Bill!, Fair enough on using many sources on your path, but your interpretation of the Bible is not what 99.9% of Christians would agree with. That almost completely contradicts what you said about getting your terminology right.
Mike ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 4 August 2012, 2:49 Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen Mike, I use all the tools in my tool bag, not just one. Aesop's Fables is one of the books I have and read often. It's full of what I would consider wisdom just as sound as the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > Then that doesn't make the Bible any truer, or better, than reflecting on a > book on Aesop's Fables (Aesop's Fables seems a damn sight better source for > morals than the Bible tho). > > > Mike > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 4 August 2012, 2:34 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen > > >  > 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 > > > > > >  > > 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, 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 > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >  look at life through the eyes of a young child... fresh, always > > > alert and forever curious..merle > > > > > > > > >  > > > 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?  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 > > > > > > > > >  > > > This thread has been very interesting, but I have a question for Mike. > > >  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.  > > > > > > 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.  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. > > >    After each exhalation, perfect stillness, > > > balanced on the burning tip of creation.  Something like that. > > >  > > > > > > 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.  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)?  I have a fairly pleasant and orderly life, to be > > > sure, but even crashing on my bike is interesting.  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.  > > > > > > 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?  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, > > > > > > --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.  > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Joe <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > > >Hugh bet that zen teachers use the word "samadhi'.  Not many talk > > > >about it.  Except in dokusan.  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.  Or we can hope, so. > > > > > > > >--Joe > > > > > > > > > > > >"ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Mike, > > > >> > > > >> Samadhi has numerous meanings.  What do you mean by 'samadhi'? > > > >>  Joe, > > > >> what do you mean by 'samadhi' ?   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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
