Bill (not Bill!) I agree, but there are also a lot of Aesop's Fables that resonate in a zen frequency with me also...like: Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby, The Tortoise and the Hare, The Fox and the Hound, etc...
...Bill! --- In [email protected], William Rintala <brintala@...> wrote: > > 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: > > âBe careful not to do your âacts of righteousnessâ before men, to be > seen by > them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. âSo > 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. > >  > âAnd 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. > >  > âWhen 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. > >  > âDo 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. > > âThe 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! > > âNo 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. > >  > âTherefore 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? > > âAnd 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, âWhat > shall we eat?â or âWhat shall we drink?â or âWhat shall we wear?â > 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 singâ¦and do it! > > > > > ________________________________ > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 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! <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 > > > > > > à> > 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,Ãâàof 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 > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > > > > Ãâàlook at life through the eyes of a young child... fresh, always > > > alert and > >forever curious..merle > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > 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? ÃâàOr 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 > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > This thread has been very interesting, but I have a question for Mike. > > > ÃâàI > >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. Ãâà> > > > > > 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. > >ÃâàBut, 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. ÃâàÃâàÃâàAfter each exhalation, > >perfect stillness, > >balanced on the burning tip of creation. ÃâàSomething like that. > >Ãâà> > > > > > 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. > >ÃâàWhen 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)? ÃâàI have a fairly pleasant and orderly > >life, to > >be sure, but even crashing on my bike is interesting. ÃâàThat 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. Ãâà> > > > > > 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? ÃâàOr 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?Ãâà> > > > > > > > > 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. Ãâà> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Joe <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > > >Hugh bet that zen teachers use the word "samadhi'. ÃâàNot many talk > > > >about it. ÃâàExcept in dokusan. ÃâàIt'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. ÃâàOr we can hope, so. > > > > > > > >--Joe > > > > > > > > > > > >"ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Mike, > > > >> > > > >> Samadhi has numerous meanings. ÃâàWhat do you mean by 'samadhi'? > ÃâàJoe, > > > >> what do you mean by 'samadhi' ? ÃâàÃâàDo 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/
