Mike, No, these kinds of intellectualizations don't make these stories 'true' and more than a koan is 'true'. They can though be helpful as long as you don't attach to them. Then they are the finger you become fixated on.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > That's an interesting idea. It sounds like something Joesph Campbell would > say. Maybe our splitting from God represents the beginning of dualism and the > desire for the search back to the One again? Interesting. Just as I'm sure > people were awakened to Buddha Nature before Guatama, so to many of the > stories in the Bible predate the first writing of the first scrolls. The > Flood springs to mind. Still doesn't make the stories true tho. > > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 4 August 2012, 2:01 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > Â > Mike, > > I believe the story in the Bible of the 'Garden of Eden' is a mythologized > description of what mankind's life was like before he became too dependent > upon and attached to his rational mind (dualism - Knowledge of Good and > Evil). Before that he lived at one with God - in the Garden of Eden. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > Merle, > > > > It's a nice sentiment to try to do that, isn't it? I guess the problem is > > is that we collect too much dust in our eyes as we acquire more of what the > > world teaches us. I do have a vague memory/feeling tho,ÃÂ of playing in > > my parent's garden and it being what the Garden of Eden must be like. I > > would've been less surprised to come across the Cheshire Cat than I would > > if I'd come across the tabby next door. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@>To: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 8:56 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > ÃÂ look at life through the eyes of a young child... fresh, always alert > > and forever curious..merle > > > > > > ÃÂ > > Chris, > > > > >So I guess my question is that having now had a great deal more chance > > to see from the non-dual perspective, do you find that the initial > > experience you wrote about was really basically ordinary, but so far our of > > your thinking that you were surprised at its nature? ÃÂ Or do you find it > > leaves you feeling there is some progression to your practice and > > liberation, and your ordinary experience before that seeing is not like > > your ordinary experience now? < > > > > Thanks for reading and asking questions. All I can say about it is that the > > objects we normally take for granted were seen as they really are because > > the web of concepts we usually overlay them with was removed. They just > > were. It struck me at the time (during the episode) that seeing this way > > was the most natural and real way of seeing, except not seeing with the > > eyes, and that it was all so obvious. It was more like the objects were and > > I wasn't (Which is why Dogen's '10,000 things' resonates). I have to say > > that my ordinary experience is not like it was before, but neither is it > > like it was during the experience, which is why I do feel there is some > > progression to my practice and liberation. It's not for the purpose of > > recapturing a past experience (like a drug high), but to get to the bottom > > of what it's all about. In a way, I've answered 'yes' to both your > > questions, but contradictions seem okay now, too. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 4:15 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > > > > > ÃÂ > > This thread has been very interesting, but I have a question for Mike. > > ÃÂ I am honored that you shared your experience with us, and I hope I can > > address a question without antagonizing you - it's a real question I have, > > and I am perfectly willing to hear any honest answer. ÃÂ > > > > As far as I can tell, every time one slows down the rush of thinking a bit, > > out pops such a lovely universe as these dramatic experiences seem to > > highlight. ÃÂ But, other than the strong emotions, I don't read anything > > in these mystical experiences that isn't there each moment, in the quiet > > still space that attending lets us notice. ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ After each > > exhalation, perfect stillness, balanced on the burning tip of creation. > > ÃÂ Something like that. ÃÂ > > > > I've not had an enlightenment experience as a part of zen training*, but > > they don't read as different from my frequent realizing I'm lost in day > > dreams and returning to attentive zazen - tho that realization is rather > > dull, it has the full sense of okness and the noticeable lack of distinct > > boundaries. ÃÂ When I stop crinkling up my mind, and attend to what Bill! > > calls raw sensory input, living is awfully pretty and crystalline and > > wonderful; even in the middle of an argument with my wife or kids, here we > > are; how can I not smile a bit (unless it would upset the companions)? > > ÃÂ I have a fairly pleasant and orderly life, to be sure, but even > > crashing on my bike is interesting. ÃÂ That slight shift in perspective > > happens many times a day, but each time I let go (of *my* thoughts, *my* > > preferences, *my* expectations), my ass unclenches and I find that the > > moment is indeed complete and sufficient. ÃÂ > > > > So I guess my question is that having now had a great deal more chance to > > see from the non-dual perspective, do you find that the initial experience > > you wrote about was really basically ordinary, but so far our of your > > thinking that you were surprised at its nature? ÃÂ Or do you find it > > leaves you feeling there is some progression to your practice and > > liberation, and your ordinary experience before that seeing is not like > > your ordinary experience now?ÃÂ > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Chris > > chris@ > > +1-301-270-6524 > > > > *I had a couple of "it's ok, all is one" experiences as a child, and > > occasionally as a parent (being a parent seems to for me to bring out all > > sorts of states of love and wonder, due I guess to the physical exhaustion, > > total dedication, and lack of personal wilfulness), that seem sort of like > > what people describe, tho of course it had nothing to do with zen training > > as I only started that a few years ago. ÃÂ > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Joe <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > Ed, > > > > > >Hugh bet that zen teachers use the word "samadhi'. ÃÂ Not many talk > > >about it. ÃÂ Except in dokusan. ÃÂ It's not a secret, but maybe since > > >about half the folks on sesshin are pretty new, teachers do not make > > >a big deal about it in public, while the old-timers of course are > > >just bathed in it, to their eyebrows. ÃÂ Or we can hope, so. > > > > > >--Joe > > > > > > > > >"ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Mike, > > >> > > >> Samadhi has numerous meanings. ÃÂ What do you mean by 'samadhi'? > > >> ÃÂ Joe, > > >> what do you mean by 'samadhi' ? ÃÂ ÃÂ Do Zen masters ever use the term > > >> 'samadhi'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > > > >Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > >reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
