard for >practitioners, and one that is perfectly enabled by the wisdom and compassion >built into our practices by our ancestors. Just practice, and Thee shall see. > >You bet, Anthony; just don't give up the ship! > >--Joe > >--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: >> >> Anthony, >> >> I can't answer you because I'm not sure what you mean by 'zen'. > >
