Joe, This is indeed correct in Zen MEDITATION where forms vanish into the formless.
However at the level of Active Zen in the world of forms it is both correct and incorrect depending on our understanding. In dealing with the world of forms it is clear that the forms do exist including the form we label 'I'. However it is true that the 'I' form is now realized as an illusion, but an illusion that manifests Buddha Nature as do all forms, and as a form that is interconnected with all forms in the causal web. This is the meaning of 'The mountains are mountains again'. This means that the forms we call mountains still exist but instead of being the mountains we originally thought they were they are now seen as the illusory forms we call mountains. In other words mountains don't vanish, they are just seen as their true natures. Same with the 'I'. The I doesn't vanish, it is just now realized for the illusory form it is... Edgar On Apr 8, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Joe wrote: > Mike, Edgar, Bill!, Merle, William, et al., > > It all comes down to an "I". > > Pick or scratch, and the question is: "Is there an 'I' at that moment?" > > If so, it is not the state of Zen. It's be-nighted delusion and pestiferous > vexation. > > If there is no "I", then the action is carried out in the state of Zen. > > It's probable that most people who have awakened become covered again in > onion skin layers of falsity and "I" delusion. This is why an awakened person > must continue to practice, forever. The Four Poisons rise endlessly. > > There are technologies for awakening and for remaining awake. They've been > passed down to us by people who know their value from lifetimes of use. Yes, > some of these involve the hands, the spine, the breathing, and a relaxation. > > As fully embodied beings, you've got to expect that our Way involves our > entire Human inheritance: hands, spine, forehead, relaxation, etc. > > Our Way also OPENS us to the entirety of it. If only we don't let an "I" > dictate otherwise. > > Let's agree that when it comes to the state of Zen or not the state of Zen, > it all comes down to an "I". > > Some egoists will desperately object, and say: "the 'I' is PART of the state > of Zen!" No: The state of Zen has no parts. It is seamless intimacy, and is > empty. There is not a thing. > > Nor a who. > > --Joe > > > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > Edgar,<br/><br/>Geez, I can't make it any simpler. If your nose is itching > > and really needs scratching, then giving it a good pick with awareness > > could very well be Zen. There will be mindfulness of what the fingers are > > doing. If you're not being mindful, and you find yourself picking your nose > > while waiting for the lights to change, then you're not being mindful, you > > have no awareness what your hands/fingers are doing and this is *not* Zen > > in action. One action is aware what the hands are doing (Zen) and one > > action is not aware what the hands are doing (not Zen). Your comment that > > "it makes no difference what the hands are doing" is > > wrong.<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > > >
