Bill,

How about 'Tough Love one another'...?

--- In [email protected], William Rintala <brintala@...> wrote:
>
> Just an observation here.  It is so hard to determine what is meant by what 
> is 
> written in emails.  I percieve stress in this last exchange, frustration, 
> almost 
> anger but then what was meant might be simply gentle prodding or poking.  
> 
> 
> Years ago I was involved in an email exchange regarding an issue at the 
> hospital 
> where I worked.  I responded to a query by asking "What is it about this 
> issue 
> that concerns you?" It was reported to my supervisor and I was asked to make 
> a 
> face to face apology.  When I realized that what I was asking could be 
> taken 
> negatively I was horrified and I've never trusted email since. 
> 
> 
> I don't know where it fits in Zen but "Love one another" needs to be there 
> somewhere.  Otherwise you end up punching yourself in the face.
>  Bill not Bill! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find what makes your heart sing…and do it! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Kristopher Grey <kris@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tue, September 4, 2012 1:12:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils"
> 
>   
> On 9/3/2012 6:46 PM, mike brown wrote:
> > I think you have a very shallow idea about what vipassana is. 
> 
> Doesn't matter a wit if I do or don't - but since you keep dragging your 
> cushion around for me to see: FWIW I don't think it's zoning out at all 
> (though some will use it that way). It's also not like you invented it, 
> or it's a big secret. Do you get a discount, or good karma, for 
> mentioning it? ;)
> 
> No matter what I express, you come back to you own assumptions about 
> what I think - mostly involving some perceived attack on your practice. 
> This makes one of us appears shallow, and the other appear simple 
> minded. You can choose which is which.
> 
> Any practice can be an escape - or retreat if you prefer. Why do you 
> think people organize/attend those? Some find it helpful to disengage in 
> that way. Creating greater contrast between self-awareness and 
> autopilot, until that sort of in/out of awareness structure implodes. 
> The house of cards you mentioned. Then 'practice' opens up.
> 
> My concern is with the user, not the practices used. With what they 
> think they are fixing, or what fix they are getting from it. A not so 
> subtle difference.
> 
> There is a similar difference to how you and I are using the term 
> 'mindfulness'. What you describe I might call a basic sense of 
> self-awareness. A sort of 'witnessing' with/as a conscience. This can be 
> developed, as it is still 'ordinary mind' (clearly not all have the same 
> capacities in this regard, and it appears to come and go, etc.). If 
> something you "do" then it's a form of mindfulness training, which is 
> still ordinary mind training (while such a distinction makes sense 
> anyway) and will serve as long as you still have ordinary uses for it 
> (meaning you are still alive/functioning). Catching and getting control 
> of the "ox". The higher and lower self business of other traditions. The 
> conflicted animal and godlike natures of man. Fortunately, even this 
> division can be seen as false. Short of that, much personal struggle 
> appears. All is seen through that lens.
> 
> Anyway, my point was not - despite your well intentioned but unnecessary 
> defenses/efforts to skew them as such - a criticism of your practice. I 
> was simply noting the way you appear to differentiate practice from 
> other experiences, maybe attaching some significance in the process that 
> reinforces this. How this is can be 'counterproductive', yet is also an 
> integral aspect of any practice, an aspect of what the practice reveals, 
> what is carried to all other experiences... what has always simply been 
> this experiencing...
> 
> Tomorrow, remind me to stick to one liners and crappy neo-haiku. Still 
> reeks of rotting flesh, but less dead bones for zen dogs to sniff 
> at/snarl over.
> 
> KG
> 
> PS - Equanimity is not a a lack of personality, or invariability of 
> reactions to what arises. No stone Buddha! "Cranky" was simply my 
> acknowledgement of what was presenting. Redirected energies, responding 
> differently to different stimuli/situations. I see no need wasting more 
> energy pretending to be this or that, unless I do. Something I used to 
> do to manipulate myself and others, I now only do if it aids 
> interactions with others. Looks the same.
>




------------------------------------

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/

Reply via email to