On 7/31/2012 12:30 PM, Joe wrote:
Kris,
I just wonder what part of the enthusiasm for sharing you may be missing.
Another assumption based in perceived lack? I appreciate your apparent
concern, and good intentions*. If you do not see the pointer this
offers, I am simply suggesting you might direct some of your enthusiasm
back upon itself.
Such zeal more often found in young hunters than old woodcutters!
(surely someone here recognizes these old Zen references?)
Surely some of the impetus to do so comes also with the job
description that we accept when we take the job as "Bodhisattva".
I am aware of the common assumptions that go along with these sorts of
teachings. I am also aware of a natural compulsion of the same nature
that occurs regardless of texts and training.
What I am pointing to is precisely the way you express this as a job you
have chosen for yourself. I am not saying you do or do not experience
it so, but rather that to think of it this way, to express as doing do
or not doing, is not going to do anything for anyone but reinforcing the
self-delusion of their separation and lack.
To see the Bodhisattva vows as something you need to be doing, is a trap
'for 'sentient beings'. A way for an 'advanced' practitioner to apply
all the advanced understandings they have acquired, until they realize
their error (meanwhile, to have them believing they are helping convince
others is plan B).
The vow is not a choice. It more of a Koan. The title a
respectfully/lovingly playful one, a recognition - not bestowing any
honor or status. An inside joke, a mirror, offered in compassion. Much
that same applies to 'Buddha". All is 'Buddha'. Suchness is 'Buddha'.
Who attains Buddha, but Buddha?
I know what jewels and life-saving aids are in the books, THE THREE
PILLARS OF ZEN, and ZEN TRAINING, and so I recommend them to Merle
enthusiastically (and, well, to you too, why not), and we regularly
share appreciations here of novels that others might like, too.
I have many wonderful books I might recommend as well, but whatever
people may or may not realize - is not something acquired from the
books, is its only reflected there. Sometimes recognized. Realizing
this, yes, the books come to appear even more wonderful. However, For
me to think anyone else will read words as I read them, is wishful
thinking (aka - ignorance). If they take my recommendations to have
merit, based on any enthusiasm I add to such recommendations, is more
likely to have them tearing the books apart to find something in them,
rather that realizing what is reflected by them. So, yes there is much
in them, and this cuts both ways.
Why should not a practitioner like Mike, or, me, say, not want to
"convince" dharma friends to see a larger horizon of Practice,
especially as it is practice that is at the foundation of Zen?
Because this is the illusion of choice, the flow of 'the three poisons'
- not an argument for or against practice.
Re-read what I said earlier, without all these defensive preconceptions
of your practice and your understanding. Without intention or
expectation. If you do this, what I am pointing to should be obvious
(perhaps too obvious?), and can be applied to sharing with others (which
is all fine and dandy when not approached in this us/them, right/wrong
manner).
You likely already do this, but prefer "strong" language and to allow
yourself some sense of mission as your form/vehicle of expression. This
is all well and good, so long as you see such drum beating is not
without repercussion.
I think it's not only natural as Bodhisattvas, or even secular
friends, to want to share that, and even to try to share it
energetically (although not breathlessly), just as we may want to
share the voice and genius of authors of novels which our friends may
not have read, yet.
Yes, sharing reflections. This has a quite different energy that
convincing someone of something. No?
Again, the way you express this - identifying Bodhisattvas as this and
secular people as that - is a great pointer.
Dear friend woodcutter, your dharma indeed appears to have extensive
roots, which you keep chopping and carving into Buddhas & Bodhisattvas &
to give to your friends. I'm sure they appreciate receiving them as much
as you enjoy giving them.
I'm a zen practitioner, dyed in the wool or thoroughly bleached-out,
by now, but I appreciate the richness in original Buddhism. I'm a
little ashamed I don't know more about it. I'd love it if a dharma
friend would try to "convince" me of more of it. ;-)
Yes, there is indeed much there. Things of the 10,000 things, some
appearing more precious. Is this right seeing? Why accept or reject any
of it? I am not asking you for an answer, I am offering you the question
as a shelf for your books. The sack you have for them appears full.
Aitken Roshi taught that Zen practitioners ought to know our roots and
foundations in original Buddhism.
Are you mistaking my simplicity of message and refusal to choose sides
for a lack of appreciation and understanding? These grow day by day, as
such things appear to do over a lifetime. I appreciate, but do not rely
on such feelings or thoughts. I realize this can appear confusing, but
nothing can be simpler.
My shifu taught that it is not good to be "a Ch'an ignoramus": we
should read and understand the teachings, as well as practice
intensively and every day. That's what he did, as a reaction to the
state of Chan as he found it in China and Taiwan. That's why he became
educated and took a PhD at Rissho Univ., and that's why he established
a huge new training university campus in Taiwan for monastics and lay
people, costing hundreds of millions of US dollars and taking thirty
years to complete. That mission is ultimately what killed him. He was
so dedicated to others' needs, and to establishing the Pure Land on
earth. A "simple Ch'an monk", who wore sandals in winter.
Clearly a great man, and fortunate you are to have shared path.
I understand that among their may wondrous talents, some Bodhisattvas
can knit woolen socks. ;)
Through his influence, the schools of Buddhism I am most familiar with
are Mahayana schools, and are especially Madhyamika and Yogacara. But
since Sheng Yen's other expertise was methods of practice, we became
interested in original Buddhism, too.
Yes, yes, yes. Wonderful interests. Much to keep mind engaged. I suspect
this was not what he was teaching, but a vehicle - an expanding set of
pointers he shared. Upaya, guided by his own appreciation for the
wonderful expressions therein. I would say you do same, though in this
business of convincing, I remain unconvinced (and hopefully remain
unconvincing, so others may see for themselves).
Like Aitken Roshi, Sheng Yen wanted us to be thorough practitioners,
and to know our roots!
Yes, much there indeed. Your 'dharma inheritance' you might say.
Something you treasure and hope to pass on by convincing others of its
worth? Is this what Buddha shared?
Anyway, life is short. Since there is so much in original Buddhism and
original Buddhist practice, why not try to "convince" others of this
fact and of the value of those things, while there's time? I say "why
not", not just rhetorically, but because the teachings are just
waiting there, all ready and waiting to be our friend. ;-)
Now the estate attorney poses as a philosopher! *L*
Ultimately, our friends are the people who assembled and expounded
those teachings; and, the people who recommend them to us.
My friends do not have agendas of teaching me. My teachers do not worry
about appearing as my friend. Some cross lines, others joyfully erase
them. All can be said to be sharing. Some more free of intention and
expectations than others. If I intentionally seek a teacher, I may
expect to be taught. I have no such expectations of friendship. As
Buddha said: *- "Intention is karma."
Any time such things are discussed, it places people into roles. It sets
up a structure - one that assumes and subtly reinforces an imaginary
imbalance between realized and unrealized ways of being, feeding the
seekers delusion of lack, of separation. What they may come to see.
While only a matter of appearances, I remain aware that expressions of
some awake/others dreaming are insulting, and can only express ignorance
of Buddha Nature in all. Fortunately, there are no sentient beings to
offend so. ;)
These teachings of paths and ways and practices is not what Buddha
taught. What he expressed was conscripted as prescriptive teachings, and
these actions themselves are but aspects of the error/delusion he
pointed to. Structures for pointing (useful when realized to be
otherwise useless). In diligently polishing the mirror, some eventually
clearly see this. Others stumble upon this in seemingly random/sudden
ways. Regardless of means of reflection, Buddha sees only Buddha. This
is the practice of Buddha. It can appear to take other forms.
To those attached to their practices, that last paragraph may read as
some condemnation/rejection of practices. It is not. It is another
aspect/perspective where practice is without the intentions and
expectations that bind us to ignorance. "The are no sentient beings, I
vow to save them all" is an expression of this practice. Total
commitment, to the realization that nothing lacks. All is 'Buddha'. To
see others as lacking this, and to act on this by trying to convince
them otherwise, is plan B. Mara loves plan B (almost as much as Plan C,
D, E... and so on).
Plan A, is not a plan. Plan A, is cessation. Plan A cannot be applied
others (including separate 'self'), no matter how convincing the sales
pitch. This cannot be taught. How can a 'Bodhisattva' practice
cessation? How can any pass on such complete non-attainment?
Like any well constructed tomb, the texts offer warnings. Few heed them
as they rush to plunder them for pearls of wisdom. Like any decent
library, there are organizing systems as well as reminders to respect
the silence so all may partake. Like any Zendo, the stick is always
available.
These serve to guide, not convince. Same for the 'Bohdisattva'.
KG
