And cherry picking is wrong because....? The recorded history of the compilation and interpretation of the Bible from Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and who knows what else into modern spoken English is rife with it. Bill
Find what makes your heart sing…and do it! ________________________________ From: mike brown <uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sun, August 5, 2012 3:34:16 PM Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen Bill, I guess there are. My favourite is Mathew 6: 28. However, that's called 'cherry-picking'. I could equally quote a number of verses from the Bible that are morally repugnant (child sacrifice; genocide, slavery; rape etc etc etc). Mike ________________________________ From: William Rintala <brint...@bellsouth.net> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 5 August 2012, 21:04 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen Mike: "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)." That I couldn't disagree with more. There are many biblical quotes that have always resonated with a Zen like vibration for me. Such as this: “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ... if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Bill Find what makes your heart sing…and do it! ________________________________ From: mike brown <uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Fri, August 3, 2012 8:45:48 PM Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen 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! <billsm...@hhs1963.org> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" ><Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> > > > > > 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: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
