Meditation

[Scott R. Brown]

oh, you're no fun anymore...

LOL!! Well of course many, if not most, people prefer the dilly-dally route and that is okay too. I suppose there is no real hurry or deadline.

On the other hand, it could be said that many people prefer to dilly-dally because it is familiar. It is always more comfortable to go with the familiar rather than the unfamiliar, on the other hand it is often more exciting to go with the unfamiliar!

Either way it is all good, it is only an issue if you are unhappy with where you are!

And I have NO IDEA where I am!

[Hendrik]

Hi Nexus,

Thank you once again for taking the time to reply to my comments!

Here are a few more:

Knowing the Self means being the Self.

When the concept of “knowing” is created an "objective thing to know" mutually arises. To conceive of a "Self" to "know" is to objectify "Self". When "Self" is conceived it becomes “I”. If "Self" is not conceived no “I” arises and there is no "Self" to "know" and no conception of "knowing". Why conceive of "Self" and "knowing" in the first place? If there is no "Self" there is no "knowing". If there is no "knowing" there is no "Self". So why be concerned with any of it?................

From the above clearly you both dont know what is self what is Know and what is spinning the mind to speculate and what is droping the mind and let things surface by itself in suchness of awareness.

These above type of "who knows it more debate or reasoning" is only going to get you both stuck. why go this path? a wasting of life and trap. no liberation because even if you think you win you still stuck. and how is this type of ideas or teaching going to help others? cant it cant but create more stuck for others.


As an analogy, you both are debating within the Microsoft Internet Explorer platform, and no matter how you debate within the Microsoft Internet Explorer platform you are not going to go beyond the Microsoft Internet explorer platform.

Until you can get to the Window operationg system, and go even further to be able to shut the whole computer down, you are within the limited Microsoft Internet Explorer domain. Thus, you dont know what it is or how is it when the Microsoft Internet Explorer is shut down totally, further more the Window Vista is shut down....etc.



Why waste life to debate on something you think instead of you have been there at least once?

But then may be it is full of sense this type of conversation taking place because this discussion is intended to boost ego instead of learning to become liberate? thus, that is a great reason why this type of debate exist.

[Hendrik]

What can be easier than that? Self-knowledge is then simple to attain.

When there is no “Self” there is no "easy or difficult" and no "simple", there is no “self-knowledge", and nothing "to attain"!


------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is a confusion without knowing BODY and APPLICATION is unity. BUT thinking BODY can be APPLICATION without transformation into a particular Identity and Knowing not Application is needed for Creation.




When the Buddha is teaching, there raise the Teacher identity with an intention to teach. That identity is a "self", however, the Buddha doesnt take this identity as him.

Once his teaching is done, this identity naturally drop.


Buddha nature is the BODY and Transformation of Identity needed is the APPLICATION. Identity is the begining of the Creation.

Without the BODY there is no APPLICATION. WITHOUT the APPLICATION the BODY is useless.


If there is no Identity then there will be no application. similar to one cannot see the electricity, however one can see the light power by the electricity.

seeing the light is a must due to the present of electricity. light is not electricity but it is a transformation of electricity based on condition.

electricity is the Body and Light is the Application.












---------------------------------


Your duty is to be and not to be this or that.

When there is no “Self” there is no “duty”, no “being”, no “this”, no “that”!

)[/QUOTE]

---------------------------

These above are from a confusing mind and a mistaken mind.

The proper teaching or practice is

Not attached to self, Not attached to duty, Not attached to Being, Not attached to this. Not attached to that.



Again, a teacher's duty is to teach thus it needs to take a teacher's identity.
and the buddha nature is capable to do 10000000000000000000 limitless transformation in to different identity to complete all the duty without attach to anyone identity naturally.


Trying to keep oneself in NO DUTY NO BEING NO THIS and NO THAT is called dead water cant have Dragon in Zen or this is the path of Extinction or Dull emptiness one turn into stone or rock or wood with this type of practice. it is a total misleading.



and

duty is to be and not to be this or that. is just from some one who is confused himself.

[Scott R. Brown]

Why waste life to debate on something you think instead of you have been there at least once?

Why have you created a debate when all I see is a discussion between friends. Your time may be better spent considering your own illusory projections rather than creating ones for others!

You have no idea what either of us have directly experienced, or not. You have projected your own ego-centric views on to our conversation and create a debate in your own mind.

There is a difference between describing a direct experience and aping the teachings of others. The words may appear the same even though the source is different. You have demonstrated no ability to distinguish between the two!

Your own ego projections color your judgment and once again, as is your pattern of the past, you have projected your own ego-centric views on to others!

But then may be it is full of sense this type of conversation taking place because this discussion is intended to boost ego instead of learning to become liberate? thus, that is a great reason why this type of debate exist.

Whose ego is this comment meant to boost?

If you are so concerned with the egos of others, why have you imposed your own ego-centric views on to the conversation of others.

Whose ego are you most concerned with, your own, or others? To date, it appears your ego motivates you to be overly concerned with your imaginings of the ego-centric views of others, and blinds you to your own!

You may have gained no benefit from this conversation, other than ego-centrically casting judgment upon it, why do you think it is of no benefit to anyone else?

So far you have demonstrated no understanding of the use of "expedient means"!

[Hendrik]

Why have you created a debate when all I see is a discussion between friends. Your time may be better spent considering your own illusory projections rather than creating ones for others!

You have no idea what either of us have directly experienced, or not. You have projected your own ego-centric views on to our conversation and create a debate in your own mind.

There is a difference between describing a direct experience and aping the teachings of others. The words may appear the same even though the source is different. You have demonstrated no ability to distinguish between the two!

Your own ego projections color your judgment and once again, as is your pattern of the past, you have projected your own ego-centric views on to others!



Whose ego is this comment meant to boost?

If you are so concerned with the egos of others, why have you imposed your own ego-centric views on to the conversation of others.

Whose ego are you most concerned with, your own, or others? To date, it appears your ego motivates you to be overly concerned with your imaginings of the ego-centric views of others, and blinds you to your own!

You may have gained no benefit from this conversation, other than ego-centrically casting judgment upon it, why do you think it is of no benefit to anyone else?

So far you have demonstrated no understanding of the use of "expedient means"!

You certainly are 100000000000000% correct to express the above using your present mind set.

However,

If there is just a single chance you discard this mind set and be open, you will be closer to liberation.


Everything is up to which identity you choose and either you to attach to the identity or not.



Best wishes.

[Scott R. Brown]

It is interesting how, in your imaginings, when others converse it is debate for the purpose of ego, but when you participate in the conversation it is, “What?”

Why do you criticize what you imagine to be a debate for the sake of ego between others, and then create a debate of your own?

I spy a bit of hypocrisy here!

The above is a confusion without knowing BODY and APPLICATION is unity. BUT thinking BODY can be APPLICATION without transformation into a particular Identity and Knowing not Application is needed for Creation.

The confusion is yours, you have misapplied the principle of “Body and Use” to the previous comments.

Identity is an illusion. It exists within a specific context, yet has no underlying reality. It is like a blank white page with the imagining of a circle upon it. While the “imagining” of a circle is real, there is no circle on the page. The imagining of a circle does not change the blank page. It is pretend and inherently it both exists and does not exist except that “exist” and “not exist” are themselves imaginings. Identity and the circle are artificial projections of mind. The blank page is always a blank page no matter what is projected upon it!

When the Buddha is teaching, there raise the Teacher identity with an intention to teach. That identity is a "self", however, the Buddha doesnt take this identity as him.

Once his teaching is done, this identity naturally drop.

Just as a circle is imagined upon a white page, Buddha is an imagining. He is an “expedient means” and nothing more. There is no “Self” there is merely the “appearance” of a “Self”!

The “identity” teacher is not for the sake of the teacher, but for the sake of learners. When one realizes “from the first nothing is”, Buddha identity disappears as does the conception of learning. For Buddha there was no identity of a teacher, the identity of “teacher” is a projection others created!

These are all expedient means. Inherently there is no Buddha, and nothing to learn. So one may play the game and spend much time following methods and in the end realize “from the first nothing is” or they may cut to the chase and realize intuitively, “from the first nothing is”!

Buddha nature is the BODY and Transformation of Identity needed is the APPLICATION. Identity is the begining of the Creation.

"Buddha nature is the BODY" is an artificial, conditional, illusory concept, an "expedient means" used for a purpose.

Buddha nature is an illusion for use by those who require ”expedient means”, inherently there is no Buddha and no Buddha nature. It is a projection others create in order to benefit from “expedient means”!

When nothing arises there is no creation and nothing is extinguished. There is no need for creation when “from the first, nothing is”!

Without the BODY there is no APPLICATION. WITHOUT the APPLICATION the BODY is useless.

Now who is confused? You treat Oneness as if it were two. There is no “application” and “body”. The two are the same thing. It would be more proper to say. Body IS Application, Application IS Body, it would be even more appropriate to not say anything about it at all!

If there is no Identity then there will be no application. similar to one cannot see the electricity, however one can see the light power by the electricity.

seeing the light is a must due to the present of electricity. light is not electricity but it is a transformation of electricity based on condition.

electricity is the Body and Light is the Application.

“Tao does nothing, yet through Tao all things are accomplished”

If identity were necessary for creation to occur nothing could occur from the start because Tao is identity-less. Any identity others perceive relating to Tao is the identity they project upon it!

That identity is required for application/use to occur is an illusion! Identity is not “Body”, it is “A” body, a transient, illusory body, a portion of a whole. Since it is transient and illusory and only a portion of a whole, it is inherently non-existent, just as an imaginary circle on a blank white page is illusory, transient and inherently non-existent!

Conditions are transient and therefore only exist within a relative context. Identity exists within a relative context. However, identity remains an illusion because it is transient and not permanent. It is a creation for a purpose, an “expedient means”.

You could have used a better metaphor for “lamp and light” than “electricity and light”, although more properly it is “flame and light”. Your metaphor is incomplete, because electricity may exists without light, while a flame, within the context of the metaphor, cannot! A flame IS light, while electricity is not light, it produces light!

These above are from a confusing mind and a mistaken mind.

The proper teaching or practice is

Not attached to self, Not attached to duty, Not attached to Being, Not attached to this. Not attached to that.

Yes…and the “confusing mind” and “mistaken mind” are your own!

When there is no “Self”, no “duty”, no “being”, no “this” and no “that” there is no “attachment”! These only exist for the mind that is attached to phenomena. When it is realized that “from the first, nothing is” all these fall away as a natural consequence “of themselves”.

Again, a teacher's duty is to teach thus it needs to take a teacher's identity.
and the buddha nature is capable to do 10000000000000000000 limitless transformation in to different identity to complete all the duty without attach to anyone identity naturally.

When a teacher conceives of teaching, he creates a need for students! There are no teachers and no students when there is no “Self”. Teachers and students are only important to those whith attachments.

Buddha did not create for himself the “identity” of a “teacher”. This occurs in the minds of those with attachments. When no attachments exist, Buddha disappears!

Trying to keep oneself in NO DUTY NO BEING NO THIS and NO THAT is called dead water cant have Dragon in Zen or this is the path of Extinction or Dull emptiness one turn into stone or rock or wood with this type of practice. it is a total misleading.

You are confused again…..there is no “keeping” anything, anywhere at all! Duty is an artificial and conditional construct as are “being”, “this” and “that”. There is only “dead water” when one is attached to “keeping” anything. If one conceives of “duty”, “being”, “this”, and “that” he is “keeping” those concepts. The problem is not “duty”, “being”, “this”, and “that” they are conditional and therefore illusory concepts, a problem is created when one attempts to “keep” to anything, “Keeping” IS attachment! If these are not conceived, there is no “dead water”, which is itself a conditional and illusory concept generated by attachments!

No one said anything about extinction. That is your illusory creation.

duty is to be and not to be this or that. is just from some one who is confused himself.

When one conceives of “duty” one is bound by that concept. When there is no “Self” there is no “duty”, no compulsion to do or be anything. What is, IS without interference!

[Nexus]

LOL!! Well of course many, if not most, people prefer the dilly-dally route and that is okay too. I suppose there is no real hurry or deadline.

On the other hand, it could be said that many people prefer to dilly-dally because it is familiar. It is always more comfortable to go with the familiar rather than the unfamiliar, on the other hand it is often more exciting to go with the unfamiliar!

Either way it is all good, it is only an issue if you are unhappy with where you are!

And I have NO IDEA where I am!

Scott,

Regarding your previous post and the one quoted above, well said =)

Familiar gives the sense of being in control and knowing what to expect. Unfamiliar gives the sense of having no control and having no expectations. We could say that in reality, whether you are steering the sails or simply letting the winds take you, you always end up where you're supposed to, so having no idea where you are is exactly where you are supposed to be.

Thank you.

[Scott R. Brown]

You certainly are 100000000000000% correct to express the above using your present mind set.

However,

If there is just a single chance you discard this mind set and be open, you will be closer to liberation.

You are bound by your own conception of what you "think" is my mindset, and this is where you fall into error!

You presume to know what you do not know and this is your own attachment to ego-centric mind.

Perhaps you would benefit more by concerning yourself with your own mindset and your own liberation rather than projecting your ego-centric interpretations on to others!

Everything is up to which identity you choose and either you to attach to the identity or not.

What is this attachment you have to what you "imagine" are the attachments of others? Mind your own store and allow others to mind their own!

Your own identity attachment is where you need to focus.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,

Regarding your previous post and the one quoted above, well said =)

Familiar gives the sense of being in control and knowing what to expect. Unfamiliar gives the sense of having no control and having no expectations. We could say that in reality, whether you are steering the sails or simply letting the winds take you, you always end up where you're supposed to, so having no idea where you are is exactly where you are supposed to be.

Thank you.

Well stated Nexus!

It is always a pleasure to discuss "nothing in particular" with you, LOL!

[Hendrik]

Identity is an illusion. It exists within a specific context, yet has no underlying reality. !

If so why cant you drop it but continous on with a long pages of reasoning to make your point to support the identity you love?


interesting isnt it? human. hahaha

Hahaha.

[Nexus]

Well stated Nexus!

It is always a pleasure to discuss "nothing in particular" with you, LOL!

I also LOL'd.

[taai gihk yahn]

Familiar gives the sense of being in control and knowing what to expect. Unfamiliar gives the sense of having no control and having no expectations. We could say that in reality, whether you are steering the sails or simply letting the winds take you, you always end up where you're supposed to, so having no idea where you are is exactly where you are supposed to be.

who are you?!? It does not appear that we've met before, but well met indeed;

what is the boundary between the known and the unknown, between the familiar and the unfamiliar? between repetition and re-creation?

more importantly, can anything said to be repeated at all? and if not, can anything truly be said to be "familiar"? why then, might we not see this? how is it that we miss the perpetual newness of each day? why does the mind categorize and label to the exclusion of this?

and then, how is it that the former may transform into the latter? how do we become more sensitive to the freshness of each moment??

people say meditation is something to be practiced; if so, practiced for what use? when we sit / stand / lie and let the body be still, allow the chatter of the mind to fall away, what are we doing this for?

how does one rise to meet the challenge of life?

[Hendrik]

people say meditation is something to be practiced; if so, practiced for what use? when we sit / stand / lie and let the body be still, allow the chatter of the mind to fall away, what are we doing this for?

how does one rise to meet the challenge of life?

Meditation is for practice on how to penetrate the attachment trap under a static or close environment condition. It is to prepare one so that one be able to penetrate attachement trap in dynamic situation.


So, while practice meditation, if one could go far enough to break all the attachement barrier. Then, one could see one's original face.

However, seeing this original face doesnt mean one has attained liberation. it only means one knows the original face.

Even as the Six patriach, he got to then practice dynamic attachement barrier breaking in every instant of dynamic daily life, from awake to sleep condition.


The above is the path of Buddhism the teaching of the Zen patriach.


Saying the above, if one keep speculate and debate and argue about ideas and ideas of NO Mind, yes mind.....NO self, Yes self.... etc without knowing the whole story is just to not attached and let go. One is trapping one self with one's own mind.

Only practice non attachement one can go beyond the mind and make use the mind otherwise one becomes the slave of one's own mind.



In this new age, most have no direction and process of cultivation, thus wasting life and do no good for one's living. That is very sad.

However, with proper direction and process, in an instant one will know one has a choice of liberation.






BTW. one doesnt need to stop one's mind or to do something to stop the mind.

When one aware and doesnt attached to one's thought, the thought naturally will dissolve.
Stoping mind is a sickness of Zen which is the practice of Dead Water cant cultivate Dragon.

However, until one reach the 8th Ground of Boddhisatva level it is very difficult for one to penetrate one's attachement. even if one intended to and work very hard. one stuck because one's samadhi is not yet develop. Thus, there is where Mantra is used as an aid to penetrate the attachement.

However, one must be a vegitarian and taking the 5 precepts before using any type of mantra. this is because if one is not even decisive to let go eating meat and taking life. one is not serious enought to break any attachement.

It doesnt making any sense for a person who attached to food's taste and claiming to be cultivating non attachement.


Sure, some will said "well, I eat it but I have no attachement." that is the biggest lie.

[Scott R. Brown]

If so why cant you drop it but continous on with a long pages of reasoning to make your point to support the identity you love?


interesting isnt it? human. hahaha

Hahaha.

Clearly explaining anything to you cannot get past your ego-centric attachment, so I won't take the time to do so!

[Scott R. Brown]

who are you?!? It does not appear that we've met before, but well met indeed;

what is the boundary between the known and the unknown, between the familiar and the unfamiliar? between repetition and re-creation?

more importantly, can anything said to be repeated at all? and if not, can anything truly be said to be "familiar"? why then, might we not see this? how is it that we miss the perpetual newness of each day? why does the mind categorize and label to the exclusion of this?

and then, how is it that the former may transform into the latter? how do we become more sensitive to the freshness of each moment??

people say meditation is something to be practiced; if so, practiced for what use? when we sit / stand / lie and let the body be still, allow the chatter of the mind to fall away, what are we doing this for?

how does one rise to meet the challenge of life?

NOW who is taking the fun out of it?

I'll give you a hint.....it isn't you You YOU, and it isn't me Me ME!!!