Shaolin confused

[kfson]

Is the Shaolin temple Buddhist or Zen?

Does the fact that the Shaolin temple is either Buddhist or Zen have any bearing on how one practices one's Shaolin kung fu?

What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?

Is there a Zen Martial Art? If so, how is Buddhist martial art different from Zen martial art?

[MasterKiller]

Is the Shaolin temple Buddhist or Zen?

Does the fact that the Shaolin temple is either Buddhist or Zen have any bearing on how one practices one's Shaolin kung fu?

What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?

Is there a Zen Martial Art? If so, how is Buddhist martial art different from Zen martial art?

Zen is a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

[kfson]

Zen is a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

OK, I googled Mahāyāna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field... different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc.... Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvāstivādins, Sautrāntikas, Yogācāra, and others.

Why isn't Buddha just Buddha?

[MasterKiller]

OK, I googled Mahāyāna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field... different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc.... Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvāstivādins, Sautrāntikas, Yogācāra, and others.

Why isn't Buddha just Buddha?

Because once he died, different students began teaching different lessons.

[uki]

*munching popcorn* this sh!t is priceless...

[taai gihk yahn]

*munching popcorn* this sh!t is priceless...

seriously...

[David Jamieson]

OK, I googled Mahāyāna Buddhism. It appears that Buddhism is all over the playing field... different factions, large vehicles, small vehicles, etc.... Madhyamaka school, Gelugpa school, early Buddhist schools, Sarvāstivādins, Sautrāntikas, Yogācāra, and others.

Why isn't Buddha just Buddha?

For the same reason Jesus isn't just Jesus.

[kfson]

For the same reason Jesus isn't just Jesus.
That's what I was thinking.
Some consider a major part of Christianity to be heretical. Could this be so in Buddhism, also?


Because once he died, different students began teaching different lessons.
Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn't this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.

[LFJ]

the different schools are just different flavors, different ways to practice that suit different people.

zen is "a special transmission outside the scriptures; not dependent on words and speech", which means although the tradition grew out of mahayana buddhism, and is still considered buddhist and uses buddhist scriptures as instructional tools, it really doesnt depend on buddhism.

its not about picking up new ideas, but putting everything down.

so zen and buddhism, are they the same or different?

if you say the same, you get hit thirty times.

if you say different, you get hit thirty times.

if you say both or neither, you get hit thirty times.

[David Jamieson]

That's what I was thinking.
Some consider a major part of Christianity to be heretical. Could this be so in Buddhism, also?


Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn't this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.


yes.

On his death bed, Buddha pleaded to thin it all down and take it all back to the very basic message (deer park sermon and 8 fold path solution). This did not stop all te sects from popping up and interpreting what buddha said however they wanted to interpret it to suit the perspective of te teachings that their elders had. This is how tradition forms. :) Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of great information in the sutras and in dharma practice no matter the sect.

But we all have to have an identity and unfortunately, having an identity can outweigh the meaning of the identity in the first place all too often, this is due to a lack of mindfulness and an abundance of emotional excitement. :)

In all religions, there are plenty of texts which serve only to make things unclear. the more you chase the knowledge that is in them, the more you realize how it is incongruous, contradictory depending on what part you're reading and in many cases can be an outright conflict of ideas at play.

The religious hierarchy is not what is important. Neither is the teacher. What's important is how you live your life. What you do with your time here. How much love you can push into the world around you. How much help you can give. How much balance you can bring into your own life that allows you to do that.

Sometimes a lesson can be had and given at the same time. Not all lessons are positive experiences and some of the most positive events come out of the ashes of terrible things said and done.

Know yourself, and you know more than most. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Are there different lessons and why should different schools of thought be formed around different lessons? Doesn't this sound incomplete in the Buddha sense or not? Just wondering.

Think of it like different kinds of ice cream. You may prefer vanilla, some one else may prefer chocolate, a third may prefer a Ben and Jerry's fancy schmancy mix, but they are all still ice cream!

Mahayana recognizes that all people have different talents, mental capacities, inclinations, etc. We are all individuals with different needs and abilities. The goal, then, is to get people "across to the other shore". Mahayana understands that all people are individuals and that what is most important is "getting to the other shore" not whether everyone travels across in this boat, that boat, a surf board, or swim, etc.

So, some people are more intellectual, they may gain insight through philosophical reflection and/or perceiving the rationally paradoxical nature of existence. Another person may be more emotional by nature, but not all that bright intellectually. This type of person may be more inclined to devotional methods. Another person may be very active and have an inclination to "do things", this person may serve others or ritualize “flower arranging” or “sword practice” or “painting” etc. as a means of cultivating themselves. Formalized ritual may be a preference for a person with little individual self-discipline or someone who just enjoys pomp and ceremony. And of course, there are those who adopt various combinations of these or drift into and out of different methods at different times.

Since Buddhism views life as a series of reincarnations a being may practice any number of different variations throughout innumerable lives. Each life drawing them closer to ultimate realization.

Zen/Ch’an recognizes the use of various methods. Zen adopts the use of “expedient means”, that is, whatever works for each individual is permissible. Yet Zen’s view is that, since all methods lead to the same realization, why not just directly perceive “reality” which IS the other shore, rather than muddy the water with innumerable methods that contribute to greater attachment.

So as LFJ mentioned, Zen seeks to discard methods. Its method is “the method of no method”. Stop TRYING to get to the other side and realize you are already THERE and have never left.

Since we are already THERE, there is nothing to do, nothing to learn, nothing to earn/gain, nothing to lose! We do not realize we are ALREADY THERE simply because we have confused ourselves by creating distinctions between phenomena. Once we create distinctions between phenomena we focus on the distinctions rather than the underlying IS-NESS that is the foundation of those distinctions. The distinctions ARE IS-NESS! So we spend our time looking for something we have never lost, we just don’t realize that we have had it all along because we have confused our perception by over attachment to details/distinctions.

One metaphorical story used to describe this is used in one of the oldest known Ch’an documents:

It is like a man wearing a headband with a pearl on it. He has forgotten that is where his pearl is located, so he spends many years searching the world over looking for it. He cannot find it because he is looking in the wrong place. He is looking OUT THERE for something he has with him the whole time. In time he realizes that the pearl is right there in front of his face the whole time and that the time spent looking OUT THERE was unnecessary and a distraction. Searching (using the various methods of intellection, devotion, action, rituals, etc.) did not bring him to the realization that he had his pearl with him the whole time. He missed it because he was looking in the wrong place. Searching did him no good, because he never lost the pearl from the start.

The instruction here is that methods of searching cannot lead you to what is right in front of your face. All you need do is look and see clearly with unobstructed sight. It is a "realization" that occurs; it is not something you DO, PRACTICE, or EARN!

[kfson]

Thanks for the answers. I have been sifting through some Buddhist sites and have found that the answers are far more complicated than the questions.

I'll get back to you later on this, what I think is, a very important subject.

[David Jamieson]

my zen ice cream flavour is tiger/tiger!

mmmmmmmmm

[richard sloan]

mr. jamieson sounds like a fan of fightin joe campbell.

Ch'an Buddhism, that's spelled "C"..."H"..."A"..."N"... "Buddhism."

always cracks me up when Shi Yanming says that.


to this day, it's my pet peeve to see the piggy backing.

[David Jamieson]

I don't know who fighting joe campbell is.

But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell. :-)

[kfson]

I don't know who fighting joe campbell is.

But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell. :-)


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/773567/joseph_campbell_mythos_ii_explores.html
Joseph Campbell Mythos II Explores Hinduism and Buddhism

Campbell is Scottish, right?

[David Jamieson]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/773567/joseph_campbell_mythos_ii_explores.html
Joseph Campbell Mythos II Explores Hinduism and Buddhism

Campbell is Scottish, right?

The name Campbell is indeed Scottish, but the professor and author is American.

[Scott R. Brown]

I don't know who fighting joe campbell is.

But I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell. :-)

I like his soup! Mmmmmmm....mmmmmm........Tomato and Rice!!!!

[kfson]

I like his soup! Mmmmmmm....mmmmmm........Tomato and Rice!!!!

or some kind of woody allen joke about Jewish soup.

[Errant108]

Think of it like different kinds of ice cream. You may prefer vanilla, some one else may prefer chocolate, a third may prefer a Ben and Jerry's fancy schmancy mix, but they are all still ice cream!

...

The instruction here is that methods of searching cannot lead you to what is right in front of your face. All you need do is look and see clearly with unobstructed sight. It is a "realization" that occurs; it is not something you DO, PRACTICE, or EARN!

This was actually a really good post, better than 99% of the bull**** you see about Zen/Chan on the Interwebs, not to mention the extreme bull**** you see written about the relationship between Chan/Zen & the martial arts.

Are you practitioner or student of Chan?

[GeneChing]

Don't they make sorbet too? And frozen yogurt. That's not ice cream. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

Don't they make sorbet too? And frozen yogurt. That's not ice cream. :p

Then you merely expand the metaphor.......so you could say, "They are still desserts!", or you could say, "They are still food!":p

Another metaphor I like to use is different kinds of pie :)....

.....but feel free to use your own food metaphors, Chris hasn't given me my "TM" on this one yet!!!:D


This was actually a really good post, better than 99% of the bull**** you see about Zen/Chan on the Interwebs, not to mention the extreme bull**** you see written about the relationship between Chan/Zen & the martial arts.

Are you practitioner or student of Chan?

Hi Errant108,

Thank you for the kind comments. It is rare to receive a compliment on a MA BB, LOL!!!

I have been a student of Ch'an/Zen and Tao for nearly 40 years!

If I haven't upset you yet, I am sure I will find some way to do so eventually........if you hang around here long enough.....:D

I mean...I am no uki or HW108, but then we can't all be Loki!!!:p

[monkey mind]

The idea of 'skillful means' or presenting Buddhist teachings & practices in different ways to suit different individuals is certainly one of the factors behind the proliferation of Buddhist sects. And in this sense, it's important to understand that just because there are different sects or schools does not mean that the concept of heresy applies. In other words, it's not a zero sum game as it often is in the west. There's another, less noble factor as well though. Buddhism has always been a social as well as a spiritual phenomenon. Right from the start, and picking up major steam under the Indian emperor Ashoka, issues of patronage, politics & power have been injected into the sangha. Certainly this trend increased over time as Buddhism spread. As some monasteries became wealthy, powerful institutions they understandably found their focus on the dhamma either shifted or diluted. And this spurred counter-movements, or competing movements. The same thing continues to happen even today. You can see it in within the Thai Theravada tradition, and probably others as well.

[YouKnowWho]

What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?

I thought one only cares about himself 小乘 (Xiao Cheng), and the other care about others "大乘 (Da Cheng). Just like the tea party members who can't care less about whether others have health care or not. The democrat do care about that everybody should have health care.

[kfson]

I thought one only cares about himself 小乘 (Xiao Cheng), and the other care about others "大乘 (Da Cheng). Just like the tea party members who can't care less about whether others have health care or not. The democrat do care about that everybody should have health care.

???
One could argue that Republicans want everyone to have health care, but not socialized.
Socialized health care does not have a market on caring.

I'm not fast enough to see the relationship with Buddhism and Zen.

[Scott R. Brown]

The idea of 'skillful means' or presenting Buddhist teachings & practices in different ways to suit different individuals is certainly one of the factors behind the proliferation of Buddhist sects. And in this sense, it's important to understand that just because there are different sects or schools does not mean that the concept of heresy applies. In other words, it's not a zero sum game as it often is in the west. There's another, less noble factor as well though. Buddhism has always been a social as well as a spiritual phenomenon. Right from the start, and picking up major steam under the Indian emperor Ashoka, issues of patronage, politics & power have been injected into the sangha. Certainly this trend increased over time as Buddhism spread. As some monasteries became wealthy, powerful institutions they understandably found their focus on the dhamma either shifted or diluted. And this spurred counter-movements, or competing movements. The same thing continues to happen even today. You can see it in within the Thai Theravada tradition, and probably others as well.

Which brings to mind Bodhidharma's reply when the Emperor asked him what merits he has gained for ordaining monks, building temples, etc.

"None at all!" :eek:

:)

[Hendrik]

Is the Shaolin temple Buddhist or Zen?

Does the fact that the Shaolin temple is either Buddhist or Zen have any bearing on how one practices one's Shaolin kung fu?

What is the difference between Buddhist and Zen?

Is there a Zen Martial Art? If so, how is Buddhist martial art different from Zen martial art?



Buddhism is a general term.

Zen is a teaching in Buddhism.

Zen is the path where one was directly coaching to "see" one's Buddha nature. This is the advance teaching of Buddhism which is equavalent with the Esoteric Buddhism's MahaMudra teaching.

Not everyone can practice Zen. One needs to have a certain level of depth before Zen could benifit one. It is not about thinking, it is let go the thinking and enter into silence and recognize one's buddha nature.

After one recognize one's buddha nature, one know there is nothing out there but everything is a transformation of one's own buddha nature, a creation of one's mind. and mind is an instrument of creation or an application of the buddhanature.


Zen and Shao lin's connection comes from BoddhiDharma the Buddhist patriach who brought Zen teaching to China reside in Shao Lin. So, Zen was spread from Shao lin to other part of China. Shaolin is a Buddhist temple which is specialized in Zen however not everyone there practice Zen because Zen is an advance path.


Shao Lin has a term called Zen and Martial art is non dual. This term means one could use martial art as a vehicle to coach one to recognize one's buddhanature. This term also could be understood by after one sees one's buddha nature, one sees everything as the transformation of buddha nature.

Thus, this term means, before seeing one's buddha nature, one could use martial art as a vehicle, after one recognize one's buddha nature, everything is buddha nature. Thus, that is practicing Zen 24/7/12.


However, one must be careful that not everyone is capable to do the above because one needs a certain quality before one could walk this path.

That is where the other Buddhism path comes into play.

IE. the reciting of Amitaba Buddha teaching. As one sees the Shao Lin monks carry the recitation of Chanting beads. This teaching is for those who is not suitable to practice Zen directly, so, one uses this recitation teaching to build up the Samadhi or Stillness or peace in nature or upto a certain degree before they could practice Zen effectively. This teaching much more suitable for general public then Zen.


Now, some one might believe they could practice zen directly. in most cases, if one is not having the quality needed, one could spend a life time going no where with Zen.


Zen is 1/1000 human type of teaching, where the reciting of Amitaba Buddha is a 1000/1000 human type of teaching. so one needs to get into a proper teaching to be benifit.




Hope this help.

[David Jamieson]

Buddhism is where you can really smell the ****. You know it's there and you want to act on that.

Zen is realizing that it's you that is the **** and there's nothing to be done about that.

Or not, does it really matter anyway? :p

[Scott R. Brown]

Or not, does it really matter anyway? :p

If one has Zen, what matters is...................

[Hendrik]

Zen is realizing that it's you that is the **** and there's nothing to be done about that.

Or not, does it really matter anyway? :p


if you realize it's you, since you are the boss, you create it then just let it go and dissolve.
Instead of there's is nothing to be done about that.


IT does really matter. This is because knowing it but cannot dissolve it means not really knowing it. That is not Zen at all.

Knowing it and be able to let go and resolve it is Zen.

[David Jamieson]

if you realize it's you, since you are the boss, you create it then just let it go and dissolve.
Instead of there's is nothing to be done about that.


IT does really matter. This is because knowing it but cannot dissolve it means not really knowing it. That is not Zen at all.

Knowing it and be able to let go and resolve it is Zen.

letting go of a construct that was never really manifest is letting go of something you created with your mind. once it is gone, it is as irrelevant as it ever was, but it was and it was as real in mind as if manifest.

so it has the same value to the mind in the letting go of it.

[LFJ]

hendrik-

why do you make zen so difficult?

[Hendrik]

letting go of a construct that was never really manifest is letting go of something you created with your mind.

once it is gone, it is as irrelevant as it ever was,

but it was and it was as real in mind as if manifest.

so it has the same value to the mind in the letting go of it.


how can you know it is gone?

[Hendrik]

hendrik-

why do you make zen so difficult?

who is your teacher who train you in Zen? has him seeing his buddha nature himself?

[RenDaHai]

I think you guys can read about Zen for several lifetimes and not really get anywhere... I think you have to actually do it. I don't think you will find the answers from reading what other people have done, i don't think you need any advice, i think you just have to actually do it.

@LFJ priceless answer buddy!

[YouKnowWho]

I'm not fast enough to see the relationship with Buddhism and Zen.

There are 2 major branches of Buddhism.

- 小乘 (Xiao Cheng) is 出世 (Chu Shi) that you go to a temple and live there until you have saved yourself.
- 大乘 (Da Cheng) is 入世 (Ru Shi) that you go to the society and help others to be saved.

For example, 濟公 (Ji Gong) is 大乘 (Da Cheng) who tried to help as many people as he could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zbVzgcWpPI

[LFJ]

Originally Posted by LFJ
hendrik-

why do you make zen so difficult?

who is your teacher who train you in Zen? has him seeing his buddha nature himself?

thank you for that clear answer.

buddha nature? what is that?

open your mouth and i hit you.

[Hendrik]

thank you for that clear answer.

buddha nature? what is that?

open your mouth and i hit you.


I doubt this type of mimic-ing expression do any good. It only got one trap into playful scattering mind state which lead one to lost samadhi.

not to mention this is off target when what others need is a clear direction because the topic is how to clear a confusion; instead of a confusing mind leading other confusing mind; and the one who has the most confusing mind pronounce to be enlighten. and the group of confuse people feeling so good because they all now is enlighten. That is just ridiculous and misleading others to get trap .

Zen path is the path of liberation, to become liberate and free is the bottom line. can oneself see the light of the tunnel, can one lead others toward the end of the tunnel after one is in the end of the tunnel is the name of the game.

mimic-ing is like got stuck in the tunnel knowing not how to get out and proclaiming one is already free and everyone who got trap in the location is free. That is just simply ridiculous like a dodo bird thinking that hole one trap in is liberation.


my point here is to stress the liberate act which result into freedom. those are action not some clever sound nice sound good sound smart words or thoughts.

Zen is beyond time. however, until one could release the concept of time one cant get there. and how to release the concept of time? that is hard work action certainly not thoughts or about playing with thought.

Thus, the Shao Lin Zen core in the immoveable heart. all the practice got to reside in the realm of immoveable heart. and reside in the realm of immoveable heart is not a thought but an action.

Only Action could liberate one, thought doesnt. similar with one could know the winning number of next $10000 million lotto but if one doesnt take the action of buying the lotto ticket with the exact number, one doesnt get anything. Thus, Zen and martial art is non dual. that action matter. That is the teaching of Shao lin, ACTION is ZEN in today's word.

[LFJ]

Only Action could liberate one, thought doesnt.

and yet you have so much thinking in your posts.

with your thinking you make zen difficult.

[Scott R. Brown]

Personality is an artificial construct that each of us are responsible for having created, and it has a useful purpose.

Knowing your personality is an artificial construct does not make it non-existent. Within Buddhism/Zen non-existent means not fixed or permanent; it does not mean "not made manifest within the world of distinctions".

Think of it like a first person computer game. Everything within the game is an artificial construct. The game really exists and what happens within the game is real "within" the game. If your character dies within the game, it really dies and is really re-spawned, but the "true" player, YOU, have not died, you have not changed, only the game changed.

When the game is over, it no longer exists, yet is always potential; it exists with one context and yet does not exist within another context; it is real within one context and is non-existent within another. I always have it on a disk, so it is in one sense real, but I am not presently playing it. It is not manifest/real until I do play it; it is not "really" a game until someone is playing.

So, it can be said the game is existent and non-existent. In that it is artificially constructed, it is pretend, so it non-existent, yet it is really a game and one can really play it, so it is existent. It is both real and unreal at the same time, just as glass of water is both "half full" and "half empty" at the same time. Which one it is, is a condition of mind NOT a condition of the glass of water! The glass of water doesn't change, only mind, perspective, changes!

The principles "it matters" and " it does not matter" are concepts; concepts are distinctions and are therefore artificially constructed. Anything that belongs to the world of distinctions is considered unreal within Buddhism, that is, it is not permanent, therefore all this matters or not only if one chooses to make it matter, just as a glass is "half full" or "half empty" based upon how one "chooses" to view it!

When one is unattached to the concepts matter/ not-matter they perceive they are but two aspects of the same ONENESS, just as a "half full" glass of water and a "half empty" glass of water are both still "a glass of water".

[Scott R. Brown]

Only Action could liberate one, thought doesnt.

Action is a manifestation of thought....without thought there is NO action!

[Hendrik]

and yet you have so much thinking in your posts.

with your thinking you make zen difficult.

There is a different between explaining the process and fantasy thinking.

Explaining the process even if one got to write a book that is not too much. Fantasy thinking, even if one just raise a single thought that is too much.



How simple is Zen? as I have asked you


who is your teacher who train you in Zen? has him seeing his buddha nature himself?

and yet after a few posts you didnt reply yet.

if you cant even answer the simple question which is definite.
How could you even grasp the infinite, not to mention liberate?

You are likely to be one of those who got stuck in the tunnel and fantasying you have liberate. sure, that is simple. however, you still stuck. that is not Zen but delusion. and that type of thinking is too much.

[Hendrik]

Action is a manifestation of thought....without thought there is NO action!

if one doesnt go and buy that lotto ticket, one still go no where.


To talk about thought and thinking is easy. To create thought is simple.
But,
To be able to dissolve or let go thought and thinking which is already spinning habitually in the mind needs real Kung fu. That is where Zen comes it.

In martial art, when fear thoughts arise, angry thoughts arise, sex desire thoughts arise, how to dissolve and totally release of send them back to the nothingness is the training of Immoveable heart training.

[Scott R. Brown]

if you cant even answer the simple question which is definite.
How could you even grasp the infinite, not to mention liberate

There is a difference between can't and won't!

Those of us who have read your posts for sometime already know you have locked your mind into the necessity for a teacher, not everyone has your attachment! Your expectation that anyone would or should buy into your attachment to the "need"for a teacher, is also an attachment!

How can you grasp the infinite, or indicate it to another, when you cannot grasp your own attachments?

[Scott R. Brown]

if one doesnt go and buy that lotto ticket, one still go no where.


To talk about thought and thinking is easy. To create thought is simple.
But,
To be able to dissolve or let go thought and thinking which is already spinning habitually in the mind needs real Kung fu. That is where Zen comes it.

In martial art, when fear thoughts arise, angry thoughts arise, sex desire thoughts arise, how to dissolve and totally release of send them back to the nothingness is the training of Immoveable heart training.

Since one is already THERE, buying a lotto ticket won't GET you THERE!

Since thoughts are already nothingness there is no need to send them anywhere.

All one need do is realize this for themselves.

[Hendrik]

Since thoughts are already nothingness there is no need to send them anywhere.

All one need do is realize this for themselves.


Saying is easy,

even those who has seen their buddha nature cannot do it effectively until they attain higher then the eight ground boddhisatva level.

and thus, they still have to rely on the technic of reciting Amitaba Buddha or Mantra to dissolve the issue.


Have you become a strict vegitarian yet? if not why not? can you do it? simple stuffs isnt it?

[Hendrik]

Those questions are not for you right?

Could you let the owner of the answer answer his own question?




There is a difference between can't and won't!

Those of us who have read your posts for sometime already know you have locked your mind into the necessity for a teacher, not everyone has your attachment! Your expectation that anyone would or should buy into your attachment to the "need"for a teacher, is also an attachment!

How can you grasp the infinite, or indicate it to another, when you cannot grasp your own attachments?

[Scott R. Brown]

Saying is easy,

You know this very well from experience, do you not?


Have you become a strict vegitarian yet? if not why not? can you do it? simple stuffs isnt it?

I have for a time, at times. I found it very easy! But the belief that being a vegetarian is necessary belongs to the realm of attachment to distinctions. Being a vegetarian is unnecessary to obtaining an unobstructed mind. In fact, if one is preoccupied with the necessity of vegetarianism, that attachment will bind them to samsara!


Those questions are not for you right?

Could you let the owner of the answer answer his own question?

Yet you have asked them from me in the past as well, have you not?

Your question is a reflection of your attachment to the need for a teacher!

How does my answering prevent him from answering? He will answer or not according to his own inclinations, separate from whether I answer or not!

[RenDaHai]

You don't get Zen by following rules. Zen represents Supreme Wisdom, which in itself is the most natural goal. It unites all religions, philosophies and sciences in this respect.

There is no purpose in forcing rules on oneself. For example during periods of long meditation you will find that meat feels heavy when you eat it, you will find the concept of killing the animal for it is distasteful and naturally you will move away from it. There is no point denying yourself it deliberately. Eventually you naturally won't want it. As for sex, it will stop crossing your mind, it will become less important. There is no need to deliberately forcing yourself to be celibate. Just to practice more and naturally that will happen. By denying yourself Vices they control you. You should simply and naturally not want them. But that takes time and cannot be forced.

EXAMPLE: I observe that Monks wear robes and have shaved heads. So I shave my head and wear a robe....DOes that make me a monk? No. The robes and the head are a CONSEQUENCE of becoming a monk, they are not the CAUSE. Similarly the written texts of buddhism are a CONSEQUENCE of wisdom, they are not the CAUSE.

Buddha himself can not give you Zen. A teacher may help you on to the right path, but they will not walk with you.

[richard sloan]

Action is a manifestation of thought....without thought there is NO action!

this could use some clarification scott. not quite there yet my brother.

[richard sloan]

Saying is easy,

even those who has seen their buddha nature cannot do it effectively until they attain higher then the eight ground boddhisatva level.

and thus, they still have to rely on the technic of reciting Amitaba Buddha or Mantra to dissolve the issue.


Have you become a strict vegitarian yet? if not why not? can you do it? simple stuffs isnt it?

that's pathetic!

[David Jamieson]

Saying is easy,

even those who has seen their buddha nature cannot do it effectively until they attain higher then the eight ground boddhisatva level.

and thus, they still have to rely on the technic of reciting Amitaba Buddha or Mantra to dissolve the issue.


Have you become a strict vegitarian yet? if not why not? can you do it? simple stuffs isnt it?
you don't need to see your buddha nature for it to be there. same like you don't need to see air to breath it and need it. :)

8 ground boddhisattva would make a huge hamburger, but it would be bad to eat it.

recitation is not necessary, mantra is a rope to hang onto so you don't fall

Vegetable matter is alive as well. Consider that. It has no face, but it is as alive as anything else.

[LFJ]

How simple is Zen? as I have asked you

very simple. who are you?

"bodhisattva this.. zen teacher that.. eighth ground this.. vegetarian that.."

that's all your buddhist identity. you read that somewhere, or someone told you about that. that's someone else's idea, someone else's speech. what is your true speech?

who.. are.. you?!




Posted by Hendrik
who is your teacher who train you in Zen? has him seeing his buddha nature himself?

and yet after a few posts you didnt reply yet.

if you cant even answer the simple question which is definite.
How could you even grasp the infinite, not to mention liberate?

You are likely to be one of those who got stuck in the tunnel and fantasying you have liberate. sure, that is simple. however, you still stuck. that is not Zen but delusion. and that type of thinking is too much.

i didn't answer that question because i asked you; "why do you make zen so difficult", and you answered with a thinking question in return, challenging my understanding through the authenticity of my master's instruction.

so i said; "thank you for that very clear answer".

with your thinking you make zen difficult. but zen is very simple. who.. are.. you?

[kfson]

Does spiritual alchemy come into the equation with the Zen tradition?

[Scott R. Brown]

Action is a manifestation of thought....without thought there is NO action!


this could use some clarification scott. not quite there yet my brother.

Hi Richard,

Thought is a manifestation of mind. Without mind there is no thought. When mind moves, that is has thoughts, action occurs!

One day Hui-neng was walking along and came upon two Buddhist monks observing a pennant blowing in the wind. The two monks were arguing amongst themselves attempting to determine whether it was the wind moving the pennant or whether the pennant was moving independently of the wind. (It may seem like a stupid discussion, but it is more of a discussion about perspective, not physics.) Overhearing the conversation Hui-neg commented it was neither the flag nor the wind moving, but their minds!

All perception occurs within the mind. Without mind to perceive it there is nothing to occur. This leads Buddhist to conclude that mind creates events. Events do not occur separate from mind and then mind perceives them, they occur because mind creates them from the first. Action is Mind perceiving itself. The Action we perceive around us is thought moving/creating.

Think of life as a first person computer game with full sensory immersion. Without the sensory immersion we may observe the game without directly experiencing events, it is like a movie, we are separate from the action. But once we include a sophisticate sensory system, we become PART of the action directly because we have a greater investment, pleasure and pain, in what occurs.

It does make sense if we think it through completely. Something is hot because we have sensation telling us it is hot. That sensation is a nerve impulse from the hot substance to our brain wherein it is "interpreted" as hot by the mind. If one did not have sensors within their body to perceive hot, they could touch a hot substance and it would NOT be hot. Or one could choose not to interpret their nerve impulse as hot, which is a mental action, and they would not feel the heat, as when someone is hypnotized or has supreme mental control.

That does not mean that the body would not burn in a fire though. The body is a tool of the mind in order to have full immersion within the game and is subject to the laws of physics.

One might say, “There are events going on far out in other galaxies and there is no mind to perceive them, but when we investigate we see they have still occurred!” This is true, however we know they occurred because we have a mind that perceives them. If there was no mind to perceive them, they did not occur.

Buddhism teaches that all individual “minds” are artificial distinctions of ONE-MIND and it is this MIND that creates all things out of itself.

We KNOW because of Mind! We THINK because of Mind! We PERCEIVE because of Mind! We IMAGINE because of Mind. All these are qualities, functions, of Mind.

Without Mind, "that which perceives", nothing can be demonstrated to happen at all!


Does spiritual alchemy come into the equation with the Zen tradition?

Hi kfson,

Spiritual Alchemy is a metaphorical process, so to speak, at least according to Liu I-ming a noted Contemplative Taoist.

There are certainly some methods that use alchemical metaphors. From the Zen perspective, an "expedient means" is an "expedient means", which means to each his own path according to his inclinations, purpose and needs. But a method is still a method regardless of whether it has ideal intentions or more modest intentions.

Zen views all methods as subject to leading one to attachment and as taking the long way around. Zen would ask, “Why go round-a-bout when one could take the direct path?”

My personal view is that, since time is relative and we are all already Buddha, it only matters how long it takes if one is attached to “getting there”. “Getting there” is only important if one has attachments. Life simply IS, enjoy it. If one wants to follow this path or that path, good for them. As long as they get something out of it then that is fine for them. It isn’t about paths or no-paths it is about attachments and understanding. If one has no attachment to a particular method they are following there is no harm done. If one has attachments to following “no-path”, they are just as confused as one who is attached to any other method.

For, Zen’s, "Path of no-Path" can still be made into a fixed method in which attachment becomes a problem. The intention within Zen is not to think about a “path” at all, but to practice it. It is like thinking about the taste of an orange and discussing it with others, but never actually eating it! The talking is NOT the eating; the discussion of the taste is NOT the taste. The taste is in the eating!

[taai gihk yahn]

all of this stuff's you speak is nothing more than prismatic-scintillating, 108-ft. tall Robot Godzilla, "you-spin-me-round-round-baby-rite-round-like-a-record-baby-rite-round-round-round" mind

if knew r3al C'h'a'n, you wud manifest Buddha nature like this:

(*^_^*)

[Scott R. Brown]

all of this stuff's you speak is nothing more than prismatic-scintillating, 108-ft. tall Robot Godzilla, "you-spin-me-round-round-baby-rite-round-like-a-record-baby-rite-round-round-round" mind

if knew r3al C'h'a'n, you wud manifest Buddha nature like this:

(*^_^*)

Only a true Mongolian Qigong Master would recognize that!

[taai gihk yahn]

Only a true Mongolian Qigong Master would recognize that!

and only a man sitting across the street with a high-powered scope would recognize one when he sees one...

[LFJ]

scott,

you're right. everything you said is summed up very clearly in the one simple and direct line found in buddhist scripture:

"everything is created by mind alone."

[taai gihk yahn]

scott,

you're right. everything you said is summed up very clearly in the one simple and direct line found in buddhist scripture:

"everything is created by mind alone."

why do u make such complex simplicity out of simple complexity? the foot-prints left by your towering 888-foot tall Voltron-Transformer mind-construct / ego-complex fill up with the karmic tears of samsara to make giant pools into which field mice and baby starlings fall and drown themselves; so much better if you sat home alone, disturbing only the neighbors and local goats with your diarrhetic word-flatulence

[LFJ]

uh huh.....

[Scott R. Brown]

why do u make such complex simplicity out of simple complexity?

This from "Mr. Science Class"! :p

Your teacher is a Taoist anyway, what do you know about REAL life?:p:p:p

[David Jamieson]

This from "Mr. Science Class"! :p

Your teacher is a Taoist anyway, what do you know about REAL life?:p:p:p

It's possible he has some insight on butterflies....or possibly some butterfly insight. :p

[RenDaHai]

Hey Guys,

This 'everything is created by mind alone' thing.....

ScottBrown: 'All perception occurs within the mind. Without mind to perceive it there is nothing to occur. This leads Buddhist to conclude that mind creates events. '

I just want to interject on behalf of readers who don't know much about Zen... THis is not the only way of interpreting things.... When we say this it can be very confusing and a lot of people turn of straight away.

Allow me to represent an interpretation;

Certainly the reality we perceive is dependant on our ability to perceive. When we see something the act of us 'seeing' it is not the thing we see. What we see is a reflection in our mind of the thing we see. Because of the way we are constructed we can Never fully perceive anything, we rely on our senses. I.e we see a reflection in the eyes, we feel a nerve impulse as a result of touching something. When we touch a tree we are not really feeling the tree we are only feeling our minds interpretation of the tree. Yes. However this does NOT mean the tree only exists in our mind. If there was no mind to perceive it it would still exist. Only what we call a tree only exists in our minds, because the concept of the tree only exists in our minds. The true nature of the 'tree' is not perceivable to us.

Let us take an example of a Chair. Look at a chair. Touch it. What is it that makes it a chair? Is it that we can sit on it? No, there are many things that can be sat upon that are not chairs, and a chair can be used as many things other than a seat. Is it that it is made of wood? No many things are made of wood, and a chair can be constructed of many things other than wood. Is it the shape, the structure? No, i could construct a dollhouse sized chair, it would look identical to a chair but to call it one would be a mistake as it is too small to be sat upon. So what is the Essences of Chairness? What is it to be a chair? We must come to the conclusion that there is NO single essence of a chair, the essence is only the void istself, thus the chair exists only in our minds. Here is the important point. THat is NOT to say the object we call a chair does not exist. It exists outside our mind and is a real thing. What does not exist is the concept of a chair. This only exists in our minds.

When we think like this we do so to challenge our perceptions thus to improve our ability to understand reality and the world around us. For example if you only knew a chair could be used as a seat then you would be at a disadvantage. In the rain a chair can be shelter. In a flood it may be a raft. On a freezing night it can be fuel for the fire. In Danger it can be a weapon or a shield. To a carpenter it may be a blueprint of hundreds of years worth of carpentary evolution. This is an extremely simple example so that all can understand. The world around us is real and exists outside our minds, Zen causes us to think about the nature of this reality and why we perceive it so. Say an alien shaped like a sphere were to see a chair, it would have no concept of a chair so may only see it as the things i listed above, the fact it is a chair is invisible to it, it could not distinguish it from the other objects around it. Thus the entire construct of the world is dependant on our state of perception. That doesnt mean it is only in our minds, it means the only way we can perceive it is through our minds, and thus by improving our minds we can improve our perception of the world and thus our lives and our level.

Awareness is utterly dependent on perception. Perception is utterly dependent on mind. Reality is real. How we perceive it is in our mind. If there is no mind to perceive then reality is still real, in fact it is uncorrupted and more real than ever. As soon as we perceive something it becomes corrupted by our minds inability to perceive.

Rant over, hope someone read it.

[Scott R. Brown]

It's possible he has some insight on butterflies....or possibly some butterfly insight. :p

Well....according to my surveil........er observation, he does tend to flutter about!

Do you think he might actually BE a butterfly?:eek:

[David Jamieson]

Well....according to my surveil........er observation, he does tend to flutter about!

Do you think he might actually BE a butterfly?:eek:

Well after the dream I had last night, I'm not certain I'm not a butterfly...

[taai gihk yahn]

Well after the dream I had last night, I'm not certain I'm not a butterfly...

after the dream I had last night, I'm pretty certain that you're not...:eek::eek::eek:

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Ren,

A very thoughtful post, and nicely said, but still a bit narrow in scope and probably not quite accurate.

Let’s consider a few questions:

You state that reality is real! How can you be sure? It seems, at best, all one could say is that reality "appears" to be real. But in order to determine if “reality” is indeed “real” it might be of benefit to first define what you mean by "real". Then perhaps define what you mean by "reality is real" and then what makes "reality" real.

From the Buddhist, or at least Ch'an, perspective, phenomena that are transient in nature are NOT real, that is, not truly existent. If something is non-existent, how can it be real?

Also Buddhism considers anything that is dependent upon anything else for its existence is NOT real! That is, anything that is codependent or mutually arising is NOT truly existent and thereby, NOT real!

If, as you say, a tree is existent whether there is mind to perceive it or not, how can this be demonstrated? Where there is no mind there are no objects and nothing to perceive the objects. Therefore objects cannot be demonstrated to exist. If they cannot be demonstrated to exist, how can they be real?

Absence of A mind from being present to perceive any particular object at any given moment in time is not the same thing as absence of Mind. What you are contending is absence of A mind, that is YOUR mind or MY mind, not absence of Mind. When there is NO Mind, there are NO objects. There are NO objects, because it is Mind that perceives objects in order for them to exist!

For something to exist there must be a "thing" to perceive AND something to perceive that "thing", a "perceiving agent"! If there is no "perceiving agent" to perceive a "thing" can a "thing" be demonstrated to exist? If there is no "thing" to perceive can a "perceiving agent" be said to exist?

It would appear they are mutually dependent and co-arising! Without “objects”, that is, “things” apparently separate from Mind, there isn’t anything to perceive. Without Mind that is separate from “objects” there is nothing present to perceive those “objects”, no “perceiving agent”.

What we generally consider to be “real” objects are only manifestations of Mind. If Mind did not perceive objects what could exist within that mind? An object is anything that is set apart from something else, a “perceiving agent” from “that which is perceived”. If there is no separation between a "perceiving agent, and "that which is perceived" there is nothing left that exists and no reality!

For example, imagine a mind that has no connection to what you consider to be the "real" world through sensation, no hearing, no taste, no smell, no touch. Without sensory input, there is only mind functioning of itself to create its own objects within itself. This mind would be completely ignorant of anything existing outside of itself and those “objects” could not affect that mind. If they do not affect the mind in any way, how can they be said to exist. They may exist for other minds, but they do not exist for THAT mind and there would be no way to demonstrate to THAT mind that they do exist because there is no interaction or effect on that mind in any way!

……something to consider!:)

[Scott R. Brown]

after the dream I had last night, I'm pretty certain that you're not...:eek::eek::eek:

Since I was up all night, and therefore did not dream, does that make ME the butterfly?

Or do I not exist?

Or am I a manifestation of your dreams?

If there is a mind that dreams are the dreams real if the mind makes up its own dreams out of itself?

If the mind does not dream or create anything separate from itself in order to distinguish itself, does it exist?

Prove it!!!!:p

[LFJ]

Because of the way we are constructed we can Never fully perceive anything, we rely on our senses. I.e we see a reflection in the eyes, we feel a nerve impulse as a result of touching something.

or we (think we) "touch something" as a result of feeling a nerve impulse.

explanation below:


When we touch a tree we are not really feeling the tree we are only feeling our minds interpretation of the tree. Yes. However this does NOT mean the tree only exists in our mind. If there was no mind to perceive it it would still exist.

our eyes only see color, a subjective language of our eye-consciousness translating rays of light. so we never see something outside. it only appears that way.

our ears only hear sound, a subjective language of our ear-consciousness translating vibration. so we never hear something outside. it only seems that way.

take and do the same with the rest of the senses.... its all subjective feeling, and not objective reality. but based on these experiences we deduce the existence of an external world, which is actually illusory.

if we understand that, then how can we say something exists outside our consciousness? because many people have the same experience? but many people having the same subjective experience doesnt make it objective reality. some people are color-blind, some animals see only black and white. different karma. which one is correct?

so based on what can we assert that something exists outside of our own consciousness? based on what?


Here is the important point. THat is NOT to say the object we call a chair does not exist. It exists outside our mind and is a real thing. What does not exist is the concept of a chair. This only exists in our minds.

based on what i have explained above, therefore the buddhist teaching is "all things are created by mind alone" (chin.: yīqiè wéi xīn zào 一切唯心造).

a school that deals with this in greatly minute detail is called weishi (consciousness-only) in chinese. it is the chinese version of the yogacara school founded by xuanzang fashi.

it is basically the teaching of correct dependent origination, which is not the 12 links of dependent origination as taught in classical buddhism. the heart sutra tears that apart, along the whole of hinayana style teachings. negating from the 5 aggregates, 18 sense realms, 12 links of dependent origination, to even the 4 noble truths!

mahayana dependent origination is exactly "mind alone". so the four noble truths in the heart sutra; "there is no suffering, accumulation, cessation, nor path". why? because from the beginning "suffering" is a fabrication of the mind alone.

look and you will not find this suffering thing. it is emptiness, like space. as bodhidharma said in the bloodstream sermon; "space has a name, but no form. its not something you can pick up or put down. and you certainly cant grab it".

chan/zen is a mahayana school. the teaching is the same. only saying "mind" is already a mistake. so chan/zen masters dont allow thinking answers and break their student's dependence upon words to directly see, clearly. in one split second.

nonetheless, as long as we are living humans we have this karma to see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think. but seeing clearly we can just endure without grasping.

seeing clearly, hearing clearly...

then when someone is hungry, we give them food. thirsty, we give them drink. suffering, we just help.

thats already "enlightenment" enough.

anyway... peace!

[Scott R. Brown]

Very nicely said LFJ.....

I think the only comment I would make is, karma is created by attachment. Where there is no attachment, there is no karma. That is not to say that there are no "world system" consequences to actions, but these are not "properly" considered karma!:)

[LFJ]

Very nicely said LFJ.....

I think the only comment I would make is, karma is created by attachment. Where there is no attachment, there is no karma. That is not to say that there are no "world system" consequences to actions, but these are not "properly" considered karma!:)

okay, how about vipaka then. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi LFJ,

I would consider that "world system" effects from causes, which are not the same thing as karma, in this instance!

When I touch something hot, if it is too hot, I will burn! This is "world system" cause and effect, the laws of physics. The consequence of burning your hand on something hot does not follow one throughout their life or from life to life if the event is absent emotional and mental attachment. If one attaches to the event then the effect may follow one throughout both this life and the next and this IS karma as I mean it in this instance. This is the kind of karma that interferes with direct unobstructed perception/seeing, not the "world system", cause and effect, karma!

When I am referring to karma here, I am speaking of spiritual karma! The consequences of emotional or mental attachment to illusory objects. When there is no emotional or mental attachment, there is no karma, that is, the consequences do not follow one from life to life or throughout this life in a spiritual way, but physical/material consequences may follow one within this life!

When the the Emperor of Wei asked Bodhidharma what merits he had gained from ordaining monks, building temples, etc. He was told, "None at all!". The benefits the Emperor gained were all "world system" benefits, subject to the cause and effect relationship created by society and its arbitrary expectations and value system. When we perform actions considered "good" we are commonly rewarded in some manner, usually by honor and respect, but sometimes also with material rewards as well. This is "world system" karma, cause and effect!

But none of those actions were of any benefit in directly perceiving absent mental obstruction, which is caused by attachment to objects/phenomena. The Emperor of Wei had attachments, one of which was to gaining merits and his attachments prevented his direct unobstructed perception/seeing!:)

[LFJ]

yes, i see. "world system" cause & effect is still valid. however, my comment on karma in the post to rendahai was actually speaking of vipaka, the results of past karma, being here now.

so even though this external world is illusory (all things are created by mind alone), nonetheless we as humans still see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and cognize in this human way.

but yes, as bodhidharma said; "regardless of what we do, karma has no hold on us".

so when you see, just see. when you hear, just hear. whatever you are doing, just do it.

[Scott R. Brown]

I see, thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning more clearly!:)

[monkey mind]

So many words being used to describe zen... where's that 'turning a flower' emoticon?

[LFJ]

So many words being used to describe zen... where's that 'turning a flower' emoticon?

which words used described zen?

[monkey mind]

seeing clearly, hearing clearly...

anyway... peace!

This part is pretty good. :D
The rest of the debate on mind & reality sounds an awful lot like "thinking answers". But then what do I know - I'm one of those deluded Theravada (the dreaded Hinayana) guys.

[LFJ]

This part is pretty good. :D
The rest of the debate on mind & reality sounds an awful lot like "thinking answers". But then what do I know - I'm one of those deluded Theravada (the dreaded Hinayana) guys.

well, the rest was basically an elaboration on the point as found in such schools as chinese weishi (yogacara). the chan/zen schools just point to that without reliance on speech.

as the heart sutra starts, avalokiteshvara bodhisattva was "practicing profound prajna paramita".

thats "practicing" "profound" prajna paramita, transcendental wisdom.

speaking about it is shallow, yet wisdom nonetheless. :)

you must start somewhere. the heart sutra, being a mahayana sutra, assumes one is already familiar with classical buddhist terms and systems.

the flower sermon you eluded to, being "zen style", was not given until late in shakyamuni buddha's teaching career. much like all the mahayana teachings which are based on classical teachings.

one first must gradually become disenchanted with the ego and the material world by understanding the 5 aggregates, dependent origination, and so on. because a hinayanist is concerned with the issue of ending suffering and is looking for practices to help to that end. speaking of mahayana emptiness would be of no use or meaning to them, much less some smart alec zen talk, or flower.

[Hendrik]

Seeing one's buddha nature is like a person who is in a dream state knowing he is dreaming.

However,

There are still issue.

until one attain the eight ground boddhistava level one cant dissolve that dream state as one likes it.

Thus, one still stuck in the dream state. So, at that time, one needs mantra of the power of Buddha to guard one. Otherwise, one get back to the dream state on and off depend on the level of one's samadhi.


In Chinese Zen History of a thousand year period of time , most Zen patriach have not yet attain the eight ground level, thus it is said one have seen the buddha nature however cannot end reicarnation. They still deluded like a person who sometimes awake and sometime doze off. Thus, all of the Zen patriach recite mantra to guard them from doze off or get them out of doze off.

Only a few Zen patriach such has Han San of Ming Dynasty attain the eight ground level. and Who is Han San in his previous life? The fifth patriach or the master of the Six patriach. Since the fifth patriach is not up to the level of ending his reicanation, he got to get back a few time until Ming Dynasty.



Some might said, one doesnt have to do anything or even sees one's buddha nature, buddha nature is every where. One doesnt have to cultivate. reading a book and have some understanding is good enough, everything is Zen, it is simple. one dont need a teacher , every one is buddha. Well, mostly those are the result of deluded by ego but un aware of the situation.

It is like in a dream, one can said dream and awake is alike.
However, as soon as one doesnt know what is awaken and has no way to dissolve the dream state one stuck. thus, those are dead trap by one's own mind.

Zen is capable for some to see the buddha nature, however, most wont get to the level of be able to dissolve the "dream".

Even worse, some read some Zen books, sit in some meditation, have some peace and ease state, or some kind of mental realization of understanding what the zen patriach said,
and then start thinking that is it. I am the buddha. I got it....etc.
instead of recognize this is still within the "dream" one has not yet see the original face. not to mention capable of dissolve "dream state at will."

How dangerous of mistaken the delusion as path to liberation.

Thus, one needs a teacher who has come across to guide one. Thus, one needs to cultivate in different path after seeing one's buddha nature so that one could dissolve one's one's stuckness or dream layer by layer. It is not as simple as qouting some books or some clever arguement.

Believe what ever you like. I said the above because that is my duty to tell those who is serious to not get trap.

[richard sloan]

thanks scott. to save time, i'm a disciple in a ch'an lineage. the hui neng story is one of my favorites. but you are conflating some meanings. at the heart, it's not spoken it's intuitive, so it's okay. in your construction there is a part of the equation that's missing.

i'm just saying that a lot of what you are writing is the kind of gobbledeegook that hot ball of lead ch'an is supposed to smash through.

you can tell me a stick doesn't exist while i whack you in the head with it.

you tell me. lfj can't be the only slapper around here.

of course, there is only one right answer. it's a female dog of a thing, but there it is.

then again, i'm not buddhist so you may be right.

maybe change the stick into an earthquake.

[richard sloan]

until one attain the eight ground boddhistava level one cant dissolve that dream state as one likes it.

Thus, one still stuck in the dream state. So, at that time, one needs mantra of the power of Buddha to guard one. Otherwise, one get back to the dream state on and off depend on the level of one's samadhi...


that my friend is some grade A horse crap. would love to get some of that for my fig trees.

[Hendrik]

that my friend is some grade A horse crap. would love to get some of that for my fig trees.

horse crap or not see it for yourself.

Since you are from a Chan lineage, just make sure you dont fall into the Api hell by bad mouthing the proper dharma.

BTW who is your teacher?

[Scott R. Brown]

So many words being used to describe zen... where's that 'turning a flower' emoticon?

Hi monkey mind,

While words are not the thing spoken about, they are just another finger pointing the way!

I expect you have never read the voluminous treatises on Ch'an then? They use even more words than we have!:eek:

:)


thanks scott. to save time, i'm a disciple in a ch'an lineage. the hui neng story is one of my favorites. but you are conflating some meanings. at the heart, it's not spoken it's intuitive, so it's okay. in your construction there is a part of the equation that's missing.

Hi richard,

Words are used to describe experiences to others in an indirect manner. The words are never the experience.

Whacking someone with a stick is used to demonstrate experience directly. Both are forms of communication that mean something, that is, something specific is being demonstrated/taught! Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other. Whacking may be just as much of an affectation as teaching using words and is just as easily abused.

It might be best not to get too excited or attached to the whacking thing!

Hui-neng did not whack anyone, that started much latter than his time. Bodhidharma did not whack people and neither did his Dharma Master. Hui-ko and Master Yuan and none of the earliest Ch'an teachers whacked anyone! All these men taught using words, metaphorical stories and references to earlier Buddhist teachings!

It is best to avoid attachment to whacking, words, philosophizing, dreaming, etc. But that does not mean they must be avoided!

Which meaning am I conflating please and in what way? I have said nothing that is not in the teachings. I simply put the information in my own words and use my own metaphors! I also have direct experience of most of it!:)

Which Ch'an writings have you read that did not use words?

If you like Hui-neng, I recommend you try the Teachings of Huang-po.


i'm just saying that a lot of what you are writing is the kind of gobbledeegook that hot ball of lead ch'an is supposed to smash through.

Of course it does! Whenever a direct experience is communicated to someone who has no similar context of experience, the information comes across as incomprehensible.

What Ch'an is attempting to smash through is attachment to conceptualization, not conceptualization in and of itself! Life is to be lived, NOT avoided. If one is hungry, eat; if one is sleepy, sleep; if one is philosophizing, philosophize. Do not attach to any of it, but do not avoid it either or you have just attached yourself to its avoidance!

Try describing the taste of an orange to a person who has never tasted anything close to a citrus fruit. They will come away with a description that is essentially meaningless to them. On the other hand, describe the taste of an orange to someone who has eaten a lemon, or a tangerine and they will understand to a closer extent than the person who has not! This is because there is a common context between the direct experiences of the two individuals discussing the taste of an orange!:)

To the person without the common contextual experience the description of the taste of an orange is gobbledeegook, that is, essentially useless information!:)


you can tell me a stick doesn't exist while i whack you in the head with it.

When I play a first person computer game, if my character gets shot he suffers consequences as dictated by the programmer. This is also the way with life. Yes getting whacked hurts, as does getting hit by a car, struck by lightening, etc. These are all events that are subject to the laws of the game. However, the pain I experience is amplified or reduced according to my level of attachment to the event.

When I was in high school I was a water polo player. In water polo there is a lot of whacking going on! I broke my nose playing water polo, have been kicked in the nuts too many times to count, and have been kicked in the teeth so hard I thought I lost my two top front ones.

I ignored most of it all as part of the game. Sure in many cases I paused for the moment, but then continued with the game. The game does not stop for you! If you move on from the experience, that is, do not attach or preoccupy yourself with the experience, the experience is diminished in emotional impact and in the severity and duration of the pain. Why is this? Because a good deal of what we consider pain is due to emotional amplification caused by attachment to the experience!

When I am done playing my first person computer game, I turn it off and I am not harmed. When I get kicked in the teeth, I feel the pain and then move on!

When life is over, the only pain you take with you is the pain you have allowed yourself to become attached to.

Within Buddhism, all things that are mutually arising are illusory, all things that are transient are illusory. The only constant is Mind. Thus mind is the only thing that is real, existent, except that even mind is NOT real, because the concept of real is also mutually arising, therefore it is inadequate to describe what is essentially beyond mutually arising phenomena! Therefore Mind is referred to, inadequately as well, as "neither existent, nor non-existent"!

I hope this has been as much gobbledeegook for you as before!:):D

[monkey mind]

because a hinayanist is concerned with the issue of ending suffering and is looking for practices to help to that end. speaking of mahayana emptiness would be of no use or meaning to them, much less some smart alec zen talk, or flower.

I appreciate your response, lfj. And just to clarify - the fact that I practice in a Theravada lineage doesn't mean I have no awareness of or appreciation for Madhyamika & Yogacara thought. On this last point, though - if I grant that you're correct in succinctly identifying the concerns of a hinayanist, what then, in a nutshell, is the concern of a mahayanist?

[monkey mind]

I expect you have never read the voluminous treatises on Ch'an then? They use even more words than we have!:eek:

:)


Sure, I've read my share of treatises. And I even enjoy it sometimes. But I do find it ironic that a tradition whose teachings are supposedly transmitted outside the scriptures ends up having so many scriptures itself. And I think that often we gain real insight despite, not because of, the voluminous weight of the various philosophical schools. The zen way of cutting straight to the non-conceptual heart of the matter is something I've always appreciated. Believe it or not, I have found something similar in Theravada as well.

[LFJ]

Originally Posted by LFJ
because a hinayanist is concerned with the issue of ending suffering and is looking for practices to help to that end. speaking of mahayana emptiness would be of no use or meaning to them, much less some smart alec zen talk, or flower.I appreciate your response, lfj. And just to clarify - the fact that I practice in a Theravada lineage doesn't mean I have no awareness of or appreciation for Madhyamika & Yogacara thought. On this last point, though - if I grant that you're correct in succinctly identifying the concerns of a hinayanist, what then, in a nutshell, is the concern of a mahayanist?

how may i help you? :)

[mawali]

A rich man and a poor man just finshed eating. They both went to the wc. Which one's excrement smelled better? The poor man or the rich man!

[Scott R. Brown]

Sure, I've read my share of treatises. And I even enjoy it sometimes. But I do find it ironic that a tradition whose teachings are supposedly transmitted outside the scriptures ends up having so many scriptures itself. And I think that often we gain real insight despite, not because of, the voluminous weight of the various philosophical schools. The zen way of cutting straight to the non-conceptual heart of the matter is something I've always appreciated. Believe it or not, I have found something similar in Theravada as well.

Well said!:)

Words are not to be avoided, just not relied upon!

All religions tend to, eventually, over do it and it commonly takes a few eccentric individuals to scold some back into their right minds, while others will remain trapped regardless!:)


A rich man and a poor man just finshed eating. They both went to the wc. Which one's excrement smelled better? The poor man or the rich man!

To each........his own!!!!

:eek::D:p

[richard sloan]

Hui-neng did not whack anyone, that started much latter than his time. Bodhidharma did not whack people and neither did his Dharma Master. Hui-ko and Master Yuan and none of the earliest Ch'an teachers whacked anyone! All these men taught using words, metaphorical stories and references to earlier Buddhist teachings!

My god Scott that is indeed something impressive...wish you had had a cam corder for it all...

Next thing you'll tell me you picked up Huike's arm from the snow and have it in your closet!

[richard sloan]

appreciation for Madhyamika & Yogacara thought...

that bore repeating, if anyone were to ask me.

[richard sloan]

BTW who is your teacher?

you are! thanks!

[Scott R. Brown]

My god Scott that is indeedsomething impressive...wish you had had a cam corder for it all...

Next thing you'll tell me you picked up Huike's arm from the snow and have it in your closet!

There is no reason to be snide!

Hui-neng's students compiled his sutra, there is no mention of whacking anyone. If it were considered an important part of his teachings it would have at least been mentioned.

The fact there is a sutra demonstrates Hui-neng gave teachings using words, the same goes for, "The Teachings of Huang-po"!

Not all Ch'an teachings involve whacking people and other direct forms of awakening!

Nor are there any mention of Bodhidharma or Master Yuan or hui-ko whacking anyone. If it were an important part of the teaching it would have been included.

The Tun-huang texts, which are the oldest known Ch'an texts to date, use anecdotes, words, and references, direct and indirect, to earlier Sutras. Nowhere is there any mention of whacking anyone. It is not even known for sure whether Hui-ko took off his own arm or not. There is an indication in some earlier and lesser known histories that he lost it to bandits!

What is important is not to make an affectation of whacking people with sticks, or avoiding words as a means of teaching.
After all, it was Hui-neng who taught to not just read the Sutras, but put what they taught into practice!:)

[taai gihk yahn]

from "Blue Cliff Record":


First Case: The Highest Meaning of the Holy Truths

The Case:
Emperor Wu of Liang asked the great master Bodhidharma, "What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?"
Bodhidharma said, "Empty, without holiness."
The Emperor said, "Who is facing me?"
Bodhidharma replied, "I don’t know."
The Emperor did not understand.
After this, Bodhidharma crossed the Yang Tse River and came to the kingdom of Wei.

Later, the Emperor brought this up to master Chih and asked him about it.
Master Chih said, "Does Your Majesty know who this man is?"
The Emperor said, "I don’t know."
Master Chih said, "He is Mahasattva Avalokitsvara, transmitting the Buddha mind to you."
The Emperor felt regretful, so he wanted to send an emissary to go get Bodhidharma to return.
Master Chih told him, "Your Majesty, don’t send someone to fetch him back. Even if everyone in the whole country went to go after him, he still wouldn’t return."

The Verse:
The Holy Truths are empty.
How can you discern the point?
Who is facing me?
But henceforth, he secretly crossed the river.
How could he avoid the growth of a thicket of brambles?
Though everyone in the whole country goes after him, he will not return.
Wu goes on and on, continually reflecting that.
Give up recollections.
What limit is there to the pure wind, circling the earth?
Master Xuedou looked around, to the right and left and said, "Is there any ancestor here?"
He answered himself, "There is."
"Call them here to wash this old monk’s feet."

Hsueh Tou's Commentary:
How could he avoid the growth of a thicket of brambles?

Bodhidharma originally came to this country to melt the sticking points, untie the bonds, pull out the nails and draw out the pegs, to cut down brambles for people: why then say that he gave rise to a thicket of brambles? This is not confined to those times; today the brambles under everyone's feet are already several yards deep.

'nuff said...

[richard sloan]

It is not even known for sure whether Hui-ko took off his own arm or not. There is an indication in some earlier and lesser known histories that he lost it to bandits!


check the tapes! all I can say is I don't know.



What is important is not to make an affectation of whacking people with sticks, or avoiding words as a means of teaching.
After all, it was Hui-neng who taught to not just read the Sutras, but put what they taught into practice!:)

of the two of us, you are the one still speaking about whacking and sticks my brother. don't avoid the stick as a means of teaching what is gobbledeegook.

pause.

words are okay too, so long as they make sense.

the point being there is a fatal flaw in your reasoning/presentation.

what's most important is to wake up. right now we have the luxury of knocking around some pixels on a screen. it's like wiping one's letter a double squiggle with silk.

if it's so bad in here, what is happening with the poor nagas, i am left wondering about those poor lost snake *******s, who is left to show them...well it won't be me, I'm off to JA.

[David Jamieson]

where's your chan now godboy?

wait...how far are we now from the ch'an?

[taai gihk yahn]

wait...how far are we now from the ch'an?
the width of a cockroach's nostril hair...

[LFJ]

when asked any kind of question, e.g. "what is buddha", "what is dharma", "how do i train my mind", etc., chan master linji just shouted, juzhi raised one finger, eshan hit with a stick, the buddha told a parable....

four kinds of teaching, are they the same or different? which is correct?

[taai gihk yahn]

when asked any kind of question, e.g. "what is buddha", "what is dharma", "how do i train my mind", etc., chan master linji just shouted, juzhi raised one finger, eshan hit with a stick, the buddha told a parable....
they are all a bunch of scoundrels who are selling water by the river!


four kinds of teaching, are they the same or different? which is correct?
you raise your whisk, but there are no flies to swat...

[David Jamieson]

I wish that those guys were eskimos, because that would be cool.

[Scott R. Brown]

of the two of us, you are the one still speaking about whacking and sticks my brother. don't avoid the stick as a means of teaching what is gobbledeegook.

Taking the whack, avoiding the whack, both are Ch'an! It is attachment, especially to distinctions, that is the trap!

I merely recommend avoiding affectation!

I am still speaking about whacks because I am attempting to respond to your comments.

Rather than making an obvious observation, perhaps making sense yourself would be of benefit? Derisive appearing comments don't always make sense to me and since you insist we make sense to each other, perhaps you can set the example!


words are okay too, so long as they make sense.

They do not make sense to you! They make sense to me and perhaps others as well, those with a similar contextual experience.

I would not understand a technical discussion on quantum physics, but that does not mean it does not make sense to the physicists having the discussion. Neither would I criticize what I have admitted I don't understand!

Okay....maybe I would......just for the fun of it....and to stir the pot!!!!:D


the point being there is a fatal flaw in your reasoning/presentation.

The flaw you perceive is the one you brought with you!


what's most important is to wake up. right now we have the luxury of knocking around some pixels on a screen. it's like wiping one's letter a double squiggle with silk.

I disagree! There is nothing that is "most" important and "waking up" is an affectation.

As long as one is preoccupied with "what is important" and "waking up" they risk being trapped by attachment.

Nothing is important and there is no waking up to be done!

But I will agree it is all just a game! Play is fun!:)


if it's so bad in here, what is happening with the poor nagas, i am left wondering about those poor lost snake *******s, who is left to show them...well it won't be me, I'm off to JA.

I don't worry about it because I don't care!


where's your chan now godboy?

wait...how far are we now from the ch'an?

It's right here...can't you see it?:)


from "Blue Cliff Record":

........

[INDENT]First Case: The Highest Meaning of the Holy Truths.....

Why I oughta whack you with a .50cal hunk of metal right between the eyes!!!!:mad:

That'll wake you u........... uh............nevermind.....it is too difficult to shoot.....er... aaaaaa....whack a fluttering butterfly!:o


'nuff said...

Is there ever 'nuff said?:p


when asked any kind of question, e.g. "what is buddha", "what is dharma", "how do i train my mind", etc., chan master linji just shouted, juzhi raised one finger, eshan hit with a stick, the buddha told a parable....

four kinds of teaching, are they the same or different? which is correct?

....and discussing it is a form of teaching, and not discussing it is a form of teaching......and being critical of a teaching is a form of teaching and embracing a teaching is a form of teaching........

.....there is nothing that is not teaching and none of it is teaching......

What we learn, what we criticize, what we think is important, what we disregard, etc. tells us more about ourselves than what we think of as the world system and other people........if we were to look inward rather than outward!:)

[Scott R. Brown]

they are all a bunch of scoundrels who are selling water by the river!

And yet they are wise beyond measure, for everyone requires clean water!

After all, many people pay for bottled water when it is relatively free right from the tap!


you raise your whisk, but there are no flies to swat...

Just because you see no flies does not mean they are not there, only that YOU do not see them!:p

[Scott R. Brown]

I wish that those guys were eskimos, because that would be cool.

Me too......and I would call him Quinn and patiently wait for him to get here, cuz, then there will be a party!

[richard sloan]

They do not make sense to you! They make sense to me and perhaps others as well, those with a similar contextual experience.

I would not understand a technical discussion on quantum physics, but that does not mean it does not make sense to the physicists having the discussion. Neither would I criticize what I have admitted I don't understand!


well we are all speaking for ourselves of course, so let me here enter one of my favorite words, horsecrap. maybe you don't understand Quantum Mechanics but you can. anyone can, unless you are a brain dead mouthbreather. and even then. a physicist is able to show you what quantum mechanics is all about, because you can follow and learn, you can do the math yourself...you can certainly understand the application of gravity, for example, and not even know the math behind it. so there's hop for you yet. you don't need extra lives or any of that other crap, you have no idea what happens to you after you are dead so that whole premise is pointless gabber mucking up the beauty of the buddha's teaching, karma and all that. maybe he mucked it up himself, or had it mucked up for him right properly when the ism got added on- but buddhism is nothing if it is not repeatable and testable, while on the micro side of it there is room for local flavor on the macro side of it it has to work and be applicable or its nothing.

it's simple- you put forth an argument and there is a fatal flaw in its structure. it's not because I don't understand what you are saying my brother, as to why your premise was flawed. it's because i understand what you are saying that the flaw glares out.

Lol I don't understand why people think the earth is only 6,000 years old, those people are still all horrendously wrong, despite my not understanding them. for example.

the dharma is self evidentiary. anyone can grasp it since they already have it.

my friend if you don't understand something then it is good for you not to criticize it.

[Scott R. Brown]

well we are all speaking for ourselves of course, so let me here enter one of my favorite words, horsecrap. maybe you don't understand Quantum Mechanics but you can. anyone can, unless you are a brain dead mouthbreather. and even then. a physicist is able to show you what quantum mechanics is all about, because you can follow and learn, you can do the math yourself...you can certainly understand the application of gravity, for example, and not even know the math behind it. so there's hop for you yet.

And anyone can have a direct, unobstructed perception of reality! It can be directly experienced by anyone willing to look. It takes time just as learning about Quantum Mechanics does. And some will make the attempt and fail because they do not have the capacity just as with learning Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is an attempt to explain reality; the words used to describe direct perception of reality are also an attempt to explain reality. The descriptions of Quantum Mechanics are NOT what actually occurs they are only descriptions of what actually occurs, just as all the teachings of Buddhism. They are merely words meant to direct individuals to a direct apprehension for themselves.


you don't need extra lives or any of that other crap, you have no idea what happens to you after you are dead so that whole premise is pointless gabber mucking up the beauty of the buddha's teaching, karma and all that. maybe he mucked it up himself, or had it mucked up for him right properly when the ism got added on- but buddhism is nothing if it is not repeatable and testable, while on the micro side of it there is room for local flavor on the macro side of it it has to work and be applicable or its nothing.

No one said extra lives were necessary! It is a teaching of Buddhism that they occur, that is all! I don't care about it one way or the other!

At best all you can say is that YOU have no idea what happens to YOU after you are dead. I don't care what happens to me after I am dead! I concern myself with the moment at hand, but that does not mean others are not concerned. So, using "expedient means" I sometimes address the topic!

It may be your opinion that it is a mucking up of Buddha’s teaching, but it is also just as likely you do not understand what is being said very well or that it just doesn’t coincide with what you think you know, either way, so what???? Your comment appears to indicate an attachment to a fixed view, which obstructs perception. Obstructed perception cannot be relied upon to make accurate observations about others much less about our own mind and its experiences/understanding, which is where the action is occurring anyway!

Your criticism is too non-specific to have any value in improving my manner of presentation. It is doubtful I would care even if you did, because I do not present anything for the approval of others, but for my own entertainment!

Yes, Buddhism is repeatable and testable, that being the case, perhaps your time is better spent testing what you don’t understand! I can point you to Buddhist texts that say just about everything I have said, but in different words, so your criticism is not of me alone.

I do agree it is preferable that one has the experience directly, for themselves, rather than relying on texts of the Masters however.


it's simple- you put forth an argument and there is a fatal flaw in its structure. it's not because I don't understand what you are saying my brother, as to why your premise was flawed. it's because i understand what you are saying that the flaw glares out.

Yet you are also glaringly non-specific about what those flaws are! One may ask why a person would deem it necessary to criticize another and also refer to him as “brother”, as if attempting to demonstrate a caring relationship, and yet avoid any useful comments that might direct his “brother” to a more comprehensive understanding and method of explaining his thoughts?

It is just as likely that, in truth, you do not understand what I have said because your understanding of Ch’an is perhaps more narrow than you realize! As I have stated previously I have said nothing that is not spoken of by teachers that have preceded you and I.

Neither have I said anything that cannot be directly perceived for ones self. After all, all a description is, is an inaccurate accounting of a direct experience. The description is never the "thing" itself. Therefore, why criticize a description?

Some descriptions are merely more understandable to some people than others due to individual experiences that have provided a similar context of experience to begin with!

There is no evidence that ANY of the early teachers adhered to the more modern method of teaching primarily popularized, according to historians, by Matsu, that of using actions to demonstrate direct perception. Some of the early Masters criticized sitting meditation, relying on textual teachings i.e. sutras and sastras, and of Masters as a useless activity as well. At least one notable one preceded Hui-Neng, who criticized these same things?

Anyone steeped in the more modern teachings would not have knowledge of these original teachings. At any rate they are all un-necessary to those who have a modicum of direct experience/perception for themselves.

As it is said, when the fish is caught, the trap is forgotten!


the dharma is self evidentiary. anyone can grasp it since they already have it.

Where have I disagreed with this, please?


my friend if you don't understand something then it is good for you not to criticize it.

I am pretty sure I just said this to you! If you believe I do not understand something, for my own benefit, please demonstrate it in a manner that has meaning to me, use expedient means for my own benefit, rather than being so indirect about it. You have provided no useful information other than vague allusion as if your word on the matter is what makes it so!

Please lead me to a direct understanding of my errors for my own benefit if you choose to refer to me as "friend" and "brother" as I have taken the time to explain myself to you!

In the end it is likely we would both benefit from the interaction!:)

[David Jamieson]

Are we talking about ch'an or Nihilism now?

and is it passive or active nihilism? Because Buddhism can be both, but what of the Hegelian dialectic (Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis) and how it all fits into this? Hmmmn?

Keep discussing you fleshy blobs!

[Kansuke]

Wow, someone almost finished Jr. College! :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Wow, someone almost finished Jr. College! :rolleyes:

And it wasn't you...

Must you follow me everywhere oh chubby little lurker troll? lol

[Kansuke]

And it wasn't you...

Must you follow me everywhere oh chubby little lurker troll? lol


Get off the drugs kid. They are robbing you of what little sense you might have had to start with.

[Scott R. Brown]

Buddhism is only nihilist to those who do not understand it completely!

A few of the Ch'an Masters have addressed this accusation.

[richard sloan]

And anyone can have a direct, unobstructed perception of reality! It can be directly experienced by anyone willing to look. It takes time just as learning about Quantum Mechanics does. And some will make the attempt and fail because they do not have the capacity just as with learning Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is an attempt to explain reality; the words used to describe direct perception of reality are also an attempt to explain reality. The descriptions of Quantum Mechanics are NOT what actually occurs they are only descriptions of what actually occurs, just as all the teachings of Buddhism. They are merely words meant to direct individuals to a direct apprehension for themselves.


not really. quantum mechanics does not depend on any individual's intuitive realization. some descriptions are better than others.



No one said extra lives were necessary! It is a teaching of Buddhism that they occur


case in point.



At best all you can say is that YOU have no idea what happens to YOU after you are dead. I don't care what happens to me after I am dead! I concern myself with the moment at hand, but that does not mean others are not concerned. So, using "expedient means" I sometimes address the topic!


so you are not now going to tell me you know what happens after we die? So then at best I can actually say nobody knows what happens after death. the logical conclusion being agnosticism on the matter.



It may be your opinion that it is a mucking up of Buddha’s teaching, but it is also just as likely you do not understand what is being said very well or that it just doesn’t coincide with what you think you know, either way, so what????


well we have just seen the so what. we have just determined that nobody knows if there are lives after this one, so there can be no concern about it beyond that simple statement. so if you can't attain that which you already have now in this life, then buddhism has an issue when it and others speak on what they can not know.



Your comment appears to indicate an attachment to a fixed view, which obstructs perception. Obstructed perception cannot be relied upon to make accurate observations about others much less about our own mind and its experiences/understanding, which is where the action is occurring anyway!


it's not an opinion that the world is round, and not flat. it is not an attachment to a round earth, nor is a round earth a product of mind, nor is the earth dependent on mind to be round. which is what the naga lover proved and there is the gate of your flaw, if you need such a tasty peach.



Your criticism is too non-specific to have any value in improving my manner of presentation. It is doubtful I would care even if you did, because I do not present anything for the approval of others, but for my own entertainment!


that my friend is a lie, or you should just type this stuff into a WP and pull them out when you are bored.




Yes, Buddhism is repeatable and testable, that being the case, perhaps your time is better spent testing what you don’t understand! I can point you to Buddhist texts that say just about everything I have said, but in different words, so your criticism is not of me alone.


I am not criticizing you.



I do agree it is preferable that one has the experience directly, for themselves, rather than relying on texts of the Masters however.



GOOD. Then you see why I am reticent to simply hand you a peeled banana. The question which needs answering is is there only one Buddha, if there isn't why are you not sitting under a tree and solving this problem yourself.

Have you searched for your flaw? Or are you content to just let me tell you about it.

Sometimes it is like a game of chess- you never see it coming.




Yet you are also glaringly non-specific about what those flaws are! One may ask why a person would deem it necessary to criticize another and also refer to him as “brother”, as if attempting to demonstrate a caring relationship, and yet avoid any useful comments that might direct his “brother” to a more comprehensive understanding and method of explaining his thoughts?


because you are conflating a criticism of your philosophy with criticizing you.

so I call people brother and friend. if i really didn't care about what we are all talking about I would have basically ignored the conversation just like everything else I don't have time for, but for whatever reason I didn't.



In the end it is likely we would both benefit from the interaction!:)

not if this is your idea of dating palmela handerson and her five sisters.

you're still a buddha though, I'll grant you that.

[Scott R. Brown]

not really. quantum mechanics does not depend on any individual's intuitive realization. some descriptions are better than others.

Science is about demonstrating a theory to be true or false by experiment. I test to see whether something is hot by actually touching or measuring the temperature through another means. The same thing occurs with Buddhism, or at least Ch’an. The teachings are mostly descriptions that others may directly experience for themselves in order to validate their truth for themselves…..sounds like science to me!


so you are not now going to tell me you know what happens after we die? So then at best I can actually say nobody knows what happens after death. the logical conclusion being agnosticism on the matter.

You are not paying attention very well. I didn’t say. “I know what happens after we die!”. I said, “At best all YOU can say is YOU don’t know what happens after we die!” That applies to everyone, however you were the one stating NO ONE knows what happens after we die. For someone who appears to be a fan of science, direct experience, perhaps you should consider just because something is not known by you does not mean it is not known by anyone! Since apparently that kind of knowledge must be directly known, experienced, it cannot be demonstrated to another. They must know for themselves, so, even if I, or anyone else had direct experience, it could not be demonstrated with certainty to anyone else until they know directly for themselves……kind of like the teachings of Ch’an, huh?


well we have just seen the so what. we have just determined that nobody knows if there are lives after this one, so there can be no concern about it beyond that simple statement. so if you can't attain that which you already have now in this life, then buddhism has an issue when it and others speak on what they can not know.

You really are a rather small thinker…….they cannot speak to YOU about what YOU do not know! This is because you must KNOW for yourself directly. YOU do not KNOW what anyone else KNOWS or NOT! At best you can speculate, sometimes you will conclude correctly, sometimes incorrectly.

You are apparently falling into the rather self-centered view that because YOU do not know something, NO ONE can know it! Which is a bit naieve!

You have previously stated you are a fan of Hui-Neng, have you learned nothing?


it's not an opinion that the world is round, and not flat. it is not an attachment to a round earth, nor is a round earth a product of mind, nor is the earth dependent on mind to be round. which is what the naga lover proved and there is the gate of your flaw, if you need such a tasty peach.

It may be considered an attachment to distinctions, however. “Round” is a distinction. It is the mind that creates distinctions. It is the mind that designates something as “round”. “Round” is not the inherent condition of anything. “Round” merely is relative to what is “not-round”. This is a mutually dependent, co-arising condition and according to Buddhist teachings, thus impermanent and illusory. This may also be directly understood, perceived! To me it is obvious, to you it apparently is not.

Once again, you are drawing conclusions based upon incomplete understanding and insight! When there are no distinctions made, within the mind, there is no round! Just because you cannot understand this does not make it unobvious to others!


that my friend is a lie, or you should just type this stuff into a WP and pull them out when you are bored.

It is apparent you are a very lazy thinker! At best, I may have drawn an incorrect conclusion that is subject to correction with more information which must be provided by you, since you are the party for which I have drawn my conclusion. It is NOT a lie. A lie is an “intentional” statement of a non-truth!

People generally draw conclusions about others based upon experience with similar circumstances. Drawing an incorrect conclusion does NOT make the conclusion a lie!


I am not criticizing you.

You missed the point! “Me”, used within the context of the sentence, implies the principles I am discussing, NOT me personally! I am repeating established Buddhist principles in my own words as I understand and experience them.


GOOD. Then you see why I am reticent to simply hand you a peeled banana. The question which needs answering is is there only one Buddha, if there isn't why are you not sitting under a tree and solving this problem yourself.

No, what I see is a passive/aggressive attitude from someone who cannot present his thoughts clearly and covers it up by speaking unclearly. Speaking in obtuse language is not a gift to the listener; it is an affectation that is un-necessarily vague! Just because a few teachers have done so, at specific times in history, does not make it expedient under all conditions. Someone with a little more insight would understand this without having to be told more than once!


Have you searched for your flaw? Or are you content to just let me tell you about it.

More importantly to you should be, do you see your own flaws?

You have not yet demonstrated the maturity or insight necessary for me to discuss my knowledge of my own flaws with you! You have provided no useful information or any kind. You are demonstrating an affectation and are playing at being wise without providing any evidence you know what you are talking about!

Pretending is not BEing!


Sometimes it is like a game of chess- you never see it coming.

Don’t flatter yourself, you are small potatoes!


because you are conflating a criticism of your philosophy with criticizing you.

No,

You are conflating my comments because you do not understand them and apparently only have a cursory knowledge and/or understanding of Ch'an teachings.

What I am seeing is what I have previously stated, a passive/aggressive attitude from a person that pretends to know more that he does!


so I call people brother and friend. if i really didn't care about what we are all talking about I would have basically ignored the conversation just like everything else I don't have time for, but for whatever reason I didn't.

Then drop the vague allusions and the condescension and perhaps we can have a more productive discussion. Referring to someone as "brother" and "friend" with the attitude you are presenting comes across as insincere and phony!

I won’t hold my breath though, your presentation has been consistent enough for me to conclude it is unlikely it will happen.

[taai gihk yahn]

the whole thing about the "earth" being "round" is a distinction of the mind based on the illusion of psycholgical time; in other words, as one experiences the earth at present, the use of the terms "earth" and "round" are transiently applicable; however, at one point, the earth was not round, and at one point it was not even the earth; and one day it won't be the earth anymore; so for the sake of transient convenience, we qualify the earth as such and equate it with roundness (which is an approximation at best);

but again, this is the result of the ind trapped by distinction; because, here's the thing - while the earth as such was not always as such, the components, the basic buiding blocks were as such well before the earth congealed into it's current temporary form; and lone after the earth is gone, those elements making up the earth wil still be as such (and of course, one can extend this to what they were before they were elements, etc., etc.);

so my question is this - at what point did all those various elements stop being "not-earth" and then were suddenly "earth"? well, of course, there was no point at which that happened, because that would imply that things such as they are are hierarchical and finite, which is not the case - the mind is what apprehends the continuity of flux through which thusness passes and is passed through by - earth / not-earth is a distinction based purely upn a snapshot of time that the mind brackets with the concept of before / after; but this is a convention of mind, not the state of things as they are; so to say that the earth is round is not a distinction of mind is incorrect, it is in fact the very manifestation of mind that has created the concept of "earth" as differentiated from "not-earth";

what we see here is in essence the nature of relationship - if two people first meet when they are in their 30's, can it be said that they were not in relationship to each other before that first meeting? likewise, the stuff of which the earth is made - these elements were always in relationship to each other, it's just a question of how the mind preceives that relationship that creates a hierarchical distinction;

anyway

[taai gihk yahn]

also, to reference someone's so-called flaws demonstrates a perspective based on hierarchical distinction - a "flaw" is a situationally conditioned qualification - what at one juncture is a flaw may be a signficant advantage in another - anyone well-versed in practice of CH'an or Tao would be aware of the trap of searching for a flaw - whereas the novice goes around with his new-found "self-awareness", pointing out the short comings of everyone around him...

[Scott R. Brown]

the whole thing about the "earth" being "round" is a distinction of the mind.....

anyway

Just so.....a glass of water may be half full, half empty, merely a glass of water, or nothing at all based upon what mind imposes upon the relationship of mind to objects, or rather mind to mind/itself!


also, to reference someone's so-called flaws demonstrates a perspective based on hierarchical distinction - a "flaw" is a situationally conditioned qualification - what at one juncture is a flaw may be a signficant advantage in another - anyone well-versed in practice of CH'an or Tao would be aware of the trap of searching for a flaw - whereas the novice goes around with his new-found "self-awareness", pointing out the short comings of everyone around him...

It is refreshing to see flaws so glaringly presented for us all...er.....ME.......to laugh at!!!!:p

Whatever they are are?????? :confused:

[richard sloan]

Science is about demonstrating a theory to be true or false by experiment. I test to see whether something is hot by actually touching or measuring the temperature through another means. The same thing occurs with Buddhism, or at least Ch’an. The teachings are mostly descriptions that others may directly experience for themselves in order to validate their truth for themselves…..sounds like science to me!


again, no. The Buddha already did the experiment. It's no longer a theory. but yes, it is testable. science is about hypothesizing. then comes the theory part, and then law.

in science there is no validation of your self that comes from your own self, intuitive understanding. you don't have to solve for suffering in your own way. you can't say hmmm here is some science that has been applied to get us to the moon, and then you come to a different conclusion in your personal tests that one can not come to the moon, and remain valid.

whereas with suffering, that is indeed something solvable for the self- most times.

people can have different results and there can be satisfaction.



You are not paying attention very well. I didn’t say. “I know what happens after we die!”. I said, “At best all YOU can say is YOU don’t know what happens after we die!” That applies to everyone, however you were the one stating NO ONE knows what happens after we die. For someone who appears to be a fan of science, direct experience, perhaps you should consider just because something is not known by you does not mean it is not known by anyone! Since apparently that kind of knowledge must be directly known, experienced, it cannot be demonstrated to another. They must know for themselves, so, even if I, or anyone else had direct experience, it could not be demonstrated with certainty to anyone else until they know directly for themselves……kind of like the teachings of Ch’an, huh?


you do a good job of telling people they can't know something then you know it.

lol, I can say you don't know either, nor does anyone else know. so it's not because I don't know, it's because it is unknowable until someone can show some proof that they know what happens after we die.

so it's pointless to discuss it, and when buddhism does, it is also pointless.



You really are a rather small thinker…….they cannot speak to YOU about what YOU do not know! This is because you must KNOW for yourself directly. YOU do not KNOW what anyone else KNOWS or NOT! At best you can speculate, sometimes you will conclude correctly, sometimes incorrectly.



more gibberish.

may I ask, what do you DO with your Buddhism?

besides entertain yourself.



You are apparently falling into the rather self-centered view that because YOU do not know something, NO ONE can know it! Which is a bit naieve!


that is actually one of the other flaws in what you have been saying.

I never said that nor implied it, ever.



It may be considered an attachment to distinctions, however. “Round” is a distinction. It is the mind that creates distinctions. It is the mind that designates something as “round”. “Round” is not the inherent condition of anything. “Round” merely is relative to what is “not-round”. This is a mutually dependent, co-arising condition and according to Buddhist teachings, thus impermanent and illusory. This may also be directly understood, perceived! To me it is obvious, to you it apparently is not.


the earth being round in this example is an obvious state of being. the distinction might be that it is actually more than round. in some places it is flat, other places there are mountains. anyone can plainly see it, and experience it, and if they have an experience of it being flat, they are wrong, as proven when they are then shown why.

thank god you are not a student of a stick smacker.

you would though have a pretty impressive iron head.


When there are no distinctions made, within the mind, there is no round! Just because you cannot understand this does not make it unobvious to others!

horsecrap.



It is apparent you are a very lazy thinker! At best, I may have drawn an incorrect conclusion that is subject to correction with more information which must be provided by you, since you are the party for which I have drawn my conclusion. It is NOT a lie. A lie is an “intentional” statement of a non-truth!

People generally draw conclusions about others based upon experience with similar circumstances. Drawing an incorrect conclusion does NOT make the conclusion a lie!


you said you write this for your own entertainment. I say that is a lie. If it is the truth, then spare us and write in a journal or diary, and stop forum masturbating.



You missed the point! “Me”, used within the context of the sentence, implies the principles I am discussing, NOT me personally! I am repeating established Buddhist principles in my own words as I understand and experience them.


yes, I did miss that you were speaking for the great body of sometimes divergent masters as one voice, missed that completely.



No, what I see is a passive/aggressive attitude from someone who cannot present his thoughts clearly and covers it up by speaking unclearly. Speaking in obtuse language is not a gift to the listener; it is an affectation that is un-necessarily vague! Just because a few teachers have done so, at specific times in history, does not make it expedient under all conditions. Someone with a little more insight would understand this without having to be told more than once!


maybe I am worried the truth will give you a heart attack.



More importantly to you should be, do you see your own flaws?


of course!!




You have not yet demonstrated the maturity or insight necessary for me to discuss my knowledge of my own flaws with you! You have provided no useful information or any kind. You are demonstrating an affectation and are playing at being wise without providing any evidence you know what you are talking about!


look, I am not providing you a shoulder to cry on, nor do I want to hear how your dad locked you in a closet, you don't talk to your wife enough, or you never got a date to the prom or moms didn't hug you enough. So what's with this discussing "my knowledge of my own flaws with you" nonsense. I am speaking specifically of what you are writing.



Then drop the vague allusions and the condescension and perhaps we can have a more productive discussion. Referring to someone as "brother" and "friend" with the attitude you are presenting comes across as insincere and phony!


rest at ease, friend, it's only in your mind.

[richard sloan]

Just so.....a glass of water may be half full, half empty, merely a glass of water, or nothing at all based upon what mind imposes upon the relationship of mind to objects, or rather mind to mind/itself!



and while you are trying to figure that all out, you could just drink the water and be greatful you have the opportunity to gain its sustenance.

you have the luxury to waste your time determining.

[David Jamieson]

Get off the drugs kid. They are robbing you of what little sense you might have had to start with.

kid? lol. awesome! :p

[David Jamieson]

Buddhism is only nihilist to those who do not understand it completely!

A few of the Ch'an Masters have addressed this accusation.

how so?

In a very real sense, nihilism in passive and active forms are identical to the practice of western buddhism. Neitsczhe addressed this at some length.

the difference being the root causality for adopting the philosophies of course.

which Ch'an masters have addressed this and successfully refuted the comparison?
I wouldn't think a Ch'an man could be bothered with refutations. lol :)

[Kansuke]

kid? lol. awesome! :p


No, you are not awesome, kid.

[David Jamieson]

No, you are not awesome, kid.

Well, whatever I am, it beats being you. :)

I win!

Hooray *dances and points at kansuke*

[Kansuke]

There's that 'enlightenment' again ... :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

There's that 'enlightenment' again ... :rolleyes:

more or less.
what did you think it would be?"

[Kansuke]

more or less.


Less, much less.

[David Jamieson]

Less, much less.

Yes you are.
:)

[Scott R. Brown]

how so?

In a very real sense, nihilism in passive and active forms are identical to the practice of western buddhism. Neitsczhe addressed this at some length.

the difference being the root causality for adopting the philosophies of course.

which Ch'an masters have addressed this and successfully refuted the comparison?
I wouldn't think a Ch'an man could be bothered with refutations. lol :)

Well I will have to review what Neitsczhe has to say about nihilism. I believe it was Huang po who comment upon it, but I will have to look it up. There is at least one other I have come across if i remember correctly. I don't take notes when I do my reading so I will have to get back to you on it when I come across the comments again! The comments weren't specifically addressing nihilism per se, but were responses to similar claims made in the old days, so to speak.

Who said anything about being bothered! I am just engaging in the conversation and trying to correct a common misconception. :)

[David Jamieson]

Well I will have to review what Neitsczhe has to say about nihilism. I believe it was Huang po who comment upon it, but I will have to look it up. There is at least one other I have come across if i remember correctly. I don't take notes when I do my reading so I will have to get back to you on it when I come across the comments again! The comments weren't specifically addressing nihilism per se, but were responses to similar claims made in the old days, so to speak.

Who said anything about being bothered! I am just engaging in the conversation and trying to correct a common misconception. :)

It was Neitsczhe who made the direct correlation between nihilism and western buddhism. He recognized how the practice in the west was altered due to social circumstance and so became something other than what was originally intended.

We see it today where we have droves of faux buddhists everywhere who really are nothing more than nihilists and use buddhism as the vehicle for expression.

there are of course refutations in regards to the idea of nihilism (which was not familiar at the time of the buddha).

In fact, buddhism in a western sense is filtered quite often through western philosophy simply because the core belief system has to be addressed in order to send the message through.

westerners who enter into "actual" buddhist temples and get the dharma lesson and do the chanting and offerings often don't understand the machinations of what they are doing and continue to go on with their nihilistic view (usually an active version) and attending temple without really understanding. Usually because teachings, chantings and readings from sutras are not done in english.

It's a pretty jumbled path though as compared to asian countries where it is part and parcel to the culture and society much the same way that in the west christianity is. There is a different social construct around the religious institution that is decidedly asian in flavour and that is rarerly penetrated and understood in context by a westerner.

Less so these days, but still.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi David,

So, I just did a quick research into Nietzsche’s thoughts on Buddhism. While I have a general familiarization with the principles that constitute nihilism, I have not read Nietzsche. So far I have to say that he does not have a very comprehensive understanding of Buddhist thought.

The observation that Buddhism "appears" nihilist is almost as old as Buddhism itself. The foundational principles of Buddhism, however, make such an interpretation untenable. Buddha encouraged the “Middle Path” between extremes with “nihilism” on the one hand and “eternalism” on the other.

The focus on negation in order to communicate some Buddhist principles also tends to lead some to consider Buddhism nihilist. But negation is not used for the purpose of abnegating all values and identity, but for metaphorically describing an “indescribable condition of being”. While Nirvana has been described as the “extinguishing of self” as the flame of a lamp, it is not extinguishing of identity or existence. Neither are positive values negated within Buddhism.

Self and values are seen within their proper context and not allowed to lead one into a state of clinging. It is clinging of any kind, especially to transient phenomena that causes suffering, NOT phenomena, existence, or values in and of themselves. Self and values are seen as valid and necessary phenomena within their proper context.

One Ch’an master commented that “realized” individuals display all the characteristics of “unrealized” individuals; they just are not ruled by clinging. They are in the world, but are not ruled by worldly passions.


You have made some very good observations concerning many modern Buddhists and Buddhism within western culture! It would be of some value to recall that “expedient means” has been commonly used in Buddhism from the very first. With the acceptance of “expedient means” and the idea of multiple paths within Mahayana I would surmise that even dilettantes and those with a confused understanding would be welcome by many who have a more intimate understanding of Buddhist principles.

D. T. Suzuki noted that some 20 different schools of Buddhism existed within a few hundred years of the death of Buddha and most or all of them claimed the orthodox teaching.

The methods used to communicate the principles of Buddhism have changed throughout the ages and the teaching tends to accommodate itself to whatever culture accepts them. Ch’an itself was a Chinese modification according the cultural needs and personality of the Chinese people. When it traveled to Korea, Tibet and Japan, Ch’an changed within itself as well.

Modern western culture has not done anything with Buddhism that hasn’t been done before, in its almost 2,500 year history, and will be done again. Buddhism can survive and those who are truly interested will grow as they learn.

Dilettantes and those with less than pure motivations participate in every religion, so I don’t become too concerned about it. In the end we are all mostly responsible for ourselves anyway.

[David Jamieson]

Regarding Ch'an being a chinese modification, I must disagree somewhat.
As you probably well know, Ch'an is the chinese way of saying "dhayana" which was a practice that was extant in India in particular and China even before Buddhism became widespread in the Mahayana form that the people found so enticing (seeing as they now could also gain merit and good karma without becoming monks!)

In fact, Ch'an is the literal translation of the Indian sanskrit "dhayana". So, it is not a chinese invention within buddhism at all. It is an aspect of buddhism taht has received considerable emphasis because of how it fit with an already intact cosmology that bore some similarities. Ch'an and Taoism really go together like peanut butter and chocolate in so many ways, it is really an interesting thing to look at.

From the Lankavatara sutra come the seeds of Ch'an which grew out of Shaolin temple into what it has become today. The sutra predates buddhism in china though. But I have no doubt there was religio-cultural interaction between the taoists, the mohists, the confucians and the buddhists. BUddhism existed for almost a thousand years before being officially established in China. In my thinking, this metes out as there simply must have been interchange.

I personally don't think that Buddhism is nihilism, but when you look at what active nihilism is, there is definitely a convergence of philosophies on many lines there.

For me, Buddhism is of the dead simple variety. there are the four noble truths, there is the eight fold path and the rest is small print. :-)

[Kansuke]

Yes you are.
:)


Back to the playground, kid. :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Back to the playground, kid. :rolleyes:

Excuse me Kansuke, but could you be ever so kind and just **** off? Thanks so much. And hey, while you're ****ing off, shut up too.

Great, thanks for being a sport.

cheerio childwomen. :)

[Kansuke]

Excuse me Kansuke, but could you be ever so kind and just **** off? Thanks so much. And hey, while you're ****ing off, shut up too.

Great, thanks for being a sport.

cheerio childwomen. :)


You truly are an idiot.

[bawang]

i think kansuke is pretty cool guy
he fite mma and not afraid anything

[David Jamieson]

I truly am an idiot.



Awesome that you recognize it.

[David Jamieson]

i think kansuke is pretty cool guy
he fite mma and not afraid anything

He wrestles the snake with a sock puppet mostly, but, if you wanna call that mma then cool! :p

[Water-quan]

the whole thing about the "earth" being "round" is a distinction of the mind based on the illusion of psycholgical time; in other words, as one experiences the earth at present, the use of the terms "earth" and "round" are transiently applicable; however, at one point, the earth was not round, and at one point it was not even the earth; and one day it won't be the earth anymore; so for the sake of transient convenience, we qualify the earth as such and equate it with roundness (which is an approximation at best);

but again, this is the result of the ind trapped by distinction; because, here's the thing - while the earth as such was not always as such, the components, the basic buiding blocks were as such well before the earth congealed into it's current temporary form; and lone after the earth is gone, those elements making up the earth wil still be as such (and of course, one can extend this to what they were before they were elements, etc., etc.);

so my question is this - at what point did all those various elements stop being "not-earth" and then were suddenly "earth"? well, of course, there was no point at which that happened, because that would imply that things such as they are are hierarchical and finite, which is not the case - the mind is what apprehends the continuity of flux through which thusness passes and is passed through by - earth / not-earth is a distinction based purely upn a snapshot of time that the mind brackets with the concept of before / after; but this is a convention of mind, not the state of things as they are; so to say that the earth is round is not a distinction of mind is incorrect, it is in fact the very manifestation of mind that has created the concept of "earth" as differentiated from "not-earth";

what we see here is in essence the nature of relationship - if two people first meet when they are in their 30's, can it be said that they were not in relationship to each other before that first meeting? likewise, the stuff of which the earth is made - these elements were always in relationship to each other, it's just a question of how the mind preceives that relationship that creates a hierarchical distinction;

anyway


Homework for you is to read Wittgenstein, who has kindly already worked out for you that we use language in a common sense way, and once we start straying from that, we end up staring wide-eyed at conundrums which only came in to being because of the way we are using our language. Or were they in being before we used them? And what does being mean? And what is us? And... and... and... we use language in common sense ways, and once we start separating words from their context, they soon loose the menaing we intended them to have, and yet we all know that, and we all know that our language is just a common sense 'picture' of the world which gets us by day to day - and ultimately, like all really good, wise insights, that's obvious, and needs little sophistry to embellish our understanding of it.

Once people do start using sophistry, I start becoming suspicious, because it's often done to distract or trick the mind in to believing that something meaningless or dubious - usually a religious or dubious philosophical idea - has more meaning than it really does. Just like the meaning of qi can be changed, meddled with, extended, amended, seemingly infinitely, to avoid any scrutiny whatsoever, and yet also take advantage of literally any idea in physics or science or philosophy which suits the agenda of the believer.

[Kansuke]

Awesome that you recognize it.

You get more and more pathetic with each post. This playground stuff is almost as sad as watching you try to discuss philosophy.

[David Jamieson]

You get more and more pathetic with each post. This playground stuff is almost as sad as watching you try to discuss philosophy.

You just get an erection when i tell you how pathetic you are. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

Regarding Ch'an being a chinese modification, I must disagree somewhat.
As you probably well know, Ch'an is the chinese way of saying "dhayana" which was a practice that was extant in India in particular and China even before Buddhism became widespread in the Mahayana form that the people found so enticing (seeing as they now could also gain merit and good karma without becoming monks!)

In fact, Ch'an is the literal translation of the Indian sanskrit "dhayana". So, it is not a chinese invention within buddhism at all. It is an aspect of buddhism taht has received considerable emphasis because of how it fit with an already intact cosmology that bore some similarities. Ch'an and Taoism really go together like peanut butter and chocolate in so many ways, it is really an interesting thing to look at.

From the Lankavatara sutra come the seeds of Ch'an which grew out of Shaolin temple into what it has become today. The sutra predates buddhism in china though. But I have no doubt there was religio-cultural interaction between the taoists, the mohists, the confucians and the buddhists. BUddhism existed for almost a thousand years before being officially established in China. In my thinking, this metes out as there simply must have been interchange.

I personally don't think that Buddhism is nihilism, but when you look at what active nihilism is, there is definitely a convergence of philosophies on many lines there.

For me, Buddhism is of the dead simple variety. there are the four noble truths, there is the eight fold path and the rest is small print. :-)

Hi David,

I did not mean to imply that Ch'an is an invention out of whole cloth, it is a combination of different principles taught by various sources and Sutras, including the Diamond Sutra, Madhyamika Philosophy, Lotus Sutra, and Vimalakirti nirdesa, etc. all used to accommodate the Chinese cultural mind set by communicating the inexpressible in a more understandable manner than the traditional Indian sources.

The ancient Chinese were known to be more concrete thinkers than the East Indians.

The Masters used anything available to teach the principles.

While Dhyana is also used in Buddhism it is also not necessary within Ch'an teachings. Of course Hui-Neng states this as well as Huang Po and Master Yuan, a little known, but first generation Master and contemporary of Hui-ko!

Even Hui-ko taught that ideas/concepts are all manifestations/creations of Mind of which Dhyana is included.

It is even unclear whether Bodhidharma was specifically speaking of meditation when he mentioned "wall examining" in his teaching! It is assumed he meant meditation, but some Masters, as I have mentioned also taught it is un-necessary and may also lead to further clinging. :)

[taai gihk yahn]

Homework for you is to read Wittgenstein, who has kindly already worked out for you
Wittgenstein may have worked it out for himself, which is awesome; and while I have no objection to reading him, at the same time I don't want for him (or anyone else for that matter) to work it out for me...


that we use language in a common sense way, and once we start straying from that, we end up staring wide-eyed at conundrums which only came in to being because of the way we are using our language. Or were they in being before we used them? And what does being mean? And what is us? And... and... and... we use language in common sense ways, and once we start separating words from their context, they soon loose the menaing we intended them to have, and yet we all know that, and we all know that our language is just a common sense 'picture' of the world which gets us by day to day - and ultimately, like all really good, wise insights, that's obvious, and needs little sophistry to embellish our understanding of it.
words are descriptors of that which ultimately cannot be described (if I recall correctly, I believe it was Wittgenstein who ended his Tractatus with the idea of something to the effect of "whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one remain silent" - although I could be wrong...); in the "language" of semiotics, it is the distinction of signifier vs. signified, as I gather you are aware based on your apparent familiarity with so-called "western" philosophy; language is, as you correctly point out, a convention by which the pragmatics of everyday life can occur; and in general, it serves this economic purpose with enough reliability for things such as commerce, trade, education, law (well...), medicine, science, etc.; of course, when we get into something such as philosophy, where the topics of "meaning" and "thusness: are up for discussion, now we are getting closer to the crux of it, but at the same time, the closer we get, the more innadeuate to the task are the very words that "get" us there; which is why in Ch'an a lot of teaching occured non-verbally, but rather through action - and it seems that the more absurd the action, the "closer" it gets to the Truth™; but even the most abstruse teachings (raising a finger, shouting, walking out the room with sandals on one's head) are still references of themselves - what it is getting at is that the "teaching" occurs via how the master lives such as he lives;



Once people do start using sophistry, I start becoming suspicious, because it's often done to distract or trick the mind in to believing that something meaningless or dubious - usually a religious or dubious philosophical idea - has more meaning than it really does. Just like the meaning of qi can be changed, meddled with, extended, amended, seemingly infinitely, to avoid any scrutiny whatsoever, and yet also take advantage of literally any idea in physics or science or philosophy which suits the agenda of the believer.
very astutely pointed out, and, if I understand you correctly, it is a point that I have been (trying) to make here for some time - I personally believe that it's essentially intellectually dishonest or at best lacking in intellectual rigor to simply grab something like quantum physics and use it to "explain" Qi; or to say that Qi is indefinable yet exists as discrete entity (hello...); OTOH, it looses a lot of the romance when one considers that the "ancient" Chinese were imply trying in their own way to explain the way the body works, w/what amounts to a rudimentary form of complex systems theory - albeit an essentially metaphorical one, since a lot of the descriptors used in TCM are not literal, given that the technology did not exist to describe a lot of the now understood physiological functions in the body (macro and cellular alike); I mean, TCM as a system doesn't even differentiate between tendons, muscles, ligaments and non-contractile connective tissue, which we now know are very different in both their composition as well as function; so to use contemporary science as a means of confirming the superiority of ancient Chinese medicinal practice is just bogus (e.g. - saying stuff like how quantum theory explains Qi, so therefore the ancient Chinese were way more advanced than science is now because they essentially came up with quantum theory thousand of years earlier than they did in the West; uh, no...)

[taai gihk yahn]

You get more and more pathetic with each post. This playground stuff is almost as sad as watching you try to discuss philosophy.

dude, could you just take it somewhere else? you jumped on here with no other purpose than to egg Jamieson; I know u don't give a cr@p about what anyone else has to say to you, but really, don't you have anything better to do w/your time than bait people for no real reason? if u don't think he makes valid points, refute them, instead of just being a pr1ck;

I'm guessing that your response will be ur usual STFU sort of reply; which is fine, but at the same time, why do u bother coming here if ur only sort of amusement is acting like a jerk? you seem to possess at least average if not above average intelligence - why does that not function in context of ur penchant for derailing threads?

[Kansuke]

Wittgenstein may have worked it out for himself, which is awesome; and while I have no objection to reading him...)

Don't do it, you'll regret it.

[Kansuke]

You just get an erection when i tell you how pathetic you are. :p



Keep your sick fantasies to yourself.

[David Jamieson]

Keep your sick fantasies to yourself.

Oh hi tubs. Hows the trolling looking today

[Kansuke]

Oh hi tubs. Hows the trolling looking today

Did you wake up stupid again today? Oh well, there's always tomorrow.

[Water-quan]

Wittgenstein may have worked it out for himself, which is awesome; and while I have no objection to reading him, at the same time I don't want for him (or anyone else for that matter) to work it out for me...

Hmm... but you're working it out for other people, though, with your words, advice etc. You don't 'have' to accept that if it's better for you to work it out for yourself then maybe it's also better for others not to have you work stuff out for them - but it does rather undermine your over all sentiment here, and reveal it to be a little more self serving than actually true.

A guru I know recently closed her site with the advice 'trust yourself, don't follow leaders'. Of course, she was back up and running and being a leader within a month - but the point was, if she really meant it, she'd have said nothing, and just closed up shop, because even telling people not to follow leaders is telling people what to do. Amazing how many times 'spiritual guides' - whether they style themselves such or not - undermine their own teaching, with their own teaching, if you justpay attention.





words are descriptors of that which ultimately cannot be described (if I recall correctly, I believe it was Wittgenstein who ended his Tractatus with the idea of something to the effect of "whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one remain silent" - although I could be wrong...); in the "language" of semiotics, it is the distinction of signifier vs. signified, as I gather you are aware based on your apparent familiarity with so-called "western" philosophy; language is, as you correctly point out, a convention by which the pragmatics of everyday life can occur; and in general, it serves this economic purpose with enough reliability for things such as commerce, trade, education, law (well...), medicine, science, etc.; of course, when we get into something such as philosophy, where the topics of "meaning" and "thusness: are up for discussion, now we are getting closer to the crux of it, but at the same time, the closer we get, the more innadeuate to the task are the very words that "get" us there; which is why in Ch'an a lot of teaching occured non-verbally, but rather through action - and it seems that the more absurd the action, the "closer" it gets to the Truth™; but even the most abstruse teachings (raising a finger, shouting, walking out the room with sandals on one's head) are still references of themselves - what it is getting at is that the "teaching" occurs via how the master lives such as he lives;

Hmmm.... what worries me is that these ideas, which are simply saying that we can become aware of the linguistic and cultural norms that frame our percpetion of ourselves and the world around us, are so sophistically modified in to arch-spiritual concepts of discovering profound underlying truths. Maybe it's not actually all that profound, or difficult to grasp, after all. Interesting, maybe, if one hasn't heard such ideas before. And it might have been mind blowing in the Buddha's time to realise this stuff - but maybe it's just not all that big a deal. But your sandals on your head, or mess with ethnomethods by treating your parents as hotel keepers. It all shows the same things. What's dangerous is to start treating that awareness as some kind of hidden order of spiritual truth which various groups have the key to. Because it simply isn't any such thing.

The thing is, what you've said in this section is pretty much the oppositeof what Wittgenstein thought. You're very much positing the idea put forwards by St Augustine, and criticised by Wittgenstein, that language works by pointing at things and labelling them. By extension, you then think that language has trouble pointing at and labelling certain fundamental, sub-linguistic universal truths. Well, it's not at all clear that language does have problems doing that. Even if they did exist, language is still fully capable of calling something, say, a 'Zen' idea, or a metaphysical concept. How does language manage to describe processes, or evolution by natural selection, both of which are metaphyiscal concepts? Answer - quite easily.

What you're missing is that language doesn't start to struggle as it approaches ontological concepts because it is somehow insufficient to describe fundamental truths of the universe. Far from it; we begin to struggle simply because the 'sense' of those conundrums, mysteries and paradoxes are - paraoxically - created in us not by coming closer to truths, but by the very process of language collapsing as we try to make it perform functions that are simply not possible.

In other words, if we ask what happens when an immovalbe object meets an unstoppable force, we can get a 'sense' of a paradox, which in itself can lead us in to thinking that the paradox is a gateway or cover for some much deeper truth. But in reality, the paradox is just caused by a misuse of language - if an unstoppable force exists in the universe, then no object can truly be immovable, and vice versa. Language has complex rules of use, and we don'talways notice that the mystical truth we sense is really just a confusion of the mind, caused by language failure - not by closensess to mystical truth.

[Water-quan]

dude, could you just take it somewhere else? you jumped on here with no other purpose than to egg Jamieson; I know u don't give a cr@p about what anyone else has to say to you, but really, don't you have anything better to do w/your time than bait people for no real reason? if u don't think he makes valid points, refute them, instead of just being a pr1ck;

I'm guessing that your response will be ur usual STFU sort of reply; which is fine, but at the same time, why do u bother coming here if ur only sort of amusement is acting like a jerk? you seem to possess at least average if not above average intelligence - why does that not function in context of ur penchant for derailing threads?

Heh... still don't get it? He's working it out for himself.

[David Jamieson]

Did you wake up stupid again today? Oh well, there's always tomorrow.

ok, well it looks like ima gonna have to put you in the same pile as hw108.
Just so you know, I'm going to ignore you from now on, so chirp away as much as you like I guess.

I won't be responding to your one liners anymore. kthxbye :)

[taai gihk yahn]

Hmm... but you're working it out for other people, though, with your words, advice etc. You don't 'have' to accept that if it's better for you to work it out for yourself then maybe it's also better for others not to have you work stuff out for them - but it does rather undermine your over all sentiment here, and reveal it to be a little more self serving than actually true.
oh come now - you are needlessly multiplying entities here (get out the Razor) ;) ; I am not working it out for anyone else, nor am I proposing to - I simply expressing myself in context of a conversation with others, without expectation: I am not putting up a sign advertising my services for others, I am not attempting to teach - and no one is asking me to! of course, if someone wants to take what I say to heart, that's their choice (caveat emptor!); and, if they want to dismiss it totally, that's their purview to do so;


A guru I know recently closed her site with the advice 'trust yourself, don't follow leaders'. Of course, she was back up and running and being a leader within a month - but the point was, if she really meant it, she'd have said nothing, and just closed up shop, because even telling people not to follow leaders is telling people what to do. Amazing how many times 'spiritual guides' - whether they style themselves such or not - undermine their own teaching, with their own teaching, if you justpay attention.
yes, it is clear how wrapped up in the idea of themselves as "Guru" some very holy people get - they get stuck in a net of their own fabrication, and when the moment calls for them to drop it all, they cannot...
as for the Guru you cite - yes best to make like Boddhidharma and cross the river without ever looking back, or, perhaps it may depend on who she was addressing as her audience - some people might have 'gotten it" if she had just closed up shop without a word, others might have benefited more from what she actually did - it's hard to say;
with any "teaching" we have the Truth™; but then when that Truth™ is explained, suddenly we have the speaker, the act of speaking and that which is spoken - going from one to three in the blink of an eye! and then the listener: we have just crossed over into an infinity of multitudes;
maybe the "answer" is to teaching without teaching: without any sense of self-consciouness or self-identification as a "teacher"; but if so, then one simply is being such as one is - making it entirely dependent upon the student to get it, which they may not; perhaps true compassion arises here, when having gone beyond self-consciousness, one teaches out of a genuine sense of empathy for the suffering of others, as opposed to a sense where one needs to fix the suffering of others in order to be self-actualized?
or is it better to never leave one's hut, perhaps...


Hmmm.... what worries me is that these ideas, which are simply saying that we can become aware of the linguistic and cultural norms that frame our percpetion of ourselves and the world around us, are so sophistically modified in to arch-spiritual concepts of discovering profound underlying truths. Maybe it's not actually all that profound, or difficult to grasp, after all. Interesting, maybe, if one hasn't heard such ideas before. And it might have been mind blowing in the Buddha's time to realise this stuff - but maybe it's just not all that big a deal. But your sandals on your head, or mess with ethnomethods by treating your parents as hotel keepers. It all shows the same things. What's dangerous is to start treating that awareness as some kind of hidden order of spiritual truth which various groups have the key to. Because it simply isn't any such thing.
I agree with this - Truth™ is self-evident - the expression "selling water by the river" comes to mind; teaching without a system may perhaps be the "best" way - meeting each student as they come uniquely; maybe it's both mind-blowing and profoundly mundane all at the same time? the Heart Sutra does explore this simultaneousness - "neither soiled nor pure", etc.;
it is a question to be asked...



Heh... still don't get it? He's working it out for himself.
of course; and I'm working it out for myself by telling him he's being a jerk!

[Kansuke]

Just so you know, I'm going to ignore you from now on


About time. Let the S-ing TFU begin!

[Scott R. Brown]

oh come now - you are needlessly multiplying entities here (get out the Razor) ;)....

I'm kinda interested in just what part of anything you have said is "sophistry"!

I am not convinced he understands the classical definition of "sophistry". He might start with defining "sophistry" as he means it, and then pointing out one or two items that you have posted that he considers "sophistry". Then contrast and compare in order to demonstrate why he believes it to be "sophistry"!

Then perhaps a real discussion on the merits and demerits of "sophistry", and your presumed use of it, can occur!

[Scott R. Brown]

About time. Let the S-ing TFU begin!

You start!

Ready.....set........GO!!!!!

:p

[Kansuke]

You start!

Ready.....set........GO!!!!!

:p


He's already agreed to STFU, so we're good!

[David Jamieson]

Hi David,

I did not mean to imply that Ch'an is an invention out of whole cloth, it is a combination of different principles taught by various sources and Sutras, including the Diamond Sutra, Madhyamika Philosophy, Lotus Sutra, and Vimalakirti nirdesa, etc. all used to accommodate the Chinese cultural mind set by communicating the inexpressible in a more understandable manner than the traditional Indian sources.

The ancient Chinese were known to be more concrete thinkers than the East Indians.

The Masters used anything available to teach the principles.

While Dhyana is also used in Buddhism it is also not necessary within Ch'an teachings. Of course Hui-Neng states this as well as Huang Po and Master Yuan, a little known, but first generation Master and contemporary of Hui-ko!

Even Hui-ko taught that ideas/concepts are all manifestations/creations of Mind of which Dhyana is included.

It is even unclear whether Bodhidharma was specifically speaking of meditation when he mentioned "wall examining" in his teaching! It is assumed he meant meditation, but some Masters, as I have mentioned also taught it is un-necessary and may also lead to further clinging. :)

dhayana = ch'an as far as transliteration goes and dhayana litrerally means "meditation" as does Ch'an or Zen by my understanding of these things linguistically speaking.

It is the act of quieting in order to become awake. Despite all teachings, it is the transpersonal experience derived through meditative practice wherein the value of Ch'an lay. For me anyway.

I find that intellectual discourse is stimulating and even pleasurable in that it allows for further articulation of that which is experienced outside the constructs of language and standard perception of the self and the universe around it and within it.

So, having said that, I am not clear what you mean by dhayana not being necessary to Ch'an when they are the same thing. Meditation that is.

[Scott R. Brown]

dhayana = ch'an as far as transliteration goes and dhayana litrerally means "meditation" as does Ch'an or Zen by my understanding of these things linguistically speaking.

.....I am not clear what you mean by dhayana not being necessary to Ch'an when they are the same thing. Meditation that is.

Hi David,

I know you know this, you just haven't considered it at the moment:

Ch'an does not just mean dhyana/meditation, it is also a title of school/method of Buddhism. It is as the title of a school/method to which I was referring.

While most Ch'an practitioners promote meditation, this was not always the case historically. Although it did catch on early in the development of Ch'an and at least some Masters attempted to keep it within a proper perspective.

Here are a few citations from Master Yuan a relatively unknown contemporary of Hui-ko:

"All the sutras and treatises are dharmas that produce mind. If you produce a mental focus on the path, then ingenious artifice will give rise to knowledge and a complement of events. If mind is not produced, what need is there for cross-legged sitting in dhyana? If ingenious artifice does not arise, why toil over the right mindfulness? If you do not seek insight and understanding, then you will exhaust both phenomena and principle."

and

"Question: What is demon mind? Answer: Closing the eyes [in cross-legged sitting posture] and entering samadhi."

Master Yuan's foundational principle of teaching is something along these lines:

"If there is one dharma to be esteemed or valued, this dharma will be the one most capable of binding and killing you, and you will fall into having mind."

Master Yuan's teachings concerning "esteeming or valuing" and of meditation are mentioned more than once in his short compendium of teaching. Hui-neng also cautions against sitting meditation of the cleansing mind variety and teaches more along the lines of "right-mind", "unobstructed mind" is the mind of meditation, NOT sitting cross-legged and attempting to silence thought/mind!

That is not to say that meditation has no benefit, only that meditation, of itself, does not lead to realization. According to Master Yuan and Hui-Neng, a fixation on anything, including meditation leads to an obstructed mind. Therefore mediation is un-necessary, which is not the same thing as "having no benefit"!

[LFJ]

If mind is not produced, what need is there for cross-legged sitting in dhyana?

true, but is that the case for ordinary people?


"Question: What is demon mind? Answer: Closing the eyes [in cross-legged sitting posture] and entering samadhi."

it would probably help to know the chinese characters used here for "demon mind". it sounds like cautioning against "走火入魔", which is where an inexperienced or improperly trained practitioner enters a state of trance which can cause physical and mental instability (demon mind is a term for being delusional), rather than denouncing proper meditation practice itself.

its hard to tell with just an english translation. thats why i like to take a look at the original as well.

[Scott R. Brown]

true, but is that the case for ordinary people?

By clinging to dhyana one creates the ordinary (demon) mind! Methods do not lead to realization. As long as one clings to any method, that is "esteems or values" anything...."this dharma [method] will be the one most capable of binding and killing you, and you will fall into having mind."


it would probably help to know the chinese characters used here for "demon mind". it sounds like cautioning against "走火入魔", which is where an inexperienced or improperly trained practitioner enters a state of trance which can cause physical and mental instability (demon mind is a term for being delusional), rather than denouncing proper meditation practice itself.

its hard to tell with just an english translation. thats why i like to take a look at the original as well.

It is also important to understand the complete thought! I will include it later. I don't have time to type it out it right now. "Demon mind" should be taken to be a metaphor anyway, as the mind that is clinging, leads to or creates ignorance and suffering, etc.

Further, it is advisable not to just blindly follow something just because a Master taught it. That is just creating another "esteem or value" which will trap you.

The teachings are not rules to "blindly" live life by, but indications/descriptions of direct understanding/realization. What is important is to understand for yourself, which is why I rarely use citations.

If anyone is doing anything just because "so-and-so" said so, they have created the shackles of their own entrapment to delusion!

[Scott R. Brown]

Okay....here is the complete citation it is from:

The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen

Edited and with footnotes and commentary by Jeffery L. Broughton

pp. 40-41

A certain person asked Master Yuan: “Why do you not teach me the Dharma?” Answer: “If I were to set up a Dharma to teach you. It would not be leading you. If I were to set up a Dharma, it would be deceiving you. If I had a Dharma, how could I explain it to someone else?” How could I speak it to you? It comes down to this: If there are terms and written words, all of it will deceive you. How could I tell you even a mustard seed’s worth of the meaning of the great path? If I could speak of it, what purpose would that serve?”

When asked again, [Master Yuan] did not reply.

Later, another question: “How does one quiet mind?” Answer: “You must not engender a mental focus on the great path. In my opinion mind in and of itself cannot be known. It is mysterious and not something to be concerned about.”

Another question: “What is the path?” Answer: “When you desire to produce the thought of moving toward the path, crafty ingenuity will arise, and you will fall into having mind. If you desire to give rise to the path, ingenious artifice will arise. If you have devices in our mind, crafty artifice will always arise.”

Another question; “What is crafty artifice?” Answer: “If you use intellectual understanding to seek a name, a hundred ingenious schemes arise. If you desire to cut off crafty artifice, don’t produce the thought of enlightenment and don’t use knowledge of the sutras and treatises. If you can accomplish this, then for the first time you will have bodily energy. If you have spirit, do not esteem understanding, do not seek Dharma, and do not love knowledge, then you will find a little quietude.” Further: “If you do not seek wonderful understanding, do not serve as a teacher for the people, and also do not take Dharma as your teacher, you will walk alone spontaneously.” Further: “If you do not give rise to demon mind, I can lead you.”

Question: “What is a demon mind?” Answer: “Closing your eyes [in cross-legged sitting posture] and entering samadhi.” Question: “[What if] I gather the mind in dhyana so that it does not move?” Answer: “This is bondage samadhi. It is useless. This holds even for the four dhyanas, each of which is merely one stage of quiescence from which you will return to disturbance again. They are not to be valued. These are created dharmas, dharmas that will destroyed again, not ultimate Dharma. If you can understand that intrinsically there is neither quiescence nor disturbance, then you will be able to exist of yourself. The one who is not drawn into quiescence and disturbance is the man of spirit.” Further: “If one is capable of not seizing on interpretations, not creating the mind of delusion, and not esteeming profound knowledge, then he will be a peaceful person. If there is one dharma to be esteemed or valued, this dharma will the one most capable of binding and killing you, and you will fall into having mind. This is an unreliable state of affairs. There are innumerable common men throughout the world who are bound by terminology and the written word.”

[Scott R. Brown]

While I am at it, I might as well include a little bit from Hui-ko:

pp. 42-43

A certain person asked Master K’o: “How can one become a sage? Answer: “All common men and sages are created by the calculations of false thought?”

Another question: “How do Buddhas cross over sentient beings to nirvana?” Answer: “When the image in a mirror crosses over sentient being, Buddhas will cross over sentient beings.”

This one is my favorite from Hui-ko:

[Hui-ko]…..”There are hells precisely because false thoughts calculate existence.”

Another question: “This path is completely created by false thought. What is creation by false thought?”

Answer: “It is as if within your residence there were a great stone in the foreground of the garden. Should you fall asleep on it or sit on it, you would be neither alarmed nor fearful. Suddenly you get the idea to create an image. You hire someone to paint a Buddha image on it. When your mind creates the interpretation Buddha, then you fear committing a sin and no longer dare to sit on top of it. It is the original stone, but this Buddha interpretation was created by your mind. What is mind like? It is always your mind-consciousness brush painting and creating these interpretations. You yourself bring on the anxiety. You yourself bring on the fear. In reality within the stone there is neither sin nor merit. Your mind itself creates these interpretations. It is as if someone were to paint the forms of yakas [mis-shapen dwarves], ghosts, dragons, and tigers. He himself paints them, but when he looks at them in turn, he himself gets fearful. In the paint ultimately there is no locus to be feared. It is always your mind-consciousness brush discriminating and creating these interpretations. How could there be one thing? It is always your false thought creating these interpretations.”

I hope these provide some food for thought, or no-thought, or "thought of no-thought", etc. as the case may be!:)

[LFJ]

By clinging to dhyana one creates the ordinary (demon) mind!

clinging is the keyword here, not dhyana. clinging to anything is not proper practice, but neither is thinking one can become free without practice, since delusions have been produced since time without beginning. a method of no-method is still just a method.


It is also important to understand the complete thought!

i know what the citation is from, in english. but that wasnt the point.

meditation and samadhi without prajna is not dharma practice anyway, but an external or improper path.

[David Jamieson]

Hi Scott.

Thanks. :)

I understand that attachment to methods is a false path. I understand the hazard of not seeing the forest for the trees. As much as I am able I suppose.

Consider this though. One starts practice and is oblivious to not only method, but by meaning and intention. Often one comes from the void and like a child needs to be ushered through those early stages of development.

It is this ushering that gives the person time to consider themselves, what they are, who they are and all in context to the method they are being taught. During this time, there are phases of understanding that are occurring regarding aspects of the whole of that which they are practicing and eventually after time, they move back out into the void and the process of being continues.

With the methods learned, the practitioner may find them to be less baffling and through their involvement with the work, understand further the result of the work and how the work is them in and of themselves.

From the exterior, it appears easy for them to do the work and for the person out in the void, it seems amazing and unachievable!

But it is achievable, because it's already within them! But they must do the work, they must peer in and regard themselves for what they truly are to the best of their own understanding within the framework of the applied method.

The pitfalls of the work are no reason to not do it. It is more than and nothing more than to sit.

cheers!

[RenDaHai]

clinging is the keyword here, not dhyana. clinging to anything is not proper practice, but neither is thinking one can become free without practice, since delusions have been produced since time without beginning. a method of no-method is still just a method.

i know what the citation is from, in english. but that wasnt the point.

meditation and samadhi without prajna is not dharma practice anyway, but an external or improper path.

I agree with above,

But also on Clinging, we accept we should avoid attachment, but to achieve anything worth having requires persistence. We can't consider this persistence as clinging to our practice because if we did we would achieve nothing.

[David Jamieson]

persistence can also mete out not as clinging, but the regarding of the work as fetch wood carry water. If one regards their cultivation in totality as a human being as just work and just a way, then they will not cling to it as if it is something to be lost. There's nothing to cling to when it is created new everyday! :)

It becomes about being in my view more than anything else. Sometimes we can get so caught up in doing, that it is the doing that we think is the result. But that is not always the case and it is being that can be the result as well.

If we look at all forms of work as clinging, then perhaps the question for some should only be whether or not they are ready to shed their physical body. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

clinging is the keyword here, not dhyana. clinging to anything is not proper practice, but neither is thinking one can become free without practice, since delusions have been produced since time without beginning. a method of no-method is still just a method.



i know what the citation is from, in english. but that wasnt the point.

meditation and samadhi without prajna is not dharma practice anyway, but an external or improper path.

Meditation, samadhi, prajna, dharma are all artificial constructs and do not inherently exist! If one creates mind, one is bound by its conceptualizations and conceptualization creates mind. If one avoids clinging to conceptualization, there is no path to follow and no mind that requires practice!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Scott.

Thanks. :)......

I understand that attachment to methods is a false path. I understand the hazard of not seeing the forest for the trees. As much as I am able I suppose.

Consider this though. One starts practice and is oblivious to not only method, but by meaning and intention. Often one comes from the void and like a child needs to be ushered through those early stages of development.

It is this ushering that gives the person time to consider themselves, what they are, who they are and all in context to the method they are being taught. During this time, there are phases of understanding that are occurring regarding aspects of the whole of that which they are practicing and eventually after time, they move back out into the void and the process of being continues.

With the methods learned, the practitioner may find them to be less baffling and through their involvement with the work, understand further the result of the work and how the work is them in and of themselves.

From the exterior, it appears easy for them to do the work and for the person out in the void, it seems amazing and unachievable!

But it is achievable, because it's already within them! But they must do the work, they must peer in and regard themselves for what they truly are to the best of their own understanding within the framework of the applied method.

The pitfalls of the work are no reason to not do it. It is more than and nothing more than to sit.

cheers!

Hi David.

I agree......there is nothing wrong with method.....it is clinging to method and not understanding method's proper place that creates confusion in the mind.

After all, life is lived and actions occur. It isn't that actions are not to be performed, it is not about what we do, it is about our attitude about what we do, how we attach to what we do that creates delusion, a misperception and misunderstanding of reality.

I think of it as learning which mental actions/states of mind create which effects/results. When observing my own mind function I learn that “x” attitude/cause creates “y” result/effect.

Once I understand the cause and effect relationship I become free to choose not to attach to a specific attitude/conceptualization or not. I personally don’t even have a problem with attachment. Attachment is just as much a part of life as non-attachment. To me attachment is not “necessarily” something to be avoided. To me it is whether one is aware of their attachments and the effects they cause in their life. If one is not dissatisfied with an attachment there is no need to let go of it. It is a question of whether you rule your attachments or they rule you. Am I clinging because I appreciate and enjoy the consequences of it, or am I clinging because I cannot let go or I am afraid to let go!

When it comes to realization however, it is the accepting/clinging to a false premise that creates the need for a method. So, if one conceives a mind that is dirty, covered with adventious dust, beclouded by delusion as a consequence of attachments, then one must of necessity clean it, but this is only because one has conceived of “a mind with “adventious dust”. It is the “artificially manufactured” concept that creates the problem and the problem that creates the method.

If one realizes the concept is a false/illusory creation from the first, there is no reason/necessity for the method. Change the premise, realize there is no stand or mirror bright, no mind from the first that requires cleaning, and the problem disappears “of itself” and no method is required! :)


I agree with above,

But also on Clinging, we accept we should avoid attachment, but to achieve anything worth having requires persistence. We can't consider this persistence as clinging to our practice because if we did we would achieve nothing.

Hi RenDaHai,

Routine actions that produce a material result should not be confused with mental attachments to the routine actions. When a cause and effect relationship is understood between an action and its result the action may be performed with a mind free of attachment to the routine and free of attachment to the result.

So, when I practice my kicks in a routine manner, in order to improve their effectiveness, this is not the attachment to which we refer. This is using routine in order to affect a result.

But if I become emotionally attached to the NEED to perform my routine action, this is the clinging that leads to suffering. If one does not mind the mental suffering resulting from the attachment, there is no problem, but over time one would discover that if one performed the routine actions without emotional attachment to the NEED to do them, they would improve quicker and accomplish a more proficient and effective result.:)

[David Jamieson]

Meditation, samadhi, prajna, dharma are all artificial constructs and do not inherently exist! If one creates mind, one is bound by its conceptualizations and conceptualization creates mind. If one avoids conceptualization, there is no path to follow and no mind that requires practice!

Read my signature.
And yet, he was a monk(one of 6 patriarchs of Ch'an)who practiced meditation, dharma, etc anyway. lol

Yes the constructs are created from void and given form by mind. But not everything nets 0 only everything nets 0.

bwahahahahaha! :D

[Scott R. Brown]

Read my signature.
And yet, he was a monk(one of 6 patriarchs of Ch'an)who practiced meditation, dharma, etc anyway. lol

Yes the constructs are created from void and given form by mind. But not everything nets 0 only everything nets 0.

bwahahahahaha! :D

Actually, Hui-Neng taught that everyday mind was the Buddha mind and that meditation is not necessary.

I am not sure we know if he meditated or not. He is noted for his spontaneous realization prior to meeting the 5th patriarch and absent any meditation training and little to no familiarization with the Sutras.

.....keeping in mind that "not necessary" is not the same thing has "having no benefit", Hui-neng taught what I just mentioned above.....


...when you start from an incorrect premise you create methods that lead to attachment to that false premise. So, when we create a mind that requires cleaning we create a method that reinforces that false premise. However, that does not mean that one cannot or should not meditate, only that if one is meditating in order to obtain enlightenment/realization, they are starting from a false premise and it is the false premise that must be released in order for realization to occur.:)

At the very least meditation is an enjoyable activity!:)

[LFJ]

Actually, Hui-Neng taught that everyday mind was the Buddha mind and that meditation is not necessary.

not necessary for buddha mind, as everyday mind is just that. meditation does not create buddha mind. however, this should not be taken to mean we don't need to practice. an ordinary person has been creating falseness since time without beginning. it is much stronger than one's ability to realize what is as clear as their own nose.



...when you start from an incorrect premise you create methods that lead to attachment to that false premise. So, when we create a mind that requires cleaning we create a method that reinforces that false premise. However, that does not mean that one cannot or should not meditate, only that if one is meditating in order to obtain enlightenment/realization, they are starting from a false premise and it is the false premise that must be released in order for realization to occur.:)

At the very least meditation is an enjoyable activity!:)

this is all true, but it doesnt mean anyone can reach any sort of realization without proper practice. all those chan masters who had awakening experiences with little or no training experience had what is called "good roots" from strong practice in previous lives.

it is not safe to assume one need not study and practice well. these teachings simply point to the fact that nothing is created or attained through practice, but realization of the natural state which is unconditioned.

quote the buddha, avatamsaka sutra:

"i have seen that all beings posses the virtuous qualities of the tathagata, yet due to conceptualizing the unreal and clinging they do not realize it."

so right, nothing is necessary for attaining what is already possessed. but conceptualizing the unreal and clinging has become so strong for so long, something must be done.

[David Jamieson]

as an aside, why do you suppose there are 6?

[Scott R. Brown]

as an aside, why do you suppose there are 6?

Isn't 6 a lucky number in China?

[David Jamieson]

Isn't 6 a lucky number in China?

if you roll it with a 1 yes.

[Scott R. Brown]

if you roll it with a 1 yes.

LOL!!!! Good one David!!

[taai gihk yahn]

as an aside, why do you suppose there are 6?

not sure, but we know that five is right out!

that, and in (some, at least Chinese AFAIK) Buddhist cosmology, there are 6 realms: gods, envious giants, human, animals, hungry ghosts and hell; or something like that;

there are also the 6 directions: up/down, front/back, left right (add in the four corners and you get the 10 directions, also an important concept);

[Scott R. Brown]

not necessary for buddha mind, as everyday mind is just that. meditation does not create buddha mind. however, this should not be taken to mean we don't need to practice. an ordinary person has been creating falseness since time without beginning. it is much stronger than one's ability to realize what is as clear as their own nose.

this is all true, but it doesnt mean anyone can reach any sort of realization without proper practice. all those chan masters who had awakening experiences with little or no training experience had what is called "good roots" from strong practice in previous lives.

it is not safe to assume one need not study and practice well. these teachings simply point to the fact that nothing is created or attained through practice, but realization of the natural state which is unconditioned.

quote the buddha, avatamsaka sutra:

"i have seen that all beings posses the virtuous qualities of the tathagata, yet due to conceptualizing the unreal and clinging they do not realize it."

so right, nothing is necessary for attaining what is already possessed. but conceptualizing the unreal and clinging has become so strong for so long, something must be done.

Hi LFJ,

When one starts from a false premise one creates the need for a method that will not work to accomplish the goal because it is based upon the illusory premise from the start and leads to still more attachment. Therefore all method does is occupy time while one is awaiting "direct perception without obstruction" to occur "of itself", that is, "spontaneously".

When one begins with a false premise the attending method contributes to attaching one to the false premise and this is the danger of promoting methods.

I understand what you are saying however. Sentient beings create for themselves a pattern of thinking, habitual thinking, based upon their false premises. It is this habitual thinking that controls their mind and perceptions making realization difficult. So, even though they may have an intellectual understanding that their patterns of thinking are false conceptualizations, they are unable to break through their habitual pattern of thinking. Their habit controls them.

The question then becomes, how does one overcome the habitual thinking pattern? While there are a few effective methods, it is true that these methods commonly include practice of some kind.

However, one does not let go of attachments by adding or encouraging more attachments. One lets go of attachments by realizing their premise is false from the start and living according to that realization. A problem arises when we say one “must” practice and/or study because this is just putting out a fire by adding more firewood, adding attachment to attachment.

So, I agree something must be done. Just what that "something" may be, is variable, according to expedient means, for each individual and to "insist" on study, meditation or other practices is to create more bondage.

At best methods create a less damaging form of attachment, that is, an attachment that provides for a less damaging result, but one that still must be overcome in order to obtain unobstructed perception/realization.

It is sort of like overcoming a really bad habit by substituting a less bad habit, then a lesser bad one, and then still a lesser bad one, until one is able to let go of habits altogether.:)

[LFJ]

At best methods create a less damaging form of attachment, that is, an attachment that provides for a less damaging result, but one that still must be overcome in order to obtain unobstructed perception/realization.

It is sort of like overcoming a really bad habit by substituting a less bad habit, then a lesser bad one, and then still a lesser bad one, until one is able to let go of habits altogether.:)

thats what i'm talking about. the buddha also taught in stages like this. you must use dharma to combat non-dharma, and when the work is done put down the dharma-tool.

but you cant go directly from before step one to complete accomplishment. so i wouldnt suggest study and practice are unnecessary if one is not yet beyond them.

the point is only that meditation is not necessary for buddha-nature. buddha-nature is not conditioned or attained through that. its already the natural state.

[Scott R. Brown]

thats what i'm talking about. the buddha also taught in stages like this. you must use dharma to combat non-dharma, and when the work is done put down the dharma-tool.

but you cant go directly from before step one to complete accomplishment. so i wouldnt suggest study and practice are unnecessary if one is not yet beyond them.

the point is only that meditation is not necessary for buddha-nature. buddha-nature is not conditioned or attained through that. its already the natural state.

Hi LFJ,

Yes...I wrote that to let you know I understand what you are talking about, but it is a narrow perspective; it is incomplete understanding. The idea that one “must use dharma to combat non-dharma” is attachment to conceptualization. If one never picks up the “dharma-tool” from the first, one need never put it down! One can go “directly from before step one to complete accomplishment”. The reason it is rare is because of attachment to method.

When we try to apply world system principles to obtaining realization we create a method that goes from A-to-Z. A-to-Z methods are effective when learning to walk, build buildings, hunt, make clothing, do the martial arts, etc., but are decidedly ineffective to obtaining realization.

The A-to-Z method is part of the problem. It starts from a false premise created out of misunderstanding and is of the realm of attachments. Realization cannot occur until one finally realizes the A-to-Z method is ineffective.

One could just as easily have someone stand on one leg with their left finger in their right ear for all the good meditation, reading the sutras and practice does because these are an A-to-Z method.

It is like comparing killing people to planting flowers in order to gain realization. From the world system perspective planting flowers is preferable to killing people, however from the perspective of realization they are the same in that they both involve a mind attached to phenomena. It is attachment that must be addressed, not what the mind is attached too. What mind is attaches too only matters from the world system perspective. Planting flowers is better than killing people only from the world system perspective.

Consider Emperor Wu, he gained worldly merit from performing actions to benefit Buddhism; however none of these actions did anything to bring him closer to realization; this is because of his attachment to method.

Studying, practicing and meditating can result in world system benefits. They may improve ones life experience, but insisting they are necessary in order to gain realization, in any way, is an attachment to a process that creates a bondage no different than a person who does none of these.

It is not about what one does, it is about what one does NOT do. One does not attach to anything, including not attaching to the concept of “not attaching”. At best one could say is this principle must be learned…..but it is NOT learned by attaching to method.

Insights come spontaneously for an unknown reason. Someone who studies and meditates for numerous years may gain little insight while a youngster with little to no formal education may gain insight while gathering wood!

One may try to attribute spontaneous insight and realization to the work done in former lives, except this cannot be proven. It is an excuse given to explain the unexplainable! At best it means the person learned they wasted their time with all the work from previous lives because work does NOT lead to realization. That is why Ch’an is called the Sudden school, its intent is to avoid all that wasted work by turning mind to what is immediately at hand through direct observation.

The concept that meditation, study and practice are not necessary for the realized one, but ARE necessary for one in bondage is part of the bondage problem from the start. It is heaping more wood on the fire. It is concepts like this that keep people in bondage because adherence to that concept IS attachment.

[RenDaHai]

@ Scott

But what about someone who seeks wisdom. What your saying doesn't suggest anything at all, only that it might happen one day. Without pursuing it in some way how can one hope to attain it?

I mean I understand that you should not chase it, you should not have this predetermined goal because it will always be shortsighted. But never the less many of those who achieved wisdom did so by pursuing it in some way.

One person we can say made a great achievement is Buddha, who did so without any of these teachings or concepts that you suggest, he did it from pure contemplation. If you avoid any method you are actively avoiding that method and the avoidance of method becomes the method in itself. Surely we can say that pure contemplation is a path to achieve wisdom, but one which requires a great sacrifice of time.

It is inherently useless to say that realisations will happen spontaneously, whether it is true or not, it is of no use.

Spending 49 days under a tree could be seen as fanatical pursuit and with method.......

Meditation need not follow any circumscribed method, it can be pure contemplation.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi RenDaHai,


@ Scott

But what about someone who seeks wisdom. What your saying doesn't suggest anything at all, only that it might happen one day. Without pursuing it in some way how can one hope to attain it?

I mean I understand that you should not chase it, you should not have this predetermined goal because it will always be shortsighted. But never the less many of those who achieved wisdom did so by pursuing it in some way.

Those who attain wisdom do so by realizing that it cannot be attained by pursuing it.

When one pursues wisdom they must create a fixed concept in their mind about what they think wisdom is, or they would not “decide” to pursue wisdom. But this is like taking a cup of sea water and trying to define the ocean with it. By forming a concept of wisdom one kills wisdom by confining it to a cup and this is not true wisdom!

So, one with true wisdom does not concern himself about wisdom, therefore he has true wisdom.


One person we can say made a great achievement is Buddha, who did so without any of these teachings or concepts that you suggest, he did it from pure contemplation. If you avoid any method you are actively avoiding that method and the avoidance of method becomes the method in itself. Surely we can say that pure contemplation is a path to achieve wisdom, but one which requires a great sacrifice of time.

Buddha obtained realization by giving up doing anything at all and it occurred “of itself” then. He may have started out contemplating, but in the end he gave up any concept of contemplation or of doing anything at all, or he would not have attained anything, which according to him, he didn’t anyway!

Yes, you are correct that the “concept of giving up method” is still a method, which is why it is sometimes referred to as “the method of no-method” which is, of course, still a method. Do not conceptualize anything at all, this is no-method. As long as a concept of anything is clung to, it is a method. Therefore, do not form a concept and this is no-method.


@ It is inherently useless to say that realisations will happen spontaneously, whether it is true or not, it is of no use.

It is only useless to one clinging to conceptualization. Even the idea of “realization” is a concept that one forms in their mind. It is a “something” that one forms a definition of and then attempts to pursue. It is the definition that is the false premise. “Realization” cannot be defined any more than the ocean can be defined from a cup of sea water. So do not form a concept from the start. Where there is no clinging to concepts and no formulation of concepts realization occurs “of itself”.


@ Spending 49 days under a tree could be seen as fanatical pursuit and with method.......

Meditation need not follow any circumscribed method, it can be pure contemplation.

It depends upon what one is doing and why. It could also be viewed as not doing anything at all, giving up pursuit of the "idea" of realization.

The best way I have ever found to describe this is to use the “Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion:

http://newindividualism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/j-youngwomanoldlady-illusion.jpg

If one can only see the Old Woman, no amount of pointing her out to you by another will help you see the Young Woman if you are not ready! As Hui-Neng taught, "No teacher can help you if you are not ready, and no teacher is necessary if you are ready!"

Seeing the Young Woman is something you must do on your own. It is a mental realization that occurs spontaneously in the “fullness of time”. That is, when you are ready to see it. Performing mental exercises and study does NOT help you discover the Young Woman. You must wait for the insight to occur. Trying to see her hinders your ability. How and why one finally sees the Young Woman is a mystery, it just happens when it happens.

When you finally do see the Young Woman, nothing changed in the picture, you gained nothing at all, but a change in perspective, a complete view. The picture did not change; the Young Woman was always there from the start.

This is a world system example of realization. Nothing changes, but your perspective. What you perceive was always there from the start. No one can give it to you. There are no exercises you can do in order to obtain it. It occurs when it occurs for no apparent reason!

Meditation, actions, study etc, are artificial constructs used to occupy time while you are waiting to stop clinging to conceptualization.

I refer you back to the Ch'an metaphor, I have mentioned before, of a man looking all over the world for his lost pearl that is located on this head band on his head.

All his searching is in vain, because the pearl is with him the whole time and never left! So, formulating plans and executing them in order to locate his lost pearl did nothing for him but occupy his time until he was able to realize it was with him the whole time!:);)

[RenDaHai]

Hi Scott,

I must admit that the optical illusion is a fine fine example. I understand your point all the better for it. For a while I saw only the young woman.

Allow me to play with a few seemingly unrelated quotes;

From Yoritomo Minamoto (brother and killer of Yo****sune) ' FROM THE PERPETUAL PURSUIT OF THE HIGHEST SPRINGS A SERIES OF REALISATIONS, EACH OF WHICH GIVES US THE JOY AND PRIDE OF CONQUEST' A phrase which I think sums up the 'Gong Fu' rather well.

'WE THEN USE THESE REALISATIONS, THESE FORCES AQUIRED OVER OURSELVES, IN THE PURSUIT OF ANOTHER IDEAL, OF A FORM MORE NEARLY PERFECT'

By this purpetual pursuit we do acheive realisations, these realisations allow us to move on new directions, discovering other ideals that before the realisation we would not know existed. Perhaps the realisation is unrelated even. These spring from the pursuit of something. The beauty of Gong fu is that it doesn't matter what this something is, simply the philosophy of pursuing the highest, the best. Striving takes us foreward.

The great Sage Yoritomo also warns us against circumscribed goals. He says it is like the man climbing the mountain, each time he reaches a peak he realises there is one yet higher still, and never reaches his goal. Where as those wiser 'OUR GOALS ARE NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED, BUT GRAND AND INFINITE' are always satisfied with their progress at the end of the day, they have no circumscribed goal for tomorrow, only to do better.

These quotes are not totally unrelated, I relay them because although I see and understand your point,I cannot totally accept it. I feel even without clinging or method we can still perpetually pursue the highest in what we do, and this power, this ability to pursue is, perhaps in mysterious and unseen ways, is what allows us to reach the finer realisations.

After all, If I did not know there was more to the picture I would have stopped looking and perhaps never seen the old woman because I would never have looked at the picture again. (looking at the picture = pursuit).

[Hendrik]

you must use dharma to combat non-dharma, and when the work is done put down the dharma-tool.


Dharma could means the phenomenon of the world.

Dharma tool means technics to do something.


Thus, the practice is One uses a dharma tool to UNDO the attachment. When the attachment is no longer there the dharma tool will also vanish by default.





but you cant go directly from before step one to complete accomplishment. so i wouldnt suggest study and practice are unnecessary if one is not yet beyond them.


Unless one is already attain the Buddha's fully enlightenment, practice Undoing is needed.




the point is only that meditation is not necessary for buddha-nature. buddha-nature is not conditioned or attained through that. its already the natural state.


meditation is the practice of Undoing.
meditation is a manifestation of Buddha nature uses to Undo one's blind creation from one's buddha nature which one stuck into.

[Hendrik]

Yes...I wrote that to let you know I understand what you are talking about, but it is a narrow perspective;

It is not a narrow perspective but a workable MUST do to UNDO direction to attain liberation.





it is incomplete understanding.

The idea that one “must use dharma to combat non-dharma” is attachment to conceptualization.

If one never picks up the “dharma-tool” from the first, one need never put it down!




It got nothing to do with complete or incomplete understanding.

It got all to do with the path neccesary take to UNDO the stuck.






One can go “directly from before step one to complete accomplishment”. The reason it is rare is because of attachment to method.

For the fully enlightement one or Tatagatha,
there is no need to do ANY THING for all delusion vanished by itself.

For the Attachement one,
Undoing is a must. And using a medicine to cure a disease got nothing to do with Attachement to method. Such as take cold medicine when one has a cold and not taking it after one's cold is gone. BTW. that human response of taking cold medicine when it is needed and not taking it after the cold is gone is a norm.


So which class of being

One can go “directly from before step one to complete accomplishment”.

The reason it is rare is because of attachment to method.
belongs to?



IMO, in the analogy of taking the cold medicine, The above statement is from those who biasly assume every human being is drug addict and not aware of the needed of UNDO the stuck for human being.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Scott,

I must admit that the optical illusion is a fine fine example. I understand your point all the better for it. For a while I saw only the young woman.

Allow me to play with a few seemingly unrelated quotes;

From Yoritomo Minamoto (brother and killer of Yo****sune) ' FROM THE PERPETUAL PURSUIT OF THE HIGHEST SPRINGS A SERIES OF REALISATIONS, EACH OF WHICH GIVES US THE JOY AND PRIDE OF CONQUEST' A phrase which I think sums up the 'Gong Fu' rather well.

'WE THEN USE THESE REALISATIONS, THESE FORCES AQUIRED OVER OURSELVES, IN THE PURSUIT OF ANOTHER IDEAL, OF A FORM MORE NEARLY PERFECT'

By this purpetual pursuit we do acheive realisations, these realisations allow us to move on new directions, discovering other ideals that before the realisation we would not know existed. Perhaps the realisation is unrelated even. These spring from the pursuit of something. The beauty of Gong fu is that it doesn't matter what this something is, simply the philosophy of pursuing the highest, the best. Striving takes us foreward.

The great Sage Yoritomo also warns us against circumscribed goals. He says it is like the man climbing the mountain, each time he reaches a peak he realises there is one yet higher still, and never reaches his goal. Where as those wiser 'OUR GOALS ARE NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED, BUT GRAND AND INFINITE' are always satisfied with their progress at the end of the day, they have no circumscribed goal for tomorrow, only to do better.

These quotes are not totally unrelated, I relay them because although I see and understand your point,I cannot totally accept it. I feel even without clinging or method we can still perpetually pursue the highest in what we do, and this power, this ability to pursue is, perhaps in mysterious and unseen ways, is what allows us to reach the finer realisations.

After all, If I did not know there was more to the picture I would have stopped looking and perhaps never seen the old woman because I would never have looked at the picture again. (looking at the picture = pursuit).

Hi RenDaHai,

It is important to distinguish between the world system growth related to conceptual forms, and realization. Buddhism does not say that change and growth do not exist. It merely distinguishes between conditional reality and unconditioned reality and teaches not to put your hopes in finding persistent happiness within the conditional reality. This is because conditional reality is based upon change and, since in a changing reality nothing lasts forever, when your happiness is based upon what changes, you are doomed to repeated suffering when that which makes you happy, changes into something else.

So anything you are clinging too in order to find your happiness is bound to disappear someday because all things found within the conditional reality cannot last.

That is why a realized person is in the world, but not of the world. That is, they still participate in the world system of learning, growth, and suffering they are just not bound to the system because they realize it is artificial in nature. They accept the flux and change of conditional reality and do not fix themselves permanently to any changing phenomena. But that does not mean they do not use changing phenomena.

Think of it like a first person computer game. It is a pretend reality based upon artificially constructed rules. While learning and growing occurs within the game you are still apart from the game while you play. The amount of engagement you have in the game is based upon your level of attachment to your artificially constructed game persona. You may attach to your persona and become engrossed into the game to the point you have forgotten the game is pretend or you may remain emotionally separate from the game yet still enjoy playing the game.

Each condition has value to it, however the game is generally played more effectively if one remains emotionally unattached .

[Scott R. Brown]

For the Attachement one,
Undoing is a must. And using a medicine to cure a disease got nothing to do with Attachement to method. Such as take cold medicine when one has a cold and not taking it after one's cold is gone. BTW. that human response of taking cold medicine when it is needed and not taking it after the cold is gone is a norm.

Once one recognizes they were never really sick they understand no medicine was ever necessary. But a person who "thinks" they are sick even though they are not truly sick, continues to take medicine thinking the medicine will heal them. But it won't because they are not truly sick to begin with.

Until they realize they are not truly sick they will continue to "think" they "need" the medicine. :)

[RenDaHai]

Hi Scott,

Ok, I'm starting to understand your point a little better.

I don't think of my view as opposing yours as such. I'm in favour of Pursuit and against apathy. Not saying your explanation contains apathy towards personal progress, just that I don't quite understand how effort is to be applied in this ...model ( Model, for want of any other word to sum up these ideas). I mean I understand what you have written, but applying these concepts even to your own thought process is difficult. I'm still making sense of these ideas myself and the constant struggle and pursuit is the only thing I am sure of.

[David Jamieson]

As suddenly as the brilliance of a meteorite appears is as suddenly as it is gone.
Still, there's many meterorites to come if you look into the inky black now and again. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Scott,

Ok, I'm starting to understand your point a little better.

I don't think of my view as opposing yours as such. I'm in favour of Pursuit and against apathy. Not saying your explanation contains apathy towards personal progress, just that I don't quite understand how effort is to be applied in this ...model ( Model, for want of any other word to sum up these ideas). I mean I understand what you have written, but applying these concepts even to your own thought process is difficult. I'm still making sense of these ideas myself and the constant struggle and pursuit is the only thing I am sure of.

Hi RenDaHai,

That is because it cannot be apprehended by the reasoning mind which is the mind of conceptualization and distinctions. So, many Ch'an Masters choose to directly point rather than explain. Explaining is using reason to indicate what is not bound by reason, which tends to lead to more reasoning, which is using more fire to put out a fire or water to dry yourself!

So those who use words to explain tend to use paradoxical statements in order to vaguely indicate what must be directly experienced to be understood.

Therefore one "tries without trying", "does without doing" and "learns without learning"! What this actually means you must perceive directly for yourself! When you do you will say to yourself, "Ahhhhhh!! THAT is what it means!" :)

[Scott R. Brown]

As suddenly as the brilliance of a meteorite appears is as suddenly as it is gone.
Still, there's many meterorites to come if you look into the inky black now and again. :)

Is the sky EVER inky black?

Sorry....I couldn't resist!:o

[David Jamieson]

Is the sky EVER inky black?

Sorry....I couldn't resist!:o

what isn't inky black without light? :p

[uki]

shaolin was a little forest of trees that grew into a great big forest of old growth incarnated spirits... errrr.... *cough* i mean... trees. ;)

[Scott R. Brown]

what isn't inky black without light? :p

when I look I see stars myself!:p

[Hendrik]

Once one recognizes they were never really sick they understand no medicine was ever necessary. But a person who "thinks" they are sick even though they are not truly sick, continues to take medicine thinking the medicine will heal them. But it won't because they are not truly sick to begin with.

This type of view is what it called Zen Crazy in China's history.
Similar with a person who look outside of his prison window and thinking he is already free even he is in prison within his cell.

Thus, it is well know in the Chinese Zen history on the truth of " Seeing one's buddha nature temperaliry doesnt end one's reincarnation."

that is exactly as some prisoner look out of the window and thinking he is free. Well, too bad he couldnt even move a step out his cell.






Until they realize they are not truly sick they will continue to "think" they "need" the medicine. :)


Sure, that until means after they undo all the habit and subsconcious programing and that take many many karpa or thousands of life cycle.

As the prisoner who think he is already free still have to wait for his term to finish before he can step out of the cell. That is a reality.

[Scott R. Brown]

This type of view is what it called Zen Crazy in China's history.
Similar with a person who look outside of his prison window and thinking he is already free even he is in prison within his cell.

Thus, it is well know in the Chinese Zen history on the truth of " Seeing one's buddha nature temperaliry doesnt end one's reincarnation."

that is exactly as some prisoner look out of the window and thinking he is free. Well, too bad he couldnt even move a step out his cell.






Sure, that until means after they undo all the habit and subsconcious programing and that take many many karpa or thousands of life cycle.

As the prisoner who think he is already free still have to wait for his term to finish before he can step out of the cell. That is a reality.

When you accept a false premise you are bound and trapped by that false premise. Since true freedom is a state of mind, even a prisoner in his cell is free when he perceives his true nature!

Chains are only chains when you conceive of them as chains!

[Hendrik]

When you accept a false premise you are bound and trapped by that false premise. Since true freedom is a state of mind, even a prisoner in his cell is free when he perceives his true nature!

Chains are only chains when you conceive of them as chains!


all the talk and idea and conceive, but still stuck within the prison cell's wall.

That is called fantasy.




BTW
true freedom is not a state of mind not even "know" but "BE".
"false premise, state of mind, perceives his true nature" is a product of gasping at the illusive. and that is not "BE" or out of the prison.

One might be able to see outside but until one is out of the prison, one is not free.


Thus, your view is great to let other to see the world outside of the prison cell, however, that is not adequate to get out of the prison cell.

As the teaching of the Buddhism, until one attains the 8 ground level of Boddhisatva, one doesnt have the ability to end life and death cycle.

Even if one have seen one's buddha nature, to the most is just attaining the first ground level of Boddhisatva. Still long way to go. not to mention if the seen one's buddha nature is just a speculation of mind or understanding from reading books, that doesnt even has a first ground level attainment.

[Scott R. Brown]

all the talk and idea and conceive, but still stuck within the prison cell's wall.

That is called fantasy.

The fantasy is believing there is a prison cell from the start!


BTW
true freedom is not a state of mind not even "know" but "BE".
"false premise, state of mind, perceives his true nature" is a product of gasping at the illusive. and that is not "BE" or out of the prison.

Lets not confuse a metaphorical expression for an absolute statement about reality.


One might be able to see outside but until one is out of the prison, one is not free.

Since one is outside the prison from the first all one need do is understand the prison is of their own making!


Thus, your view is great to let other to see the world outside of the prison cell, however, that is not adequate to get out of the prison cell.

Just because you are trapped within your own prison cell does not justify trapping others in there with you! Shame on you!

A Ch'an anecdotal story:

"When he was young the Ch'an Master Ma-tzu was known for his hard practicing. One day Huai-jang, came upon Ma-tzu meditating. Having heard of his reputation, Huai-jang decided to test Ma-tzu. Huai-jang asked Ma-tzu what is the purpose of his meditation. Ma-tzu replied that he was practicing to become an enlightened being, a Buddha.

Huai-jang then picked up a brick and started rubbing it with a rock. After some time observing Huai-jang's actions, Ma-tzu asked "Why are you rubbing the brick with a rock?"

Huai-jang answered, "I'm polishing it into a mirror."

Ma-tzu said, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a brick?"

Huai-jang's said, "How can you become a Buddha by practicing meditation?" Hearing these words, Ma-tzu had a realization."

[Hendrik]

Lets not confuse a metaphorical expression for an absolute statement about reality.


until one can get out of the prison and has done it. the rest are just talks.

[Hendrik]

It is about capable to get out of the prison and free instead of ALL TALK NO ACTION ZEN.


Who cares about using other's or using others' story to approve one's view? those got nothing to do with to be free.



A Ch'an anecdotal story:

"When he was young the Ch'an Master Ma-tzu was known for his hard practicing. One day Huai-jang, came upon Ma-tzu meditating. Having heard of his reputation, Huai-jang decided to test Ma-tzu. Huai-jang asked Ma-tzu what is the purpose of his meditation. Ma-tzu replied that he was practicing to become an enlightened being, a Buddha.

Huai-jang then picked up a brick and started rubbing it with a rock. After some time observing Huai-jang's actions, Ma-tzu asked "Why are you rubbing the brick with a rock?" he asked.

Huai-jang answered, "I'm polishing it into a mirror."

Ma-tzu said, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a brick?"

Huai-jang's said, "How can you become a Buddha by practicing meditation?" Hearing these words, Ma-tzu had a realization."[/QUOTE]

[Hendrik]

Just because you are trapped within your own prison cell does not justify trapping others in there with you! Shame on you!


The above statement is an evidence of attachement to one's view and when it is not approved, attempting to control via any means.

That is the prison, the survival prison wall. and until one could get out of these one knows not freedom or how to get there.

That is Because deep inside this person is the desire of Wanting to be approve or else will do anything to get it including personal attack ; just to keep the illusive ego survive and not threaten by its un approval view.


Thus, one can has an experience of have a glimse of the Buddha nature, however, as soon as one still control by the desire such as the desire of need to be approved above. One has never been free . similar to the person within the prison who sees the outside but trap within the walls.

[Scott R. Brown]

until one can get out of the prison and has done it. the rest are just talks.

Then why are you still talking?


It is about capable to get out of the prison and free instead of ALL TALK NO ACTION ZEN.

Then why are you still talking?

Since there is no prison from the start there is nothing to get out of. You are trapped within a prison of your own making. Free yourself first, then worry about others.



Who cares about using other's or using others' story to approve one's view? those got nothing to do with to be free.

Then why are you still talking?

Because anecdotes illustrate a point. How about address the point or follow your own advice by not saying anything from the first?


The above statement is an evidence of attachement to one's view and when it is not approved, attempting to control via any means.

That is the prison, the survival prison wall. and until one could get out of these one knows not freedom or how to get there.

That is Because deep inside this person is the desire of Wanting to be approve or else to do anything including personal attack just to keep the illusive ego survive and not threaten by its un approval view.

Thus, one can has an experience of have a glimse of the Buddha nature, however, as soon as one still control by the desire such as the desire of approval above. One has never been free as the person within the prison who sees the outside but trap within the walls.

When you start from a false premise you end up with a false conclusion! Work on discovering you own false premises rather than imposing them onto others!

or

Why are you projecting your own prison around someone not in your prison? Address your own prison before you concern yourself you trapping others within your own delusion!

[Hendrik]

Speak about you speak about me, what is the different?

As soon as one still wanting that control, approval, and survival to protect one's ego which one recognized and oneself, one is in prison, disregards of if one could see the mountain or rivers through the window of the prison.

Can one do it? to get out of the prison?
that needs lots of Undo dharma and practice or cultivation to undo the desire of control, approval, and survival of the ego.

Until then, it doesnt matter who said what or what Hui Neng said or What Matzu said or logical or reasoning or arguing.....etc.

Those stuffs do nothing to undo the desire or set one free.

PS. dont you notice your post always full of " You You and me me" which is an indication of taking your ego so seriously and keep discriminating and make seperation instead of being in non dual which the enlightenment beings support to dwel in?



What good is a few prison cell mates argue about who is free within a prison cell?




Then why are you still talking?



Then why are you still talking?

Since there is no prison from the start there is nothing to get out of. You are trapped within a prison of your own making. Free yourself first, then worry about others.




Then why are you still talking?

Because anecdotes illustrate a point. How about address the point or follow your own advice by not saying anything from the first?



When you start from a false premise you end up with a false conclusion! Work on discovering you own false premises rather than imposing them onto others!

or

Why are you projecting your own prison around someone not in your prison? Address your own prison before you concern yourself you trapping others within your own delusion!

[Scott R. Brown]

Speak about you speak about me, what is the different?

As soon as one still wanting that control, approval, and survival to protect one's ego which one recognized and oneself, one is in prison, disregards of if one could see the mountain or rivers through the window of the prison.

If you are so concerned about, "Speak about you speak about me, what is the different?", then why do you keep speaking yourself? If what others (myself in particular) say is so meaningless, why is what you say more meaningful? Is this not a projection of your own ego and should you not be more concerned with your own ego projections rather than what you think is an ego projection of others?

Why are you concerned about the prison you project onto others when you have yet to address the prison of your own making?


Can one do it? to get out of the prison?
that needs lots of Undo dharma and practice or cultivation to undo the desire of control, approval, and survival of the ego.

If you are so concerned if others and can do it, why do you not first address your own ability to "do it" instead of projecting your own inability onto others?


Until then, it doesnt matter who said what or what Hui Neng said or What Matzu said or logical or reasoning or arguing.....etc.

If it does not matter to you what Hui-Neng or Ma-tzu said that is fine, but then why should anyone care about anything you say? Are not these two more recognized and influential as teachers than you? When in doubt who should one listen to, you or Hui-Neng and Ma-tzu? Who is promoting their own ego here?

If logic, reasoning, and arguing do not matter to you, then why do you constantly attempt to use logic, reason and argue yourself?


Those stuffs do nothing to undo the desire or set one free.

They have provided a greater benefit to others down through the ages than your own words have, so why should others ignore them, but listen to you?

Everyone is responsible for their own realization, why do you spend so much time criticizing others for not living up to your own arbitrary standards when you don't live up to them yourself?


PS. dont you notice your post always full of " You You and me me" which is an indication of taking your ego so seriously and keep discriminating and make seperation instead of being in non dual which the enlightenment beings support to dwel in?

Don't you notice that YOU always post full of "You You and me me" which is an indication of taking your ego so seriously and keep discriminating and make separation instead of being in non-dual in which enlightened beings are supposed to dwell?

In other words, instead of creating in your own mind flaws and then projecting them onto others, why don't you apply the arbitrary standards you impose onto others to yourself first?


What good is a few prison cell mates argue about who is free within a prison cell?

If you are in prison how can you judge accurately who is in prison and who is not, since the view from your prison is so poor?

Why do you create arbitrary standards out of thin air, project them onto to others, but not apply them to yourself first?

What good is imposing your prison onto others when you cannot even get out of, much less see, the prison of your own making?

When you start from a false premise and cherish that false premise it colors all of your other judgments.

Since you live within a prison of your own making, why do you not perceive and rectify the errors that have trapped your own mind rather than project your errors onto to those whom you do not understand?

Why do you cherish your prison so? Free yourself first, then presume to correct others!

[Hendrik]

If you are in prison how can you judge accurately who is in prison and who is not, since the view from your prison is so poor?



just simply use one's eyes to see who is in front of one within the same prison cell.

Dont waste time on all the theory, instead using the time to UNDO one's trap is a better investment. We all are still stuck in the prison.