Jim, I didn't ask you to quit trying to follow the Bodhisattva path. I say the 4 Bodhisattva vows at the end of every one of my sessions of zazen. I do think my story below is applicable however.
You ask 'why can't I do the things I see teachers do'? Well maybe that's because they have realized Buddha Nature. They've put on their own oxygen mask and now they're better prepared to help others. There's a reason IMO that Buddhism is divided into two main areas, Hinayana (The Lessor Vehicle) and Mahayana (The Greater Vehicle). Without getting into too much detail Hinayana is focused on saving yourself and Hinayana has a more broad focus of saving others. According to legend/stories Buddha first taught Hinayana and later taught Mahayana. If you believe that you might also think the reason for this was a progression. FIRST you have to put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to help EVERYONE else. If you know what a Bodhisattva is, you know it's a being who has become fully enlightened and because of that could break the endless cycle of birth/death and enter Nirvana; but out of compassion forgoes that to stay here and help other suffering beings. That is a Bodhisattva. To put that into the context of my zen story it is a person who has put on his own oxygen mask, and NOW could put on this parachute and exit the airplane of suffering (Samsara Airlines), BUT chooses instead to stay on board and help others put on their oxygen mask so they can all leave together. So when I my 'tough-love' advice was to drop your attachment to the Bodhisattva fantasy I was saying you should work on yourself first, NOW! That is a part of the Bodhisattva path, the beginning part, the Hinayana part. When you have realized Buddha Nature then you can CONTINUE on the Bodhisattva path, the middle part, the Hinayana part, and save all sentient beings. That's my take on it anyway...Bill! --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote: > > That is my line in the sand. > > I won't stay with a center where people try to talk me out of following the > bodhisattva path. They will still be my friends, very much so, but I don't > want to be taught by them. > > If it should happen that there have never been any bodhisattvas before, then > I still want to make myself into one. I don't think the situation is really > that bad. I think there really are bodhisattvas. > > My bottom line reason for thinking so is that the earth is a relatively young > planet in the universe. The first planets which went on to have life arose > about six or seven billion years before earth. If we are anywhere near the > center of the bell curve for evolution, the first civilizations should > therefore have arisen six or seven billion years ago, and there should have > been quadrillions of civilizations between the first civilization and us. > > Some of those civilizations probably destroyed themselves when they > discovered nuclear weapons and genetic engineering of disease organisms. > However, a percentage should have survived, and they would have continued > research millions of years beyond where our research is now. Those millions > of years of research should have uncovered enough knowledge so that those who > wanted to could turn themselves into bodhisattvas --- or of course, the > equivalent by another name. > > If you wish, you can also ask yourself; Does a bodhisattva have the > Buddha-nature? > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], "billsmart" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > IMO...and some 'tough love'... > > > > This Bodhisattva fantasy is an attachment of yours. Drop it! > > > > I have an original 'zen story' for that: Pay attention to the kindly > > Bodhisattvas that look after you when you fly and remember their words, "Be > > sure to put you your own oxygen mask first before attempting to help those > > around you." > > > > Just sit! > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > What I am lacking is the ability to project an insight which would almost > > > instantly rescue every being in the universe from suffering. > > > > > > That probably, actually, isn't even a possible goal. However, I am still > > > lacking the ability to quickly rescue a reasonable number of beings on a > > > single planet. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > What do you imagine you are lacking? > > > > > > > > There is nothing lacking - ever. Let me rephrase that. Individual > > > > things can be lacking but Buddha Nature is never lacking since > > > > everything is a manifestation of Buddha Nature... It's just a matter of > > > > realizing that directly... > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:32 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't see how. There are good teachers who can do a lot of things I > > > > > can't do. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â you might already be enlightened.... have you considered this?. > > > > > > .searching for the light with a broomstick is about what you seem > > > > > > to be doing here > > > > > > merle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > Thank you for your thoughts. I think you are right, for after all, > > > > > > I am still being dualistic. The problem is that I can't find the > > > > > > lemon to bite into. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, I have three kinds of "emptiness" meditations, but > > > > > > none of them could be correct because none of them enlighten me. > > > > > > Although they are incorrect, you asked about how I meditate, so I > > > > > > will briefly describe them. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Ordinary space. If I sit and don't think, there is a space > > > > > > without thoughts, relaxation, etc.. The space is a little like when > > > > > > I look at the sky. However, that hasn't enlightened me. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Then there is subtle space, which I discovered by trying to see > > > > > > what is behind my head. It is much subtler than ordinary space, not > > > > > > really so much seen as just sort of something I am aware of. > > > > > > Compared with it, ordinary space is coarse and heavy. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Then there is an emptiness I don't have control of, but it > > > > > > hasn't enlightened me. In it, I suddenly discovered that I shrunk > > > > > > to a point and disappeared, and am now re-expanding into my > > > > > > ordinary field of awareness. So it is a kind of discontinuity of > > > > > > consciousness - more than something like sleep. When it happens, > > > > > > there are unexpected ideas in my head when I have returned from the > > > > > > discontinuity. > > > > > > > > > > > > But none of those are right, because they didn't cause me to become > > > > > > enlightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "billsmart" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caveat: Everything I tell you is only my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've read a lot of books on what a lemon tastes like but now > > > > > > > you need to bite into the lemon and find out for yourself. The > > > > > > > books can't do that for you. They can encourage you and lead you > > > > > > > up to that point, but their usefulness ends there - and in fact > > > > > > > I'd even say much of what you've learned could be a hindrance to > > > > > > > you in taking that final step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The taste of the lemon (and ONLY that)is what I call Buddha > > > > > > > Nature, and it is non-dualistic (no taster/lemon distintion - no > > > > > > > subject/object). It is what I often call 'Just THIS!' When > > > > > > > experienced it has no name, no description - it is Just THIS! > > > > > > > Later we put names on it and give it a description - but then it > > > > > > > is not the thing itself (Just THIS!), it is our description of > > > > > > > it. It is what all the books you have read are trying to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO the image you described below as called > > > > > > > "mental-integration-itself" is illusory - samsara. As soon as you > > > > > > > become aware of it as something that seems to be an "...image > > > > > > > inside my head, I can see all parts of the image simultaneously > > > > > > > because something in me is integrating the parts of the image in > > > > > > > some way." What you are describing here is still dualistic - > > > > > > > there is a you, you have a head, your head has an inside, this > > > > > > > image is located there, the image has parts, etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The second description starts to move a little farther away from > > > > > > > dualism: "In a way, this transparent mental-integration-itself > > > > > > > seems to be in front of the image. I then de-emphasize the image > > > > > > > so it slips partly from awareness, while becoming more aware of > > > > > > > the clear empty mental-integration-itself." A lot would depend on > > > > > > > just what you meant by the phrase "clear empty > > > > > > > mental-integration-itself." If you are still clinging to a > > > > > > > dualistic view of this, something like, 'I am sitting, and I > > > > > > > experience an image, and that image has parts and then another > > > > > > > image appears that I call the 'mental-integration' of that first > > > > > > > image, and then the first image disappears from my awareness (or > > > > > > > at least recedes into the background)- and this new image is > > > > > > > EMPTY'.' I'd have to again ask, what do you mean by 'empty'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you mean this new image that you are now aware of that exists > > > > > > > inside you has no form, that's one thing. If you mean 'all is > > > > > > > empty', no me, no image, Just EMPTINESS!, then that is another > > > > > > > thing entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, all this is just IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before I could really offer you any advice I'd have to know what > > > > > > > you mean by 'mediation'. How do you do about that? If you could > > > > > > > explain that a little more it would help. Here's an example of > > > > > > > how I sit (zazen): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I start sitting by counting my breathes, then following my > > > > > > > breathes and then I drop the following and there is Just THIS!. > > > > > > > In Japanese this is called 'shikantaza' which literally means > > > > > > > 'just sit' or is sometimes translated as 'no mind'. What I do NOT > > > > > > > do is try to visualize anything or think of anything (like a > > > > > > > 'safe place' or a mantra), although I know these are styles of > > > > > > > meditation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, and WELCOME TO THE ZEN FORUM! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need some practice advice. In my meditation, I have become > > > > > > > > aware of something I will call "mental-integration-itself" > > > > > > > > although those words are only an approximation. I will > > > > > > > > therefore report some background and details, below, to see if > > > > > > > > I can get this across. What I need is advice on whether or not > > > > > > > > mental-integration-itself is enough on the path that I should > > > > > > > > spend a lot of time noticing it. Also, of course, if anyone > > > > > > > > sees a way I can improve on the mental-integration-itself > > > > > > > > awareness I have so far, I would be grateful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Dzogchen and Zen say that somehow, satori and samsara are > > > > > > > > the same. I have tried for years to understand what that would > > > > > > > > feel like. Here are a several examples from a vast number of > > > > > > > > comments: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cleary, Thomas, trans. (2002) SECRETS OF THE BLUE CLIFF RECORD, > > > > > > > > ZEN COMMENTS BY HAKUIN AND TENKEI, Boston& London: Shambhala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 76, "If potential does not leave a static position, it > > > > > > > > falls into a sea of poison ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "[Hakuin] The entirety of this introduction applies to the > > > > > > > > example. `Potential' is what appears before being expressed in > > > > > > > > words; the `static position' is the cave of satori... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "[Tenkei] If you realize an awakening but do not eliminate > > > > > > > > leaking of views, you stick to the absolute stasis of > > > > > > > > transcendence in the realm of satori, which is to `fall into a > > > > > > > > sea of poison' ... " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rabjam, Longchen, Richard Barron, trans., Padma Translation > > > > > > > > Committee (2001) THE PRECIOUS TREASURY OF THE BASIC SPACE OF > > > > > > > > PHENOMENA, Junction City" Padma Publishing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 7, "However things appear or sound, within the vast realm > > > > > > > > of basic space they do not stray from the spontaneous equalness > > > > > > > > as dharmakaya, awakened mind... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 15, "On this infinite foundation, extending everywhere > > > > > > > > impartially, the stronghold of awakened mind does not > > > > > > > > distinguish between samsara and nirvana..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Norbu, Chogyal Namkhui, Adriano Clemente, and Andrew > > > > > > > > Lukianowicz (1999) THE SUPREME SOURCE, THE KUNJED GYALPO, THE > > > > > > > > FUNDAMENTAL TANTRA OF DZOGCHEN SEMDE, Ithaca: Snow Lion > > > > > > > > Publications > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 150, "I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists > > > > > > > > that is not my essence. The teachers of the three dimensions > > > > > > > > {I'm unclear about what "dimensions" means here, Jim} are my > > > > > > > > essence. The Buddhas of the three times are my essence. The > > > > > > > > four types of yogins are my essence. The three worlds, of > > > > > > > > desire, of form, and without form, too, are my manifestations. > > > > > > > > The five great elements are my essence. The six classes of > > > > > > > > beings are my essence. All the habitats and the beings living > > > > > > > > therein are my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence > > > > > > > > because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is not > > > > > > > > contained in me ..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Now when I am meditating while there is an image inside my > > > > > > > > head, I can see all parts of the image simultaneously because > > > > > > > > something in me is integrating the parts of the image in some > > > > > > > > way. If I try to see this mental-integration-itself, the > > > > > > > > mental-integration-itself is like transparent space yet active. > > > > > > > > I can barely detect this transparent and it doesn't look like > > > > > > > > any of the shapes or colors of the image. In a way, this > > > > > > > > transparent mental-integration-itself seems to be in front of > > > > > > > > the image. I then de-emphasize the image so it slips partly > > > > > > > > from awareness, while becoming more aware of the clear empty > > > > > > > > mental-integration-itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Intellectually, the mental-integration itself which I > > > > > > > > experience isn't any of the shapes or colors, yet it connects > > > > > > > > all the shapes and colors together. So it has a little bit of > > > > > > > > form, from the connecting, plus it is empty. Does the fact that > > > > > > > > it looks like it fits Buddhist definitions mean that what I am > > > > > > > > experiencing actually does fit those definitions? Therefore, > > > > > > > > would it be right to continue to become aware of the > > > > > > > > mental-integration-itself with all kinds of perceptions, > > > > > > > > experiences, and situations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So that I what I need some advice on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
