--- Hey Alex, thanks for the wisdom. So let me see if I clearly understand you. Your vision of Zen is based on concentration and observing phenomena, which I'm assuming ties into the recent threads of detachment. To me, when you say observing phenomena, it implies observing something for what it is without applying judgement or opinion, which is what I consider objectivity.
I applaude your comments on the prepackaged, "feel good" ideas that are marketed as spirituality. You're very right, too many people seek the easiest road possible and resign their fates to somone else's ideas. Undeniably a recipe for disaster. The search for truth, however you define it, is often painful and sometimes very unpalatable; however, speaking for myself, I would rather swallow the bitter pill of truth than the nectar of lies. That, to me, is the only way to see things as they are, not how we want them to be. Which, corect me if I'm wrong, kind of ties back into your remark of observing phenomena. So you ask why attachment to things is "bad". Maybe I'm naive to the question, but it seems pretty straightforward. The basic pitfall I see to attachment is that it's seeking happiness outside of yourself. I once read that a Buddhist needs nothing more than a bowl, a spoon, and a robe. A bowl and spoon to feed themselves and a robe to clothe themselves, for these cover the shortcomings of the human form; hunger and sensitivity to climate. If you truly need more than that, I don't think you'll ever find yourself, and how can you know true happiness? Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity". The other issue I see with attachments is that the more you have, the more your mind devotes to them. The more you devote to them, the question becomes "Who is master and who is slave?". Again, I would like to thank you for your comments, Alex. I grew up in rural Montana when I first learned of Buddhism and Zen(no Zen groups there, had to keep it hidden for various reasons), so this is my first opportunity to compare notes. Guy :) [email protected], Alex Bunard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- ventouxboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ---Interesting you don't believe in enlightenment. I > > understand the > > concept of Zen seperate from it, as a philosophy of > > living, but then > > why meditate or ponder koans? Isn't the purpose of > > these to free the > > mind from barriers, which is what I see > > enlightenment as. > > > > Now you've whetted my intellectual curiosity. So > > what is your > > vision of Zen, in what way does it benefit your > > life? > > > > Thanks for the feedback Alex, I will always > > appreciate a different > > viewpoint, it's how we learn, Guy.:) > > Hey Guy, > > I'm in a bit of a rush now, as my course is about to > start in 20 minutes. I'll see what I can squeeze for > now, and then maybe give you something more cogent > tomorrow. How's that? Deal? > > I always like to put Zen in the context. Forgive me if > this is old news to you, but I'd like to reiterate > that 'Zen' is a Japanese word which is a translation > of the Chinese word 'Chan' which is a translation of > the Sanskrit word 'Dhyana'. Now the buck stops here! > What does Dhyana mean? Dhyana means concentration. > > Concentration on what? On examining phenomena. > > Most Buddhist practitioners I know, if asked what is > the most important thing one needs to do in order to > realize enlightenment, would say that it's to get rid > of attachments. > > But when we examine attachments carefully (i.e. when > we concentrate on them utilizing dhyana), we don't > find anything particularly objectionable and bad about > them. So, why should we abandon them? Why would > attachments be any worse than non-attachments? > > Actually, to be perfectly honest here, pretty much > nobody ever examines these things. Let's face it, we > all take them for granted, simply because we read > about them in some book, or someone told us to do so. > > But you see, this is the worst part, the fact that no > one examines anything. Everyone is looking only for > instant gratification. So: > > abandon attachments == attain enlightenment > > Simple as that. And we're done! > > Most people need pithy slogans, simplistic formulas > (like the one above), and such. No one wants to > perform the real work that is absolutely necessary in > order for them to wake up. > > Zen is being sold nowadays as this quick and easy high > road to satori. You don't have to know anything about > the Buddha's teaching, just come and sit with us, and > bingo! you'll get enlightened. What's more, expending > any effort to learn about the Buddha's teaching will > only make things worse for you. So, kill the Buddha! > > What I'd like to ask all of you here is to try and > explain why do you think that attachment should be > regarded as bad? In other words, what could possibly > be wrong with attachment? Or, conversely, why do you > think it's not bad? > > Then I'll return tomorrow and explain myself. But for > now, I'd have to excuse myself. > > Thanks. > > Alex > > > ===== > No karma was produced during the composition of this letter > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It�s easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/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/
