|
|
Post by silence on Oct 27, 2013 22:38:29 GMT -5
If you went to a hotel and said you wanted a room they would want you to pay too. I don't know how renting out space for a "retreat" is any different really. I like helping enlightened people figure out stuff. I think they forget how it is to be trapped inside a body.  There isn't much difference. You have it they need it you give it done. It's very simple. It's the mind that gets in the way. What are you hoping to be given? Money and enlightenment? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 1:31:01 GMT -5
I dunno how to assess whether any particular biznisman is greedy or selfish or manipulative or power hungry or whatever. I would say that giving money away may not be a good indicator either way, as self image and control can be tied up in all of it. Yes. I was going to address that issue, but forgot to. The person who gives money away to help the poor, and takes pride in that act, or thinks that s/he is doing something "good," is motivated by the same egocentric desire as the person who accumulates money for enhancing self image or gaining power. A classic confrontation regarding this issue was the question Emperor Wu put to Bodhidharma. Wu had been converted to Buddhism, and had spent a lot of wealth to translate the sutras into Chinese, build temples, support monastaries, and promote the spread of Buddhism. When he met B., he described all of his efforts in support of his new religion, and asked, "What merit have I gained?" B. replied, "None whatsoever." Ha ha. That must have been a shock. Actually, my understanding of that encounter, was that when Wu finished his list of meritorious 'doings', Bodhidarma took off one shoe, placed it on his head, and walked away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 4:51:14 GMT -5
Is giving a concept that necessitates a comparative image of having something that another needs...or wants?
This is what I take from the Tao te Ching passage that Freejoy shared. Whenever one is in that state of comparison, where there is an up and a down, they live with a self-created possibility of falling. The greater the image of success, the greater the fear of the fall.
When there is no ladder, that possibility ceases to be.
With our feet on the ground, we are where we stand, and we can only stand in one place (there is no other place to compare to)
|
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Oct 28, 2013 9:20:24 GMT -5
Oh , Warren Buffett , I thought it was a warm buffet . I was confusing a guy with some money with food . Not that there is any thing wrong with a buffet .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 10:49:29 GMT -5
Yes. I was going to address that issue, but forgot to. The person who gives money away to help the poor, and takes pride in that act, or thinks that s/he is doing something "good," is motivated by the same egocentric desire as the person who accumulates money for enhancing self image or gaining power. A classic confrontation regarding this issue was the question Emperor Wu put to Bodhidharma. Wu had been converted to Buddhism, and had spent a lot of wealth to translate the sutras into Chinese, build temples, support monastaries, and promote the spread of Buddhism. When he met B., he described all of his efforts in support of his new religion, and asked, "What merit have I gained?" B. replied, "None whatsoever." Ha ha. That must have been a shock. Actually, my understanding of that encounter, was that when Wu finished his list of meritorious 'doings', Bodhidarma took off one shoe, placed it on his head, and walked away. I'm not sure what the silently placing of shoes on one's head represents ... but there's a story about Nansen cutting a cat in two .. and apparently if one of the monks had done the shoe thingy in time .. the cat would've been saved. ;-) commentary about the cat koan goo.gl/Qjeamk |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 28, 2013 11:36:12 GMT -5
Actually, my understanding of that encounter, was that when Wu finished his list of meritorious 'doings', Bodhidarma took off one shoe, placed it on his head, and walked away. I'm not sure what the silently placing of shoes on one's head represents ... but there's a story about Nansen cutting a cat in two .. and apparently if one of the monks had done the shoe thingy in time .. the cat would've been saved. ;-) commentary about the cat koan goo.gl/QjeamkCorrect. Two monks were arguing over ownership of a cat. Nansen grabbed the cat, pulled out a sword, and said, "If you can say a turning word (see through this issue directly), I'll spare the cat. Both monks remained paralyzed and unable to respond, so Nansen sliced the cat in half. This story parallels the famous story about Soloman and the two women who claimed to be the mother of the same child. AAR, Joshu returned to the monastery after Nansen had supposedly cut the cat in two. When asked what he would have said if he had been one of the monks, Joshu took off his sandals, placed them on his head, and walked off in silence. Nansen said, "Well, if you had been there, you would have saved the cat." Today Zen students are asked the same question that the monks and Joshu were asked; it's called "the cat koan." They are also asked why Joshu placed his sandals on his head; that's a second koan. In the original story, after B told Wu that he had gained no merit by all of his good works, Wu supposedly asked, "And who are you?" B replied, "It is not knowable," and then walked off. Legend has it that B then went to a cave where he sat for seven years facing a wall. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 28, 2013 11:42:07 GMT -5
Is giving a concept that necessitates a comparative image of having something that another needs...or wants? This is what I take from the Tao te Ching passage that Freejoy shared. Whenever one is in that state of comparison, where there is an up and a down, they live with a self-created possibility of falling. The greater the image of success, the greater the fear of the fall. When there is no ladder, that possibility ceases to be. With our feet on the ground, we are where we stand, and we can only stand in one place (there is no other place to compare to) Giving requires no concept or comparison, and I think that's what you're pointing to in your following comment. As Adya often says, "If we stand in our own two shoes and know who we are, then we know what we have to do." The knowing to which he refers is non-conceptual and direct. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 28, 2013 12:03:54 GMT -5
Cat cones aside, giving is a societal family of man kind of grace thingy, imb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 2:30:17 GMT -5
Is giving a concept that necessitates a comparative image of having something that another needs...or wants? This is what I take from the Tao te Ching passage that Freejoy shared. Whenever one is in that state of comparison, where there is an up and a down, they live with a self-created possibility of falling. The greater the image of success, the greater the fear of the fall. When there is no ladder, that possibility ceases to be. With our feet on the ground, we are where we stand, and we can only stand in one place (there is no other place to compare to) Giving requires no concept or comparison, and I think that's what you're pointing to in your following comment. As Adya often says, "If we stand in our own two shoes and know who we are, then we know what we have to do." The knowing to which he refers is non-conceptual and direct. Yes, I agree. The simple verbs 'to give' 'to take', are nothing more than a communication of an action. If it leaves my hand I am giving, if it comes into my hand, I am taking. So what is being discussed in this thread, isn't the acts of giving and taking, it is the conceptual attachments people make to those actions. For example, Taking seems to equal greed, selfishness, bad; Giving seems to equal generosity, selflessness, good. It is the age old battle of good/bad, right/wrong. But then where does selling, swapping, exchanging fit into these polarities? I'm not sure how enlightenment ever creeps in to such discussions. To even do so suggests a false idol or image of enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 29, 2013 4:38:20 GMT -5
"If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."
~Jesus
What does this mean? give |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 29, 2013 5:02:49 GMT -5
Giving requires no concept or comparison, and I think that's what you're pointing to in your following comment. As Adya often says, "If we stand in our own two shoes and know who we are, then we know what we have to do." The knowing to which he refers is non-conceptual and direct. Yes, I agree. The simple verbs 'to give' 'to take', are nothing more than a communication of an action. If it leaves my hand I am giving, if it comes into my hand, I am taking. So what is being discussed in this thread, isn't the acts of giving and taking, it is the conceptual attachments people make to those actions. For example, Taking seems to equal greed, selfishness, bad; Giving seems to equal generosity, selflessness, good. It is the age old battle of good/bad, right/wrong. But then where does selling, swapping, exchanging fit into these polarities? I'm not sure how enlightenment ever creeps in to such discussions. To even do so suggests a false idol or image of enlightenment. The polarities don't exist except in imagination. A man decides to take his wife to dinner. He starts driving toward a nearby restaurant, but then thinks, "This is a very expensive restaurant I'm driving towards. Is it fair for me to spend a hundred dollars on dinner for two people when there are starving people in the world? Maybe I should take my wife to a less expensive restaurant and donate what we save to a world hunger charity." He changes direction and starts toward a less expensive restaurant, but then he thinks, "Even this restaurant will charge us fifty dollars for dinner. Maybe I should select an even less-expensive restaurant and donate the money saved to some homeless person." He changes direction again, but then thinks, "Hmmm, maybe we should just eat at home and give a hundred dollars to a local food bank." Finally he stops the car, and his wife asks, "Why have you stopped the car?" He replies, "Because I can't decide where we should eat dinner." If you are the man driving the car, (1) where should you drive? and (2) what should you do? If the answers aren't crystal clear, then you're probably paralyzed by imagination, just like the man in the car. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 5:23:42 GMT -5
The polarities don't exist. But I don't understand the point you are finding in your additional explanation.
The man is simply living.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 6:09:56 GMT -5
The polarities don't exist. But I don't understand the point you are finding in your additional explanation. The man is simply living. Rich man doesn't believe polarities exist except in his bank account i.e. rich/poor, goes home washes his hands in scalding hot water and burns his hands. I understand the argument you are presenting freejoy. The opposites are created in language to aid human understanding. In this way they act as a useful tool for man. There seems little need in that moment for recognising that oppositions exist only in language. In another moment, it is useful to recognise where oppositions stem from. No right or wrong belief...just looking to what is useful and using it wisely. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 29, 2013 6:26:11 GMT -5
The polarities don't exist. But I don't understand the point you are finding in your additional explanation. The man is simply living. The man is being jerked around by thoughts (in the example, paralyzed by thought). Most people live like this. If the man were "simply" living and interacting with the world directly, he wouldn't have a problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 8:13:20 GMT -5
The polarities don't exist. But I don't understand the point you are finding in your additional explanation. The man is simply living. The man is being jerked around by thoughts (in the example, paralyzed by thought). Most people live like this. If the man were "simply" living and interacting with the world directly, he wouldn't have a problem. Thank you for explaining. I'm not able to come to draw any conclusion as to how 'most people live'. Similarly, the man in your example stopped his car because he was unable to decide where to eat. One may imagine he is paralysed in thought, another may imagine he recognises a need for stillness and makes a wise decision. With regard to the ladder we spoke of earlier, when we compare others to ourselves, it places us back on that ladder. When we accept other as a way of seeing ourselves, then our focus is drawn back to where we stand in that moment. |
|
