On 8/31/05, monkette1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> >
> > The ego is the name of our suffering. Many Zen and Buddhist authorities
> > unanimously agree on that. The reason we do Zen practice is to end
> > suffering. Therefore, the ego must end.
> 
> What you say seems in line with advaita, not Zen.

 Perhaps. But advaita is an Absolutist teaching, while Zen isn't.


> What is this problematic object you would lose?

 The belief in substantiality.
 
> > If you realize that the house is an illusion, how can you get it out of 
> the
> > way? You cannot manipulate something that is not there, can you?
> 
> If you realize that the ego is an illusion, how can you get it out of the 
> way? You cannot
> manipulate something that is not there, can you?

 Precisely. Realizing that ego is an illusion amounts to eradicating it. No 
need to then go and try to destroy something that's not there.
 If a person sees a piece of rope on the ground and erroneously thinks it's 
a poisonous snake, that person may get scared. He then may start feeling the 
desire to kill that 'snake'; but the imaginary snake cannot be killed, for 
the simple reason that it is not there.
 Now if that person realizes the error, and comes to his senses and sees 
that it's a piece of rope, would that person still feel the need to kill the 
snake?

> I find this interpretation to be quite extreme and somewhat arbitrary. Can
> > you back it up by some convincing reasoning or could you provide some
> > scriptural support for it?
> 
> Why entertain yourself with obsession over self vs. no-self states of 
> mind? That's self-
> absorption.

 It's like hypochondria. Some people entertain the notion that they are 
terminally ill, while in reality they are not.
 Just because they suffer from imaginary illness, doesn't mean that they 
don't need help.

It's a basic belief of mine, call it a personal prejudice. Do evangelical 
> fundamentalist folks
> see themselves as having an elevated spiritual stature over you? Why are 
> they wrong or
> right in this belief? They simply define goodness, spirituality, away from 
> foolishness in a
> different way.

 I think that extremists, the fundamentalists and other do gooders only use 
spirituality in order to manipulate their surroundings. They do that so that 
they can elevate themselves to a very lucrative material status (c.f. Deepak 
Chopra). There is absolutely nothing spiritual about the so-called gurus who 
cater to the whims of Hollywood celebrities. The 'spiritual' teachings these 
manipulators are selling are nothing more than an empty shell masquerading 
as a one-upmanship game.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/S27xlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi 
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/
 


Reply via email to