Hi JM, That is true of course but the problem is getting to that point. The discussions on this group are mostly about how to get to that point. They are about how reality = Buddha Nature manifests in the world of forms rather than about its formless essential nature. And about finding the path to that essential nature when you are NOT YET there....
The would and could be nothing to say about the formless essential nature to express it directly and if the discussion were only about that there would be no discussion, and no group. Best, Edgar On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:47 PM, 覺妙精明 （JMJM） wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Any kind of insistence or resistance is a sign of ego, meaning attachment to > dharma. We can all learn from these postings, because we can interpret it > from both directions. This is Chan -- midway yet accepting all without > judgment or discrimination. > > Diamond Sutra said it so clearly, "Dharma contains no dharma. No Dharma is > Dharma." Yet there are still insistence to what is Zen, what is zen, and > what is not, what I believe, or I disagree... :-( > > When we are locked by logic, words, or phrases, the key to unlock it is to > awaken from within. And that's an internal process, no outsiders can help. > Buddha called it delusion, or driven by karma. My teacher call this kind of > practice - practicing with our brain. > > :-) > jm > > On 9/5/2012 12:48 PM, William Rintala 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 <[email protected]> >> 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. > > >
