I take all of what is said here in the context of "IMO". Many of the people that I work with are very happily demented they smile and laugh and are very childlike in much of what they do. You are saying that even as lost as they are to the rest of humanity they still have a Buddha Nature. The vehicle is damaged and they will never become Realized Beings. With "no reincarnation" this is sadder than I had hoped. One little lady sits and smiles and when I sit with her she looks at me and her face becomes very stern and severe, then she'll laugh with this great hysterically demented laugh, like something from a horror movie. It goes on and on and she's obviously really enjoying the moment. I really makes me smile and laugh myself. It's as if she's saying "why be so serious? Laugh. We're only here for a short while".
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, April 16, 2013 7:46:23 PM Subject: [Zen] Re: senses William, You have quoted and appear to have understood me correctly. I did just recently post a reply about the affects Alzheimer's (or dementia) might present vis-a-vis realizing Buddha Nature. If that was not clear please let me know and I'll try to explain it further. Oh yes, and this might be a good time to state everything I post is IMO...take it or leave it as you see fit. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], William Rintala <brintala@...> wrote: > > Pardon my insistence here. Bill's posts below he states that "An autistic > person can certainly realize Buddha Nature since that only requires > sentient-ness, not any intellectual quality" and I infer that the Rational > mind > > is similarly a hinderence since he states that "'perceptions' IMO are the > concepts (illusions) created by our discriminating, rational mind (intellect) > which post-processes experience with such rational actions as filtering, > augmenting, categorizing, evaluating, etc..." . In my work I see many > people > with advanced dementia/Alzheimer's. These people are sentientand their > egos, > memories and intellect have all been stripped away. Have they realized > buddahood? If not then what else remains to hinder that from happening? Or > conversely what has been lost that prevents it? > > > > William, > > I don't know. But I'd say that they express it just the way they are, and > that > the Absolute expresses itself through that person. I don't mean to put it > this > way just as if these were mere "Truisms", though (although they can be taken > to > > be). > > If we think about ourselves, it's just like that also. Except, differently > like > > that. > > --Joe > > > > > ________________________________ > From: William Rintala <brintala@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, April 16, 2013 3:08:01 PM > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: senses > >  > I've often wondered what people with Alzheimer's experience and how their > situation expresses Buddha Nature? > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, April 16, 2013 5:01:32 AM > Subject: [Zen] Re: senses > >  > Merle, > > That's a VERY GOOD QUESTION! > > An autistic person can certainly realize Buddha Nature since that only > requires > > sentient-ness, not any intellectual quality. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > >  question:bob: so would an autistic person who is not perhaps engaging > > in >all > > >the senses.. > > but in many ways acts like a machine how does the mind figure in this >equation > > >you have set out here regarding senses and zen? > > merle > > > > > >  > > > > > >  bob..you forgot the 6th sense..merle > > > > > >  > > Bob, > > > > Thanks for your reply but it did not answer my question which was: > > > > "The senses are always engaged. How could you disengage them while > > remaining > >conscious?" > > > > Perhaps we're using the same words differently. Here is how I am using the >word > > >'senses'. > > > > 'Senses' to me is an awkward, dualistically-based word used in part to >describe > > >just plain experience. (I sometimes use the phrase 'direct, sensory >experience' > > >just to be clear, but the qualifiers 'direct' and 'sensory' are redundant > >and > >might lead you to believe there is such a thing as 'indirect' or > >'non-sensory' > > >experiences. There are not.) The word 'sense' itself implies an 'avenue' or > >'interface' which 'connects' us with the 'outside world'. We divide 'senses' >up > > >into five categories: sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. But there is > >no > >'outside world', no 'interface' and only one experience ('sense') - and I > >usually call that Buddha Nature or Just THIS!. > > > > If you're wondering why I'm trying to be very precise about this it's > > because > > >sentient-ness (having senses) is very key to Buddha Nature - not rationality >or > > >logic or emotions or memory or projections or physicality or anything else. >Just > > >sentient-ness. > > > > > > The term 'perceptions' IMO are the concepts (illusions) created by our > >discriminating, rational mind (intellect) which post-processes experience > >with > > >such rational actions as filtering, augmenting, categorizing, evaluating, >etc... > > > > So maybe when you say "different levels of awareness of our senses" you are > >saying (in my terms) there is experience, and then there is a whole host of > >levels of perceptions. And maybe not... > > > > I have no idea what you think the story about the drawing has to do with > > your > > >'senses'. You recognizing a line drawing as "an orchid in all its glory" is > >a > >perception - not an (direct, sensory) experience. > > > > So, I repeat my question again in a little different way... > > > > When you say "The senses do need to be engaged but should work >'properly'...", > > >what exactly to you mean by that? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > HI Bill thanks for the welcome. > > > > > > To answer your question I think there are different levels of awareness > > > of > >our senses. To remind the new meditators of their senses brings, what is > >normally an autonomous process back into 'immediate reality' (indicating a > >clearer idea of the senses rather than the reality of reality - if you know >what > > >I mean). > > > > > > Many years ago a group of us did an experiment in focus and coming in > > > touch > > >with the senses. We were given a large sheet of drwg paper and some > >charcoal. >We > > >all had to draw a huge orchid in a brass pot. I am useless at art and > >drawing > >match stick people is a stretch. Having meditated, done a few straight lines >and > > >a few circles we started by concentrating on a single point, drawing that > >and > >then moving on. After a short time I stood back and was astounded that I had > >drawn an orchid in all its glory. > > > > > > I hope this answers your question. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > Welcome to the group.. > > > > > > > > I was also taught to relax my eyes so they are only 'half' open, lower > > > > my > > >gaze to about 3 feet in front of me and allow my eyes to de-focus. Closed > >eyes > > >were discouraged to help keep your mind from wandering, minimize >visualizations > > >and because as you note of the tendency to sleep. > > > > > > > > The senses are always engaged. How could you disengage them while >remaining > > >conscious? > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > HI Joe - I agree. I was taught to squint through slightly open eyes > > > > > but > > >not at first. The senses do need to be engaged but should work 'properly' ie >not > > >allowing the ego to take control of them and run with them. Easier said than > >done. The ego, as it throws up things, always strike me like files with a >'look > > >at this' on the front of them. > > > > > > > > > > I take the guys through getting in contact with their senses prior to > >starting meditation encompassing the idea of 'nowhere to go and nothing to >do'. > > >I find that they can deal with the issues of meditation easier with their > >eyes > > >closed in the early stages. Eventually a few things happen as they get >stronger, > > >sleep disappears as an issue and they naturally sit more upright. Then open >eyes > > >are easier. > > > > > > > > > > A start is a start it means nothing, it is where you end up that >counts. > > >Entry is from anywhere. In Zen's case you end up not being able to open your > >mouth to say anything sensible. Strange really! > > > > > > > > > > Nice talking to you. > > > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting the "notes" to the Group site as a .doc file. > > > > > > Well > > >done and generous teaching and encouragement. Gee, I wish I could sit with >your > > >group. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll note that, in general, in Zen practice as I've encountered it > > > > > > as > > >taught and as practiced, we do not close the eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two reason for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > One is that we do not screen-out ANYTHING in our practice, as I've > >found it. All six senses are allowed to operate without screening. The > >"mind" >is > > >usually considered one of the six senses, so we do not suppress or screen > >out > >thoughts either: instead, we put all attention on the method of practice. If > >thoughts arise, we just do not follow them: that is not "screening", but it > >is > > >just doing ONE thing at a time: remaining concentrated upon the method of > >practice in the time when we set ourself to practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second reason is that Zen practice is about opening to wisdom, > >through awakening. Closed eyes can lead to drowsiness and ... to sleep. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, nothing new in these comments. And they are just that, > > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your noting the usefulness of the point of contact of the >hands. > > >I find in general that a closed mudra comes more naturally in our way of > >sitting, and does more good than an open mudra, a dispersing mudra, or no >mudra. > > >Hmm-m, I meant to write about this here last week, but the death of a very >close > > >sangha friend intervened and put me off doing much of anything: "Jim", a >fellow > > >who practiced his zazen with us always in a wheelchair. I'll get back to >writing > > >sometime. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again posting! > > > > > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also put statements and questions I prepare to them after the > >group. I have attached a couple - (oops! attachments not so easy will try > >another time). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
