Kris, Mike, JM,
It's very easy to transcend the body and go directly to Nirvana.
Just kill yourself.... Total irrevocable mindlessness!
As long as you are in your body you can NEVER transcend it except
partially for a few hours at most... This realization was a major
step in my own Zen. Buddha also tried extreme asceticism and
finally rejected it as a false path...
Trying to transcend your body is a false path...
As long as you are in your body you MUST deal with the world of
forms including your body and its needs. The way to do that is to
realize that Zen is the realization of the world of forms as
MANIFESTATIONS of Buddha Nature rather than something that stands
between you and Buddha Nature and that keeps you from
enlightenment...
The world of forms realized as the manifestation of Buddha Nature
IS enlightenment!
Edgar
On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:35 PM, mike brown wrote:
> Kris,
>
> There's a big difference between what the ascetics were seeking
to do and what Buddha taught. What the ascetics were seeking was
a spiritual goal, namely the denial of the body in order for the
mind to unite with Brahma. Vipassana practice has nothing to do
with denying the body. Quite the opposite in fact, which is why I
addressed JM's last post because it seemed to go against what
Buddha taught.
>
>
> In samatha (calm or tranquility) meditation, we take an object
of meditation (such as the breath) until we reach a stage of
one-pointed concentration or absorbtion (samadhi) which can lead
us into jhana. Because we are being mindful before entering into
jhana, we can also experience extreme (but not injurious)
discomfort in our body. A couple of the factors of the first
jhana are that it is very pleasant/blissful because the 5
Hindrances are temporarily extinguished and so pain disappears
the instant we enter into it. One of the advantages of this bliss
is that with insight (vipassana) we can see the temporary nature
of both these states (pleasure/pain) in a way that speculating
over them can't. They're real, not imagined. So there's nothing
about samatha meditation that is about detachment or denial. It's
much more about being affirmative of body/mind reality.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected] <mailto:kris%40kgrey.com>>
> To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 2:36
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Pain & Pleasure
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I was going to mention ascetic practices/aspects when you brought
> up the pain/bliss interaction in your sitting (I let it go, but
> look! You found it anyway! *L*).
>
> You said: "I've gone from the most intense white-hot pain to
the most ecstatic bliss in an instant." Sounds like what ascetics
seek to do. Endure this, get that ( I realize this is but an
aspect of your practice, and not its focus).
>
> While a sort of overall balance may be developed in working with
> the tension between pain & pleasure, and can expand our
> capacities for both, the Middle Way doesn't lie stretched between
> them. Buddha learned lessons from both, as we all can while caught
> in life's tides, but he didn't strike a bargain to merely split
> the difference. ;)
>
> Everything instructs, but we needn't attend to everything to
> realize this.
>
> KG
>
> PS - To be clear, this is not a commentary on your practice Mike,
> or anyone else's. Just speaking to the general themes.
>
>
>
> On 9/11/2012 8:49 PM, mike brown wrote:
>
>
>> JM,
>>
>>
>> Isn't that what the ascetics tried to do to reach a yogic
union with Brahma, but Buddha rejected? In the sutras Buddha
talks about being mindful of the breath/body. Do you really mean
"detach"? I'm not sure how long you could survive being
Enlightened if you couldn't put food to your mouth when you're
hungry (that's not being facetious).
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: 覺妙精明 （JMJM） <[email protected]
<mailto:chan.jmjm%40gmail.com>>
>> To: [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Cc: mike brown <[email protected]
<mailto:uerusuboyo%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 1:21
>> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: suffering
>>
>>
>>
>> If I may add to this...
>>
>> My teacher asks us "avoid switching legs
> during sitting..." In other words, it is
> for training our mind to be detached from our
> physical body. Because, the physical body is
> our first hindrance to enlightenment. Then
> there is the hindrance of our mind and
> hindrance of our spirit to surpass next...
> Not hard. Right? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/2012 4:33 PM, mike brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ED,
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't talk about zazen, but in Vipassana, pain is something
we're taught to welcome (within reason) because it's a good tool
to teach us insight into impermanence, suffering and an
impersonal self. I can honestly say that sitting without moving
for an hour, or more, sometimes creates the most intense pain I
have ever suffered in my life! The only time I've found that pain
is completely alleviated is when I've entered into the jhanas.
This is no exaggeration. I've gone from the most intense
white-hot pain to the most ecstatic bliss in an instant. Of
course, and here's the lesson, this state passes and the pain
comes back once more. A valuable lesson in the arising and
passing of phenomena that is way beyond just an intellectual
understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: ED <[email protected]
<mailto:seacrofter001%40yahoo.com>>
>>> To: [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2012, 15:16
>>> Subject: [Zen] Re: suffering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill! and Mike,
>>>
>>> Is it not the case that zazen
> or vipasana can also help
> alleviate pain?
>>>
>>> --ED
>>>
>>> --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...>
<mailto:BillSmart@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Merle,
>>>>
>>>> I am also 66!
>>>>
>>>> I'm about to give you
> some of my definitions of
> terms and they're
>>> pretty 'tough-love'
> definitions so be warned...
>>>>
>>>> Pain is NOT suffering.
> Pain is pain. Suffering is
> feeling sorry for
>>> yourself (your self) because
> perhaps you're in pain and
> that does not
>>> meet up with your expectations
> and disappoints you.
>>>>
>>>> You do not have to
> suffer.
>>>>
>>>> The best example I know
> of this is a 3-legged dog. I'm
> sure you've
>>> seen many of them. They aren't
> suffering because (I presume)
> they don't
>>> have a strong 'mental model'
> of 'self'. They don't feel
> sorry for
>>> themselves. They don't compare
> themselves to other dogs. They
> just make
>>> do with what they've got. I've
> seen dogs with only 2 legs and
> they don't
>>> act any differently than those
> with 4. You could be a little
>>> condescending and say 'they
> don't know any better' - when
> actually you
>>> should be just saying 'they
> don't know' - and good for
> them.
>>>>
>>>> Contrast that with a
> human who has lost a leg. Many
> such humans will
>>> suffer. They'll wonder 'why
> me'? 'What did I do to deserve
> this?' And be
>>> envious of full-bodied humans
> who can do more and have more
> than they.
>>> Why? Because they DO have a
> strong 'mental model' of
> 'self' and have
>>> expectations of what life
> SHOULD be like, and do compare
> themselves with
>>> others. Their life is not like
> others (the majority) and this
>>> disappoints them so they
> suffer.
>>>>
>>>> Zazen can help...
>>>>
>>>> ...Bill!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
