|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 15, 2014 7:06:51 GMT -5
JLY: You're right. In fact, Rajneesh used to routinely insult supposedly enlightened people just to see how they would react. If they acted insulted, he would laugh and tell them that they still had a long way to go. In the book "Dropping Ashes on the Buddha," a student supposedly told ZM Seung Sahn to go fxxx himself. ZMSS laughed and replied, "If you practice harder and get clearer, I'll give you back your words in the future as a special present." (that may not be the exact wording because it's been a long time since I've read the book, but that was the gist of it) Once during a dharma talk at a retreat in Lexington, KY, ZMSS was taking questions from the audience. I held up my hand for his attention, and when he called on me, I put an angry scowl on my face, shot him a bird, and asked very loudly, "What is this?" Ha ha. I just wanted to see what he would do. He never hesitated. He immediately raised his hand and shot me back a bird. He then rotated his hand slowly toward the rest of the audience and said, "It's not a finger! Do you understand? It's not a finger!" Only about five people in the audience understood and laughed. Everyone else sat in stunned silence. Ha ha. That was one of my funniest interactions with him. It seems that the art of insulting someone to get a reaction which is then evaluated to determine that person's worth in the Zen system is a cultivated segment of the practice, is this an accurate understanding?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 15, 2014 9:48:50 GMT -5
JLY: You're right. In fact, Rajneesh used to routinely insult supposedly enlightened people just to see how they would react. If they acted insulted, he would laugh and tell them that they still had a long way to go. In the book "Dropping Ashes on the Buddha," a student supposedly told ZM Seung Sahn to go fxxx himself. ZMSS laughed and replied, "If you practice harder and get clearer, I'll give you back your words in the future as a special present." (that may not be the exact wording because it's been a long time since I've read the book, but that was the gist of it) Once during a dharma talk at a retreat in Lexington, KY, ZMSS was taking questions from the audience. I held up my hand for his attention, and when he called on me, I put an angry scowl on my face, shot him a bird, and asked very loudly, "What is this?" Ha ha. I just wanted to see what he would do. He never hesitated. He immediately raised his hand and shot me back a bird. He then rotated his hand slowly toward the rest of the audience and said, "It's not a finger! Do you understand? It's not a finger!" Only about five people in the audience understood and laughed. Everyone else sat in stunned silence. Ha ha. That was one of my funniest interactions with him. It seems that the art of insulting someone to get a reaction which is then evaluated to determine that person's worth in the Zen system is a cultivated segment of the practice, is this an accurate understanding? No, it has nothing specifically to do with Zen. Rajneesh was originally a Hindu philosopher, and he was sort of an outrageous character. He insulted people who were revered by others because he thought it was fun as well as educational. It's like puncturing a hot air balloon, and he often left people speechless or deeply offended. Zen contains a lot of humor, and Zen people often express that humor in playful ways. I purposefully shot ZMSS a bird because I thought it would be fun to see how he would react. I wanted to see if there would be any hesitation (there wasn't). It turned out that the way the audience reacted was even funnier. A year later I met a professor from the U of K who had been at that retreat and he was surprised that I was attending another retreat with ZMSS. He said something like, "After what you did last year, I thought you disliked ZMSS." That remark, and the lack of understanding it revealed, was also pretty funny. FWIW, ZMSS was a blast to be around because he had a fantastic sense of humor and he was always in a playful mood. He was one of the clearest people I've ever met. Can you imagine any other spiritual tradition where you can shoot one of its leaders (the Pope, for example) a bird and it not be considered offensive? Ha ha. Remember, it is not a finger. If that gesture is considered an insult, then the insult in an intellectual interpretation of what is seen--it's a mind-created idea. If it's considered a finger, that is also an intellectual distinction. Zen is all about isness rather than ideas ABOUT isness. Most of the Zen dialogues between ZM's that are contained in books are examples of people playing in emptiness. Here is a typical exchange between a ZM and a new momk who has arrived at the monastery: ZM: Where are you from? (this seems like an innocent question, but it's not) Monk: I'm from such and such a city south of here. ZM: You ricebag! Still roaming around outside the temple? IOW, the monk was still stuck in separateness and had not yet found the absolute, so he was unable to play at the level of the ZM who was familiar with both worlds.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 15, 2014 12:35:20 GMT -5
It seems that the art of insulting someone to get a reaction which is then evaluated to determine that person's worth in the Zen system is a cultivated segment of the practice, is this an accurate understanding? No, it has nothing specifically to do with Zen. Rajneesh was originally a Hindu philosopher, and he was sort of an outrageous character. He insulted people who were revered by others because he thought it was fun as well as educational. It's like puncturing a hot air balloon, and he often left people speechless or deeply offended. Zen contains a lot of humor, and Zen people often express that humor in playful ways. I purposefully shot ZMSS a bird because I thought it would be fun to see how he would react. I wanted to see if there would be any hesitation (there wasn't). It turned out that the way the audience reacted was even funnier. A year later I met a professor from the U of K who had been at that retreat and he was surprised that I was attending another retreat with ZMSS. He said something like, "After what you did last year, I thought you disliked ZMSS." That remark, and the lack of understanding it revealed, was also pretty funny. FWIW, ZMSS was a blast to be around because he had a fantastic sense of humor and he was always in a playful mood. He was one of the clearest people I've ever met. Can you imagine any other spiritual tradition where you can shoot one of its leaders (the Pope, for example) a bird and it not be considered offensive? Ha ha. Remember, it is not a finger. If that gesture is considered an insult, then the insult in an intellectual interpretation of what is seen--it's a mind-created idea. If it's considered a finger, that is also an intellectual distinction. Zen is all about isness rather than ideas ABOUT isness. Most of the Zen dialogues between ZM's that are contained in books are examples of people playing in emptiness. Here is a typical exchange between a ZM and a new momk who has arrived at the monastery: ZM: Where are you from? (this seems like an innocent question, but it's not) Monk: I'm from such and such a city south of here. ZM: You ricebag! Still roaming around outside the temple?IOW, the monk was still stuck in separateness and had not yet found the absolute, so he was unable to play at the level of the ZM who was familiar with both worlds. Rajneesh suggested that the early, unrecorded "lost" years of Jesus were spent in India learning deep spiritual truths. That may or may not be true, but I would say that whoever taught Jesus must have also taught that ZM, both of whom point to the same location of the "temple".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2014 21:31:25 GMT -5
No-self or Not-self? by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (I added emphasis here and there) Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress. Just think of all the TMT that could have been saved if Descartes had known about the Buddha! He would have concluded "I think, therefore I suffer."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2014 21:59:38 GMT -5
No, it has nothing specifically to do with Zen. Rajneesh was originally a Hindu philosopher, and he was sort of an outrageous character. He insulted people who were revered by others because he thought it was fun as well as educational. It's like puncturing a hot air balloon, and he often left people speechless or deeply offended. Zen contains a lot of humor, and Zen people often express that humor in playful ways. I purposefully shot ZMSS a bird because I thought it would be fun to see how he would react. I wanted to see if there would be any hesitation (there wasn't). It turned out that the way the audience reacted was even funnier. A year later I met a professor from the U of K who had been at that retreat and he was surprised that I was attending another retreat with ZMSS. He said something like, "After what you did last year, I thought you disliked ZMSS." That remark, and the lack of understanding it revealed, was also pretty funny. FWIW, ZMSS was a blast to be around because he had a fantastic sense of humor and he was always in a playful mood. He was one of the clearest people I've ever met. Can you imagine any other spiritual tradition where you can shoot one of its leaders (the Pope, for example) a bird and it not be considered offensive? Ha ha. Remember, it is not a finger. If that gesture is considered an insult, then the insult in an intellectual interpretation of what is seen--it's a mind-created idea. If it's considered a finger, that is also an intellectual distinction. Zen is all about isness rather than ideas ABOUT isness. Most of the Zen dialogues between ZM's that are contained in books are examples of people playing in emptiness. Here is a typical exchange between a ZM and a new momk who has arrived at the monastery: ZM: Where are you from? (this seems like an innocent question, but it's not) Monk: I'm from such and such a city south of here. ZM: You ricebag! Still roaming around outside the temple?IOW, the monk was still stuck in separateness and had not yet found the absolute, so he was unable to play at the level of the ZM who was familiar with both worlds. Rajneesh suggested that the early, unrecorded "lost" years of Jesus were spent in India learning deep spiritual truths. That may or may not be true, but I would say that whoever taught Jesus must have also taught that ZM, both of whom point to the same location of the "temple". Ain't nothin' up there but dust, rocks, the fires of the stars, and an expanse so vast as to defy any imagination.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2014 22:13:46 GMT -5
Just think of all the TMT that could have been saved if Descartes had known about the Buddha! He would have concluded "I think, therefore I suffer." Or maybe "I think I am separate from God, therefore I philosophize"
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 15, 2014 22:54:23 GMT -5
Rajneesh suggested that the early, unrecorded "lost" years of Jesus were spent in India learning deep spiritual truths. That may or may not be true, but I would say that whoever taught Jesus must have also taught that ZM, both of whom point to the same location of the "temple". Ain't nothin' up there but dust, rocks, the fires of the stars, and an expanse so vast as to defy any imagination. You are imagining a kingdom up there? Not at all. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you, and that within that body/temple is where God/Self is found. The ZM accused the monk of wandering around outside the temple which is a way of saying the monk was lost in his imagination...in this case, imaging a self based, in some part, on some geographical location, a worldly ID, rather than an ID based upon True Self, the Kingdom of God, found within the bodily temple.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2014 23:10:43 GMT -5
Ain't nothin' up there but dust, rocks, the fires of the stars, and an expanse so vast as to defy any imagination. You are imagining a kingdom up there? No, I wasn't. ... whoever taught Jesus must have also taught that ZM, both of whom point to the same location of the "temple". ... ZM's middle finger was pointing to he sky ... the temple, is not a location.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2014 1:29:53 GMT -5
Ain't nothin' up there but dust, rocks, the fires of the stars, and an expanse so vast as to defy any imagination. You are imagining a kingdom up there? Not at all. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you, and that within that body/temple is where God/Self is found. The ZM accused the monk of wandering around outside the temple which is a way of saying the monk was lost in his imagination...in this case, imaging a self based, in some part, on some geographical location, a worldly ID, rather than an ID based upon True Self, the Kingdom of God, found within the bodily temple. When the inner and outer are no longer separate, there is no place the temple isn't and no place it is..
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 16, 2014 7:26:17 GMT -5
You are imagining a kingdom up there? Not at all. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you, and that within that body/temple is where God/Self is found. The ZM accused the monk of wandering around outside the temple which is a way of saying the monk was lost in his imagination...in this case, imaging a self based, in some part, on some geographical location, a worldly ID, rather than an ID based upon True Self, the Kingdom of God, found within the bodily temple. When the inner and outer are no longer separate, there is no place the temple isn't and no place it is.. Agreed. But in the case of the ZM and young monk, the monk hasn't yet realized this. When he knows who he is within, he will simultaneously know who he is without as well.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 16, 2014 8:58:03 GMT -5
You are imagining a kingdom up there? Not at all. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you, and that within that body/temple is where God/Self is found. The ZM accused the monk of wandering around outside the temple which is a way of saying the monk was lost in his imagination...in this case, imaging a self based, in some part, on some geographical location, a worldly ID, rather than an ID based upon True Self, the Kingdom of God, found within the bodily temple. When the inner and outer are no longer separate, there is no place the temple isn't and no place it is.. Precisely, but the question was an investigatory challenge to probe the monk's understanding. If the monk had understood, how could he have answered the ZM's question in a way that the ZM would have understood that he understood? It is a kind of game, and quite playful, but realizations are required even to enter the game.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 16, 2014 9:26:16 GMT -5
It seems that the art of insulting someone to get a reaction which is then evaluated to determine that person's worth in the Zen system is a cultivated segment of the practice, is this an accurate understanding? No, it has nothing specifically to do with Zen. Rajneesh was originally a Hindu philosopher, and he was sort of an outrageous character. He insulted people who were revered by others because he thought it was fun as well as educational. It's like puncturing a hot air balloon, and he often left people speechless or deeply offended. Zen contains a lot of humor, and Zen people often express that humor in playful ways. I purposefully shot ZMSS a bird because I thought it would be fun to see how he would react. I wanted to see if there would be any hesitation (there wasn't). It turned out that the way the audience reacted was even funnier. A year later I met a professor from the U of K who had been at that retreat and he was surprised that I was attending another retreat with ZMSS. He said something like, "After what you did last year, I thought you disliked ZMSS." That remark, and the lack of understanding it revealed, was also pretty funny. FWIW, ZMSS was a blast to be around because he had a fantastic sense of humor and he was always in a playful mood. He was one of the clearest people I've ever met. Can you imagine any other spiritual tradition where you can shoot one of its leaders (the Pope, for example) a bird and it not be considered offensive? Ha ha. Remember, it is not a finger. If that gesture is considered an insult, then the insult in an intellectual interpretation of what is seen--it's a mind-created idea. If it's considered a finger, that is also an intellectual distinction. Zen is all about isness rather than ideas ABOUT isness. Most of the Zen dialogues between ZM's that are contained in books are examples of people playing in emptiness. Here is a typical exchange between a ZM and a new momk who has arrived at the monastery: ZM: Where are you from? (this seems like an innocent question, but it's not) Monk: I'm from such and such a city south of here. ZM: You ricebag! Still roaming around outside the temple? IOW, the monk was still stuck in separateness and had not yet found the absolute, so he was unable to play at the level of the ZM who was familiar with both worlds. Jesus was pretty good at it too. On just one occasion he told the Pharisees: You are like white-washed tombs, pretty and clean on the outside but on the inside, rotting flesh and dead men's bones. And he wasn't merely being unkind and malicious, he was just showing them what they were, IOW, he was just telling the truth. sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2014 10:56:10 GMT -5
When the inner and outer are no longer separate, there is no place the temple isn't and no place it is.. Precisely, but the question was an investigatory challenge to probe the monk's understanding. If the monk had understood, how could he have answered the ZM's question in a way that the ZM would have understood that he understood? It is a kind of game, and quite playful, but realizations are required even to enter the game. Do you see this playful game as part of the structure that is Zen? Are you aware of Zen as a process identifiable by its name?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 16, 2014 12:23:04 GMT -5
Precisely, but the question was an investigatory challenge to probe the monk's understanding. If the monk had understood, how could he have answered the ZM's question in a way that the ZM would have understood that he understood? It is a kind of game, and quite playful, but realizations are required even to enter the game. Do you see this playful game as part of the structure that is Zen? Are you aware of Zen as a process identifiable by its name? Only certain branches of Zen enjoy or promote this sort of play, which is called "dharma combat." In the same way, only certain branches of Zen utilize and place importance on koans and koan study. Zen is a spiritual tradition, a Buddhist sect; it is also a way of life; and it is much much more (so much more that it is hard to explain without writing a book about it). Initially, what is now called "Zen" entered China as Buddhists came from India, and it was called "Chan," which I think means meditation. Chan practitioners interacted with traditional Chinese Taoists (both traditions have much in common), and what we now consider Zen lineages got started. When Zen came to Japan, it permeated the culture, and began to influence all of the arts as well as everyday life. The Japanese realized via Zen that any activity could be raised to an art form. Flower arranging, the tea ceremony, kendo, the Noh drama, haiku poetry, etc. all came from Zen. Zen is like stripping everything away to the bare essentials, so a Zen garden may only contain a few strategically placed rocks and plants to simulate a mystical view of the natural world. In the broadest sense Zen means "Keep a still mind and do whatever needs to be done. Focus on what is here and now. Meditate as a way of becoming clear, staying clear, and discovering your true nature. Words and ideas are less important than isness. Do everything with full attention. Become conscious. Look within. Forget beliefs and acquire direct experience." In the broadest sense Zen pretty much focuses upon the same things as Advaita Vedanta, Mystical Christianity, Mystical Sufism, Mystical Judaism, and all of the other non-dual spiritual traditions. FWIW, a Zen dancer is a dancer who becomes so one-with the dance that she becomes lost in the dancing, and IS the dancing. The same would be true for a Zen martial artist. In everyday life someone washing dishes 100% IS the universe washing dishes. Is that a process identifiable by a name?
|
|
|
Post by steven on Nov 20, 2014 1:28:31 GMT -5
Forget 'practice'....only DO
|
|