I used reluctance arising as an example of the very root of Zen. On Nov 23, 2012 8:36 AM, "Edgar Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Chris, > > I'm in general agreement with your post. I would think we'd all agree that > only the present moment is real and that Zen is always in the present > moment. > > Then only slight disagreement I have is your mentioning some things you > consider non Zen. Reluctance like any other action is Zen if done in Zen > spirit. It is true Zen makes tends to make one more spontaneous but not > always... There are often good reasons NOT to be too spontaneous. It can > get you into trouble... > > Zen is everything that is. It's just a matter of realizing that rather > than judging things as Zen or not Zen.... > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:35 AM, ChrisAustinLane wrote: > > > > In the school of Zen in which I am being trained, the whole point is only > exactly what is in the current moment. When that is a sense of profound > lack of separation with all, then that is the whole of Zen. When that is a > certain reluctance to begin the pumpkin pie cooking, then that is the very > root of Zen. When it is breathing deeply on a zafu while the volume of > thoughts gradually lowers itself, then that is the full and total essence > of Zen. Bearing in mind that all these words are mere cartoons of the > fulness of moments. > > What i am arguing against is the idea that "realization" will give a > "person" a "permanent break" from delusions. There is a reason the old > master yelled every day: "Do not deceive yourself!" > > You have not in the scope of my reading here shared your realization > experience. Bill! Has and I am quite grateful for this sharing of an > important experience. > > Experiences may make easier or harder the living fully in the current > moment, but solving Mu in Bill!'s own story while wonderful in the moment > set the stage for a lifetime of living fully in the moment in the variety > of nows that life brings him. Note that zazen is still something he finds > useful. > > I haven't posted anything about a realization experience on my part as my > school really hasn't placed emphasis on this for me. I have no doubt that > my ability to attend to the current reality is pretty strong at sesshin and > pretty easy to disrupt for angry people that know me very well. I gain > confidence in my ability to let the strong disruptive responses my > body/mInd throws up in my path run their course quickly and without damage, > without actually thinking that "I" don't "deserve" this current moment. > > My body cranks up, the energy dissipates, and life goes on as it does. > > I have had all kind of mystical experiences my whole life, but that > doesn't do much to extend my ability to stay present. Zazen, the > enlightened action itself, does seem to strengthen my body/mind in such a > fashion. > > > And really, things are ok as they are - there is no profit to be gained in > worrying about enlightenment. Just cook, sit, write, walk, as appropriate. > > I hope you trouble yourself to find understanding of my writings. On > rereading my initial post, I still find it a reasonably clear exposition of > my point. > > Thanks, > Chris Austin-Lane > Sent from a cell phone > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 10:19, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris, > > In denying enlightenment (what I prefer to call realization) is even > possible you deny the whole essence of Zen and contradict what everyone on > this list is here for... > > And you deny the realization experiences of the others on this list as > well. > > Is that your intention? > > Or do I misunderstand you? > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > On Nov 22, 2012 8:04 AM, "Chris Austin-Lane" wrote: > > > > Bearing in mind that all things fall apart, so that some quality > "enlightened" cannot possibly be statically true of some Composite object > like a person (I.e. your statement is void of meaning), it is certainly > true that one can eyeball to eyeball have Buddha seeing Buddha as it ever > was. > > > > I would hold this very listserv up as an example of how words alone do > not capture enough of our personhood to enable that recognition. Even in > person, it is a matter of the now, not of ongoing duration or > certification. Witness how our most (non-lurking) experienced > practitioners are unable to resist judging each other as zen or not. > > > > Speaking of the transience of our very "selves" I read a really > interesting book, Brain On Fire, about a woman who went totally insane for > about two months because her body started producing antibodies to a crucial > glutamate receptor on her brain cells. She was days away from being > treated as a recalcitrant schizophrenic when the found a doctor who could > diagnose and treat the antibody disorder and return her to ordinary mind. > > > > If you think you "enlightenment" gives you some permanent break from > delusions, good luck with that thought. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris Austin-Lane > > +1-301-270-6524 > > > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:53, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Merle and Joe, > >> > >> The answer is easy. > >> > >> To the extent YOU are enlightened you know when anyone else is > enlightened. > >> > >> But lots of unenlightened and gullible people are fooled by false gurus > who claim to be enlightened. > >> > >> And lots of people who aren't enlightened don't recognize the > enlightenment of those who are enlightened even if they are right in front > of their faces.... > >> > >> Edgar > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 22, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Merle Lester wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> yes joe..how do we know when the master /guru /teacher is > enlightened?..merle > >>> > >>> Merle, > >>> > >>> Yes, good point! > >>> > >>> Did it get lost?: The question you were anxious to have answered. It > ran like: > >>> > >>> "How can we tell if the master is really enlightened, or not?", > >>> > >>> or something close to that. > >>> > >>> So please have a go at an answer, Sensei. > >>> > >>> --Joe > >>> > >>> > Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Â what question?..merle > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
