On 8/1/2012 12:20 PM, mike brown wrote:
ED,
As I pointed out in a previous post, Buddha sorted his own problem out
and now so do we. The only thing I would argue with Bill! is that the
Buddha's self-realisation came out of being in samadhi and the jhanic
mind state. This is the path he then taught. If these antecedents are
not required, then why have they been taught for 2,500 years?
Mike
Looking at your experiences, this sorting clearly seems right to you,
clears things up in some way for you. These 'antecedents' have somehow
helped you sort something. A tidier mind, and clearer vision, courtesy
of some jhanic maid service. ;)
Yes, I am reading into your words, as I read into all such things. Such
is their nature, such is mind. I see this clearly.
This is why such things are taught! Not to gain something, but to catch
yourself in the acting - mind seeing mind - and seeing all things that
appear to mind as mind - and thus recognizing them as they are, empty
and without lack! "Buddha Mind", 'Suchness' - are only ways to express
this realization. Not this, and nothing else.
Such masterful teachings/practices as we have available to us aren't
things to be grasped and mastered (some, mind training/practical aspects
of meditation are. These are not core Buddhist practices, though they
can support the practitioner's practice), not ever greater attainments
to placed on ever higher shelves- or to lead us anywhere - but pointed
reminders to penetrate this - perpetually - seeing the nature of
mind/Buddha Mind. Realizing no difference! - (Exclamation point added
for Joe, so he won't have to worry about my enthusiasm ;)
Looking into the teachings, even 'deeply' is only an introduction.
Sometimes, just a formality. As you have noted and experienced, there
are countless other forms of introduction (other
teachings/practices/grace/ serendipity/whatever -all same - always
present). If we do not recognize our true nature, we are continually
reborn as a strangers to realization with each arising thought - and die
to it with each thought's passing. Because of this fundamental
ignorance, the introductions must be repeated each time someone looks.
Some call this stubborn pattern of self ignoring itself "delusion'. This
too, is why these teachings persist.
KG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* ED <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 1 August 2012, 16:02
*Subject:* [Zen] Re: Chan and zen
Bill!,
Some feel that second hand is more appropriate for themselves.
--ED
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
>
> Mike and Kris,
>
> I don't think it's important to emphasize 'what the Buddha taught'.
That's just second-hand knowledge. I think it is preferable to
experience what Buddha experienced. That's first-hand.
>
> ...Bill!
