Siska, That's an interesting question. I started to answer "no", but after thinking about it a while I realized that's pretty much what my teacher did do. He did not use the phrase "Just THIS!"; he used the koan Mu.
In fact if you read most of the koans you'll see that a response like this is EXACTLY what most of the historical zen masters (note the lower-case 'z') did when asked a direct question like, "What is Buddha Nature?". Now this kind of response (like "Mu!") is common in mondos (short exchanges or repartee between zen masters or zen masters and their students) which can be turned into koans by a teacher. For example the mondo which supports the koan Mu is just a direct question of "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" and a direct response of "Mu". That is the mondo but that's not yet a koan. To extend that into a koan some kind of request or demand has to be made by the teacher to the student. In my case is was "Bring me Mu!", or "Show me Mu!". It VERY IMPORTANT to note the request/demand was NOT "Explain to me what Johsu meant by 'Mu' and how that relates to Buddha Nature". Now there are other Zen Buddhist (note the upper-case 'Z') teaching materials that do expound intellectually on Buddha Nature and Zen Buddhism, and in those writings they use lots of reasoning. A good example are the writings of Dogen. In a teaching environment like this "Just THIS!" would not be appropriate; BUT IMO teachings using reason might help you learn something ABOUT Buddha Nature but they won't help you EXPERIENCE Buddha Nature. I hope this addresses your question. If not let me know. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], siska <siska_cen@...> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Putting yourself back years ago, when you first encountered Zen or Budfhism > or let's just say This Practice, would you be able to realise Just THIS, if > your teacher only said: Just THIS? > > > Siska > > Sent from Samsung tabletBill! <BillSmart@...> wrote:Siska, > > This is Buddhism 101 and Zen (Buddhism) 101. It's not zen 101. Zen 101 is > much simpler. In zen 101 you don't talk about illusions, attachments, self or > suffering. zen 101 is Just THIS! > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], siska <siska_cen@> wrote: > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > You normally distinguish zen from Budhism. > > > > If below is Buddhism 101, would you say the same for zen 101? > > > > Siska > > > > > > > > Sent from Samsung tabletBill! <BillSmart@> wrote:Merle, > > > > Suffering can be entirely eliminated and William is right that this is the > > promise of Buddhism. > > > > This is Buddhism 101: > > > > - Life is suffering > > - Suffering is caused by attachments > > - Attachments are caused by/enabled by identification with your self > > - The self is illusory > > > > So, like a big house of cards when you dissolve the illusion of self you > > take away the anchor for attachments causing them to fall away which > > eliminates suffering. > > > > And how do you come to recognize the self as illusory? My suggestion is you > > do zazen (zen meditation) staring with counting your breaths. When you stop > > your intellect from producing illusions (and most especially the illusion > > of self) you experience Buddha Nature. > > > > And then Voila! Just This! > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > my understanding is suffering cannot be eliminated..how the hell can that > > > come about..the very nature of life is suffering...ÃÂÃÂ > > > point to me who does not what does not..be it animal mineral or > > > vegetable.. > > > the notion of happy happy is absurd.. > > > we can come to terms with suffering > > > ÃÂÃÂ we can embrace and realise that compassion and eternal universal > > > love can lift us from suffering and soar us high above the treetops to > > > the heavens above just as the eagle flies we too can fly.. > > > > > > merle > > > > > > ÃÂÃÂ some strawberries are sour i have noted in my many years of > > > eating strawberries...this i refer to as the "chop suey" of life...sweet > > > and sour... > > > > > > > > > ÃÂÃÂ > > > And yet you are the one who started this conversation.ÃÂÃÂ It has > > > been my understanding that the primaryÃÂÃÂ message of Buddhism was > > > addressing suffering.ÃÂÃÂ What it is and how to stop it. The Buddha > > > was not searching or teaching ways to survive crises but to end > > > suffering.ÃÂÃÂ I can agree that survivability might be enhanced by > > > being fully in the moment but I see no certainty of it. In my readings of > > > Zen the moment of Death is often addressed with an awareness and often a > > > smile. The strawberry is so sweet.ÃÂÃÂ suey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Joe <desert_woodworker@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 4:27:50 PM > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Someone Else's Opinion on What is Real and What is > > > Not... > > > > > > ÃÂÃÂ > > > Hi, William, > > > > > > The crisis is and was the one you raised earlier, about killing some > > > beast or other. Thought and pondering at that scene would be inexcusable, > > > while acting in accord with need, informed by your intimacy and full > > > presence and awareness of conditions, would give you an opening to hunt > > > another day. > > > > > > Coming back to practice, practice enables habits to drop, so we can be > > > present fully. You can still use what you've learned, but you won't be > > > bound by it. That is all. > > > > > > And that is the point. I won't engage in useless historicizing, not in a > > > Zen discussion forum, anyway. If we're not already clear about how > > > practice works, then the next step is clear: practice. There may be > > > pointers on it here at the Forum. A real teacher face to face is the best > > > teacher though, many here would agree. > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > Email <brintala@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You've modified your original position from a statement of our genetic > > > inheritance to surviving a crisis. That quite a bit different. However > > > from your current position are you saying that the people who died from > > > the bombings in Boston were "burdened and unable to act spontaneously" > > > while those who survived were "acting spontaneously and were unburdened"? > > > Or is there some other type if crisis? > > > > If two people, one who was unburdened and acting spontaneously and had > > > > never encountered a tiger in the wild and the other who hunted tigers > > > > daily, were to suddenly be faced with one, who would survive this > > > > crisis? > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
