Hi wai,
--- wai_dk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've cited a good example. So "Mind-only" and
> "No-Mind" are only
> different fingers. "Mind-only" is of course correct
> intellectually.
> However, the seeker was using his/her intellect to
> understand "Mind-
> only", holding on to an *idea* of "Mind-only",
> instead of realizing
> it directly. So the master said "No-mind" to shock
> the seeker into a
> state of *doubt*, which has the impact of stopping
> the seeker from
> using his intellect to seek truth. Hence the Rinzai
> school's
> saying, "Great Doubt Great Enlightenment, No Doubt
> No Enlightment."
> So both fingers though different point at the same
> moon of non-
> intellect. But this is just my understanding based
> on some reading
> and some slip-shod practice, so I'll be really
> grateful if yourself
> or some other posters would want to correct me on
> this.
You are, of course, perfectly correct, but up to a
point. There comes a point where your interpretation
starts to break down. You may be perfectly aware of
that, I'm not sure. But just in case you're not, let
me elaborate a bit:
"Holding on to an idea" is, in terms of spiritual
practice, not a problem. What *is* a problem is this:
"holding on to an idea that one is holding on to an
idea". It's the idea twice removed that's the problem.
It's like Nagarjuna explained: imagine a person
creating a golem, an artificial human. Imagine now
that that creature creates its own golem. In
Nagarjuna's words (and I'm giving a literal
translation here):
"It is like the created form created by another who is
created." Mulamadhyamikakarika XVII. 32
So, the important thing to realize here is that having
an idea is the same as realizing it directly. This is
because there is no difference between the idea (i.e.
form), and the ineffable, ever-unnameable-it (i.e.
formless). Form is emptiness, emtiness is form. This
is the zen dictum.
But the idea of an idea is delusional. This is what we
all suffer from. And this is what the Buddha,
Nagarjuna, Chao-chou, Hui-neng, Lin-chi and all the
other great masters want us to wake up from.
Another issue is the exodus of intelect. Proclaiming
that non-intellect is *it* is, strictly speaking,
incorrect. Non-intellect and intellect are one and the
same. I don't think that declaring the war on
intellect, in other words wanting to rid oneself of
it, will take us anywhere. There is no meaning to be
found in denying our true nature.
> I've learnt much from you too.
>
> However, all that I've shared is just some opinions
> of Zen which I
> worry might be misleading. So I'm just wondering if
> you might want to
> make a visit to some Zen Masters or Roshis to learn
> a more authentic
> version of Zen. There are quite a few of them around
> and should be
> fairly easy to locate if you bother to try. If you
> feel you have
> managed to learn at this forum, I'm sure you can
> learn even more from
> an authentic Zen teacher. It will also be a good
> opportunity to have
> your satori experience verified, not necessarily in
> terms of whether
> or not you have had one, but more in terms of the
> degree of its
> clarity, and thereby get some guidance from the
> teacher. One can
> always learn from a meeting with a Zen Master or
> Roshi.
> And since you enjoy discussion of Madhyamika, you
> should also
> consider teachers of Tibetan Buddhism, whom I
> understand are adepts
> of Madhyamika, which you probably already know. So
> I'm actually quite
> surprised that you visited a Zen forum to discuss
> Madhyamika. I
> thought a Tibetan Buddhism forum would be more
> appropriate - just a
> thought. But wherever you go, I hope you will not
> gate-crash them
> the way you did here, will you? :-))
It will all depend on the circumstances. One is free
to give life or to take life. It's all the wondrous
working of the unfettered creativity that's at the
botom of it all.
I find Zen Buddhism to be much more
Madhyamika-oriented than Tibetan Buddhism. This is, of
course, only my personal observation, and has nothing
to do with the doctrinal affiliations of either
schools.
Tibetan strikes me as being the Buddhist equivalent of
Catholicism, with its heavy emphasis on elaborate
structures, salvation schemes, rituals, and its
overall inclination towards gradual enlightenment.
Madhyamika is all about sudden enlightenment, which I
believe Zen is the great proponent of (with some
exceptions found in the silent illumination
practices). Based on this, I think that Madhyamika and
zen go hand in hand.
As far as the learning goes, I'm always learning from
whatever the reality throws at me. Whether it's a zen
Roshi, or a derranged street person, I'm equaly open
to learning from both. I see no boundaries.
> > This I agree with. I'd just like to add that, in
> my
> > experience, Zen cuts through by non-cutting.
>
> Here's a koan: How do you cut with non-cutting?
This is simple -- choose the Middle Way!
> > But how about this: you probably know, as I'm sure
> all
> > the other people on this list do, that the Buddha
> > himself taught that the most important thing to
> > acknowledge is that there is no soul, no
> self-nature.
> > If there is one thing to take away from Buddhism
> it is
> > this -- no atman, no underlying essence.
>
> Who is it that's thinking that there's no soul, no
> self-nature?
Good question. You got me there; I haven't got the
slightest idea!
> > How then do you reconcile that with the Buddha's
> > teaching about karma, rebirth and liberation. If
> there
> > is no self-nature (no svabhava), who is it that
> enjoys
> > the accumulation of karma, the bitter fruits of
> > rebirth, and the sweetness of liberation? Doesn't
> this
> > seem a bit inconsistent to you?
>
> Who is it that's trying to reconcile?
I haven't got the clue.
> > Of course, I absolutely agree with you that it is
> > inconsistent only on the superficial level, but
> not in
> > a deeper sense. But the problem is that sometimes
> > people are not in the agreement on what's
> superficial
> > vs. what's essential.
>
> Who is it that's thinking superficial vs. essential?
>
> Who are you, really? Do you know?
Not even a slightest ghost of a chance of knowing
that.
> We are like a servant who works tirelessly 24 hours
> a day for a
> master whom we don't even know. What a joke!!
Hey, this is the best sentence I've read this week!
> Thanks again for sharing, and have a nice weekend.
Thank you for being so generous, and have a terrific
end-of-summer wekend (and this goes to all the other
members)!
Alex
=====
No karma was produced during the composition of this letter
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/S27xlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right
Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/
<*> 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/
