On 8/10/2012 3:14 PM, mike brown wrote:
Kris,
>> Maybe some have also wasted their time in this..
Ha! Not so much a question of "Who are you?", but "Who the hell do you
think you are?". So I'm wasting my time because I'm not listening to
you? Really? Well, thanks awfully for the concern, but I'll continue
wasting my time sticking with Vipassana, thanks.
Still assuming this is for you/not for you? To not understand a single
word, is better than this misunderstanding.
Zen is the simplest and most direct tradition for pointing to ultimate
reality, but this simplicity/obviousness, I believe, is also what
makes it the most difficult.
So it appears. Easy or hard, more or less, irrelevant - yet it appears
so regardless. This, reflects who you are.
We've all had our moments where only the mountain remains, but how
long is it before we find ourselves back to the duality of sitting on
it and looking at it once more?
Back and forth, up and down, looking high and low, seeing this and that.
The mountain remains unmoved.
Zen, too immensely simple to grasp.
My path is to penetrate into how this happens.
"How this happens" forms 'your path' / 'who you are'. No difference.
It no doubt involves methods and ways of looking that are different to
yours.
So it appears, to a Buddhist Methodist who assumes such methods are more
than informative roadsigns and welcoming rest stops along the way.
Why is this difference so difficult for you?
Why is suchness so elusive for you? No difference you do not choose to see.
The precepts and the sutras can no doubt be interpetated at many
different levels, but sometimes they are helpful, even at a
fundamental level, as a guide and a reminder of how to live our lives.
Indeed, and that's all well and good. If some want/need a guide to live
their lives, and are content/suited to follow those laid down by others,
such is their path. The great many practice their religions in this way.
I see no need to point that out, as I don't look to such things in that
way, and so don't point to them as prescriptions for/not for others. I
simply do not see this as the heart of what Buddha taught, his middle
way ever-uncompromising/unassuming, but clearly he saw most would assume
his words as their own path. He spoke on all levels, letting each hear
what they hear. Buddha, not Bodhisattva. Tathāgata, not
saint/shepherd/savior. The only difference being what appears useful/not
useful to one who seeks attainment, not realizing nothing lacks.
But as the wisdom of the practice develops it'll eventually make the
precepts/teachings, not exactly unnecessary, just perfectly obvious.
Delusions, seen as suchness. Path ever going through, not leading to or fro.
It's a work in progress even though ultimately the starting point and
finish are the same place. That's why there are 10 ox-herding pictures
and not one. But you already knew that, right?
"Don't know." The ox no longer concerns me. If you would seek the Ox in
the forest, what brings you to the marketplace today? I see you have a
fine map in hand, perhaps I might interest you in some rope, or a staff,
or a hat to shade your head, or some sandals for your feet? No need?
Well, perhaps if you just sit and read a while, an ox will wander into
the marketplace for you. Mine was set free hereabouts, and there is a
hint of bullshit in the air...
KG
