Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 13:46:31 GMT -5
Do desires even exist as desires if there is no thought that distinguishes them as such? Yes, the mind can think, "I see that there is a desire for X," but if the mind remains quiescent, what then? What would a still mind say about that? Yeah...but whats happening over here, is a deeper gnosis of what Ramana meant when he says that the impulses and desires need to go away to be analogous to his 'happening'... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 13:49:22 GMT -5
The bait is seen, but the fish swims away unharmed. *smile* In its imagined cleverness, the fish swims away.. neither harmed nor unharmed, not risking its comfort for the opportunity of clarity.. it is the way of those attached to the stories that protect their desires.. That or the fish just wasn't hungry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 14:17:39 GMT -5
Do desires even exist as desires if there is no thought that distinguishes them as such? Yes, the mind can think, "I see that there is a desire for X," but if the mind remains quiescent, what then? What would a still mind say about that? The issue is not what does a 'still mind have to say about that', the still mind says no thing.....the question is, why or how does movement arise out of a still mind? Desire seems to be part of that cause/effect happening... Hmmmm...I gave this a re-read...seems pertinent: "Ramana Maharshi on Samadhi Question : What is samadhi? Ramana Maharshi : The state in which the unbroken experience of existence-consciousness is attained by the still mind, alone is samadhi. That still mind which is adorned with the attainment of the limitless supreme Self, alone is the reality of God. When the mind is in communion with the Self in darkness, it is called nidra [sleep], that is, the immersion of the mind in ignorance. Immersion in a conscious or wakeful state is called samadhi. Samadhi is continuous inherence in the Self in a waking state. Nidra or sleep is also inherence in the Self but in an unconscious state. In sahaja samadhi the communion is con-tinuous. Question : What are kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi? Ramana Maharshi :The immersion of the mind in the Self, but without its destruction, is kevala nirvikalpa samadhi. In this state one is not free from vasanas [Desires] and so one does not therefore attain mukti. Only after the vasanas [Desires] have been destroyed can one attain liberation. Question : When can one practise sahaja samadhi? Ramana Maharshi : Even from the beginning. Even though one practises kevala nirvikalpa samadhi for years together, if one has not rooted out the vasanas [Desires] one will not attain liberation." Interestingly, 'mukti', or 'liberation' in this context, seems to be freedom from the compounding movements of the mind into what I called Gross Mind Movement in another lost...wherein defining and naming and self referential thought movements arise. ramana seems to be saying something similar to what I said, that the alert, still, quiescent mind cannot remain so as ling as there are desire based impulse movements (what he calls vasanas) that arise. And he seems to be saying that if one is to remain in the quiescent mind state, one needs to clear (he says destroy) desires. This concurs with my own experience...what about your experience? As an aside, I don't particularly reinforce the idea that one should or should not do anything at all, but this cause and effect happening of 'desire' is an interesting topic for discussion :-) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 14:25:23 GMT -5
(** scents sunny spring noon, sips green tea **) The bait is seen, but the fish swims away unharmed. *smile* (** comfy cozy fishy snicker **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 14:42:28 GMT -5
In its imagined cleverness, the fish swims away.. neither harmed nor unharmed, not risking its comfort for the opportunity of clarity.. it is the way of those attached to the stories that protect their desires.. That or the fish just wasn't hungry. But was he thirsty??  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 11, 2014 15:55:32 GMT -5
I asked, "What would a still mind say about that (or anything else, for that matter)? because I was curious how people would respond to such a question. A still mind has nothing to say because it's still, so a good response would be Ramana's silent stare (*stare*) or Mahakasyapa's smile (*smile*) which followed similar challenges.
Non-Buddhists might be interested to know that at Vulture Peak the Buddha once preached what has been called the "silent sermon." In front of 5000 people the Buddha supposedly held up a lotus blossom in his right hand and remained silent while looking at the assembly. After a few moments, Mahakasyapa, who was one of the Buddha's main disciples, silently smiled in response, and the Buddha is reported to have said, "I have hereby transmitted the wordless mind-to-mind teaching to Mahakasyapa."
Zen folks like to say that the Zen tradition started with this mind-to-mind (or no-mind to no-mind) (or Big Mind) transmission. It may be a myth created much later, or it may be based upon actual occurences (we'll never know), but in many Zen temples there is a lineage of transmission that begins with the Buddha and proceeds through Mahakasyapa and then through 27 Indian patriarchs to Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma, the 28th Indian patriarch, then supposedly travelled for 3 years to China where he sat in a cave silently facing a wall for 7 years.
A fanatical seeker, named Hui Ke, begged Bodhidharma to pacify his mind. Bodhidharma asked Hui Ke to bring forth his mind for pacification, but Hui Ke said, "I can't find my mind." Thereupon Bodhidharma replied, "There. I have pacified it for you!" This awakened Hui Ke, and he is regarded as the second Chinese patriarch. Hui Ke then transmitted the teaching to Seng S'ten, and so forth through Lin Chi (Rinzai), the sixth Chinese patriarch. After that, the transmission went in several different directions through many different masters and many different countries.
If someone walks into the Quan Um Zen School's main temple in Providence, RI, s/he will see a chart showing the transmission through 68 masters' names beginning with the Buddha and continuing through Seung Sahn, the Korean Zen Master who founded the Quan Um School (who died a few years ago), to the present day ZM in charge of that temple.
The words of the Buddha in regard to Mahakasyapa are the basis for several well-known koans in Zen, including:
1. What was the secret teaching that the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa?
2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa had received the teaching?
If the mind is still, the answers to these questions will be obvious. If the answers are obvious, however, please do not post them on the forum and ruin someone else's joy of penetrating these issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 16:08:47 GMT -5
I asked, "What would a still mind say about that (or anything else, for that matter)? because I was curious how people would respond to such a question. A still mind has nothing to say because it's still, so a good response would be Ramana's silent stare (*stare*) or Mahakasyapa's smile (*smile*) which followed similar challenges. Non-Buddhists might be interested to know that at Vulture Peak the Buddha once preached what has been called the "silent sermon." In front of 5000 people the Buddha supposedly held up a lotus blossom in his right hand and remained silent while looking at the assembly. After a few moments, Mahakasyapa, who was one of the Buddha's main disciples, silently smiled in response, and the Buddha is reported to have said, "I have hereby transmitted the wordless mind-to-mind teaching to Mahakasyapa." Zen folks like to say that the Zen tradition started with this mind-to-mind (or no-mind to no-mind) (or Big Mind) transmission. It may be a myth created much later, or it may be based upon actual occurences (we'll never know), but in many Zen temples there is a lineage of transmission that begins with the Buddha and proceeds through Mahakasyapa and then through 27 Indian patriarchs to Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma, the 28th Indian patriarch, then supposedly travelled for 3 years to China where he sat in a cave silently facing a wall for 7 years. A fanatical seeker, named Hui Ke, begged Bodhidharma to pacify his mind. Bodhidharma asked Hui Ke to bring forth his mind for pacification, but Hui Ke said, "I can't find my mind." Thereupon Bodhidharma replied, "There. I have pacified it for you!" This awakened Hui Ke, and he is regarded as the second Chinese patriarch. Hui Ke then transmitted the teaching to Seng S'ten, and so forth through Lin Chi (Rinzai), the sixth Chinese patriarch. After that, the transmission went in several different directions through many different masters and many different countries. If someone walks into the Quan Um Zen School's main temple in Providence, RI, s/he will see a chart showing the transmission through 68 masters' names beginning with the Buddha and continuing through Seung Sahn, the Korean Zen Master who founded the Quan Um School (who died a few years ago), to the present day ZM in charge of that temple. The words of the Buddha in regard to Mahakasyapa are the basis for several well-known koans in Zen, including: 1. What was the secret teaching that the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa had received the teaching? If the mind is still, the answers to these questions will be obvious. If the answers are obvious, however, please do not post them on the forum and ruin someone else's joy of penetrating these issues. Its interesting, I view koans, and the penetration of the koans, as a kind of guide (so to speak), a guide to how to live life 'the zen way', not as a means for penetrating mysteries or issues per se. What are the nature and purpose of koans in your perspective? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 11, 2014 17:12:55 GMT -5
I asked, "What would a still mind say about that (or anything else, for that matter)? because I was curious how people would respond to such a question. A still mind has nothing to say because it's still, so a good response would be Ramana's silent stare (*stare*) or Mahakasyapa's smile (*smile*) which followed similar challenges.Non-Buddhists might be interested to know that at Vulture Peak the Buddha once preached what has been called the "silent sermon." In front of 5000 people the Buddha supposedly held up a lotus blossom in his right hand and remained silent while looking at the assembly. After a few moments, Mahakasyapa, who was one of the Buddha's main disciples, silently smiled in response, and the Buddha is reported to have said, "I have hereby transmitted the wordless mind-to-mind teaching to Mahakasyapa." Zen folks like to say that the Zen tradition started with this mind-to-mind (or no-mind to no-mind) (or Big Mind) transmission. It may be a myth created much later, or it may be based upon actual occurences (we'll never know), but in many Zen temples there is a lineage of transmission that begins with the Buddha and proceeds through Mahakasyapa and then through 27 Indian patriarchs to Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma, the 28th Indian patriarch, then supposedly travelled for 3 years to China where he sat in a cave silently facing a wall for 7 years. A fanatical seeker, named Hui Ke, begged Bodhidharma to pacify his mind. Bodhidharma asked Hui Ke to bring forth his mind for pacification, but Hui Ke said, "I can't find my mind." Thereupon Bodhidharma replied, "There. I have pacified it for you!" This awakened Hui Ke, and he is regarded as the second Chinese patriarch. Hui Ke then transmitted the teaching to Seng S'ten, and so forth through Lin Chi (Rinzai), the sixth Chinese patriarch. After that, the transmission went in several different directions through many different masters and many different countries. If someone walks into the Quan Um Zen School's main temple in Providence, RI, s/he will see a chart showing the transmission through 68 masters' names beginning with the Buddha and continuing through Seung Sahn, the Korean Zen Master who founded the Quan Um School (who died a few years ago), to the present day ZM in charge of that temple. The words of the Buddha in regard to Mahakasyapa are the basis for several well-known koans in Zen, including: 1. What was the secret teaching that the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa had received the teaching? If the mind is still, the answers to these questions will be obvious. If the answers are obvious, however, please do not post them on the forum and ruin someone else's joy of penetrating these issues. You have learned the 'Zen Game' well.. will you remain attached to it, or are you interested in liberation? This is 'the hammer that cannot hit itself', the attachment that will not examine itself.. the 'still mind' is not aware of Zen, or koans, or masters.. the still mind speaks through the deeds of its vehicle, the experiencer.. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 11, 2014 18:11:59 GMT -5
One branch of Zen (the Rinzai branch) uses koans rather extensively whereas the other branch (the Soto branch) uses them sparingly, if at all. The Rinzai-oriented people use koans to do several things. First, they are a way of helping people see through, and become free of, various beliefs and ideas (including beliefs and ideas about Zen). Second, they show people that the answers to any questions that might be bothering them are available through contemplation. Third, they are used to test students' understanding. Any existential question can be used as a koan. There are Buddhist koans ("What is mu?" & "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"), Christian koans ("When Jesus overturned the table of the money changers, was this the act of a pacifist or an activist?"), and secular koans ("What happens when an irristable force meets an immovable object?" and "If you own an expensive Porsche and a low-priced Ford, which car should you drive to your high school reunion?").
A Zen Master in the Rinzai tradition will often test a student by asking her various koans. Her level of clarity will be obvious by how freely she responds to the questions, and whether or not she gets attached to the words.
Koans can be answered with words, physical actions, or silence. Zen is uninterested in explanations or anything intellectual; it is only interested in direct action--body knowledge rather than head knowledge. There are about 1800 formal koans used in the Rinzai tradition, but thousands of informal koans. Formal koans are not discussed in public. They are used in one-on-one face-to-face interviews in a kind of "dharma combat." As soon as a student has attained a certain level of proficiency, s/he may challenge the teacher and get involved in a higher level of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 11, 2014 18:17:14 GMT -5
One branch of Zen (the Rinzai branch) uses koans rather extensively whereas the other branch (the Soto branch) uses them sparingly, if at all. The Rinzai-oriented people use koans to do several things. First, they are a way of helping people see through, and become free of, various beliefs and ideas (including beliefs and ideas about Zen). Second, they show people that the answers to any questions that might be bothering them are available through contemplation. Third, they are used to test students' understanding. Any existential question can be used as a koan. There are Buddhist koans ("What is mu?" & "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"), Christian koans ("When Jesus overturned the table of the money changers, was this the act of a pacifist or an activist?"), and secular koans ("What happens when an irristable force meets an immovable object?" and "If you own an expensive Porsche and a low-priced Ford, which car should you drive to your high school reunion?"). A Zen Master in the Rinzai tradition will often test a student by asking her various koans. Her level of clarity will be obvious by how freely she responds to the questions, and whether or not she gets attached to the words. Koans can be answered with words, physical actions, or silence. Zen is uninterested in explanations or anything intellectual; it is only interested in direct action--body knowledge rather than head knowledge. There are about 1800 formal koans used in the Rinzai tradition, but thousands of informal koans. Formal koans are not discussed in public. They are used in one-on-one face-to-face interviews in a kind of "dharma combat." As soon as a student has attained a certain level of proficiency, s/he may challenge the teacher and get involved in a higher level of play. What happens when the Zen student sees through the Zen game? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 11, 2014 18:46:03 GMT -5
By definition, a priori logic in fact, a painting cannot exist without a painter. ISness cannot imply some sort of autopilot mode if it denies the realities of free choice. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few. What would you want with a 'free mind'?--to always be able to choose among an infinite number of choices as if the future before you were some blank canvas divorced from the character and dispositions of the being acting on it? You cannot fully say that "still mind" is pure "ISness" without first fully investigating and digesting the concept of freedom of will. If, in hypothetical analogy, a computer of unlimited computational capacity could calculate every single thing you would ever do, would you feel that this is somehow any infringement on your "freedom of will"? Are you trying to annihilate the framework you come from, or synthesize with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 11, 2014 18:47:24 GMT -5
I asked, "What would a still mind say about that (or anything else, for that matter)? because I was curious how people would respond to such a question. A still mind has nothing to say because it's still, so a good response would be Ramana's silent stare (*stare*) or Mahakasyapa's smile (*smile*) which followed similar challenges.Non-Buddhists might be interested to know that at Vulture Peak the Buddha once preached what has been called the "silent sermon." In front of 5000 people the Buddha supposedly held up a lotus blossom in his right hand and remained silent while looking at the assembly. After a few moments, Mahakasyapa, who was one of the Buddha's main disciples, silently smiled in response, and the Buddha is reported to have said, "I have hereby transmitted the wordless mind-to-mind teaching to Mahakasyapa." Zen folks like to say that the Zen tradition started with this mind-to-mind (or no-mind to no-mind) (or Big Mind) transmission. It may be a myth created much later, or it may be based upon actual occurences (we'll never know), but in many Zen temples there is a lineage of transmission that begins with the Buddha and proceeds through Mahakasyapa and then through 27 Indian patriarchs to Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma, the 28th Indian patriarch, then supposedly travelled for 3 years to China where he sat in a cave silently facing a wall for 7 years. A fanatical seeker, named Hui Ke, begged Bodhidharma to pacify his mind. Bodhidharma asked Hui Ke to bring forth his mind for pacification, but Hui Ke said, "I can't find my mind." Thereupon Bodhidharma replied, "There. I have pacified it for you!" This awakened Hui Ke, and he is regarded as the second Chinese patriarch. Hui Ke then transmitted the teaching to Seng S'ten, and so forth through Lin Chi (Rinzai), the sixth Chinese patriarch. After that, the transmission went in several different directions through many different masters and many different countries. If someone walks into the Quan Um Zen School's main temple in Providence, RI, s/he will see a chart showing the transmission through 68 masters' names beginning with the Buddha and continuing through Seung Sahn, the Korean Zen Master who founded the Quan Um School (who died a few years ago), to the present day ZM in charge of that temple. The words of the Buddha in regard to Mahakasyapa are the basis for several well-known koans in Zen, including: 1. What was the secret teaching that the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa had received the teaching? If the mind is still, the answers to these questions will be obvious. If the answers are obvious, however, please do not post them on the forum and ruin someone else's joy of penetrating these issues. You have learned the 'Zen Game' well.. will you remain attached to it, or are you interested in liberation? This is 'the hammer that cannot hit itself', the attachment that will not examine itself.. the 'still mind' is not aware of Zen, or koans, or masters.. the still mind speaks through the deeds of its vehicle, the experiencer.. FWIW, I left the Zen tradition 15 years ago because the institution and teaching style was a bit too rigid for my taste, but I still respect and appreciate the people I met in that tradition. I had several major realizations while attending silent Zen retreats, and consider myself lucky to have met and interacted with Seung Sahn, an extremely clear-eyed Zen Master. My taste over the last decade has been more in the direction of the Advaita tradition of Ramana, Papaji, Gangaji, Niz, Ramesh, Mooji, etc., but I enjoy reading the words of sages from every tradition as well as those not associated with any tradition. On the pathless path there is no end to what can be discovered, and I offer my best wishes to all who are interested in finding the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 11, 2014 19:00:59 GMT -5
One branch of Zen (the Rinzai branch) uses koans rather extensively whereas the other branch (the Soto branch) uses them sparingly, if at all. The Rinzai-oriented people use koans to do several things. First, they are a way of helping people see through, and become free of, various beliefs and ideas (including beliefs and ideas about Zen). Second, they show people that the answers to any questions that might be bothering them are available through contemplation. Third, they are used to test students' understanding. Any existential question can be used as a koan. There are Buddhist koans ("What is mu?" & "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"), Christian koans ("When Jesus overturned the table of the money changers, was this the act of a pacifist or an activist?"), and secular koans ("What happens when an irristable force meets an immovable object?" and "If you own an expensive Porsche and a low-priced Ford, which car should you drive to your high school reunion?"). A Zen Master in the Rinzai tradition will often test a student by asking her various koans. Her level of clarity will be obvious by how freely she responds to the questions, and whether or not she gets attached to the words. Koans can be answered with words, physical actions, or silence. Zen is uninterested in explanations or anything intellectual; it is only interested in direct action--body knowledge rather than head knowledge. There are about 1800 formal koans used in the Rinzai tradition, but thousands of informal koans. Formal koans are not discussed in public. They are used in one-on-one face-to-face interviews in a kind of "dharma combat." As soon as a student has attained a certain level of proficiency, s/he may challenge the teacher and get involved in a higher level of play. What happens when the Zen student sees through the Zen game? The answer to this question is hysterically funny, but the story is too long to tell here. It is included in one of my books, but suffice it to say that my "seeing through the game" caused me to get knocked out of the ring in my first round of combat with a Zen Master. Ha ha. My conclusion that Zen was a game following a major realization was rather sorely misguided, to say the least. I get a big laugh every time I think of it, and I'm sure that Laughter and a few others found the story equally funny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 20:05:35 GMT -5
By definition, a priori logic in fact, a painting cannot exist without a painter. ISness cannot imply some sort of autopilot mode if it denies the realities of free choice. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few. What would you want with a 'free mind'?--to always be able to choose among an infinite number of choices as if the future before you were some blank canvas divorced from the character and dispositions of the being acting on it? You cannot fully say that "still mind" is pure "ISness" without first fully investigating and digesting the concept of freedom of will. If, in hypothetical analogy, a computer of unlimited computational capacity could calculate every single thing you would ever do, would you feel that this is somehow any infringement on your "freedom of will"? Are you trying to annihilate the framework you come from, or synthesize with it? As an exercise of your intellect, can you see if you can convey all of that in 15 words or less? Bonus points for how much LESS than 15 words you need. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 20:32:47 GMT -5
What happens when the Zen student sees through the Zen game? The answer to this question is hysterically funny, but the story is too long to tell here. It is included in one of my books, but suffice it to say that my "seeing through the game" caused me to get knocked out of the ring in my first round of combat with a Zen Master. Ha ha. My conclusion that Zen was a game following a major realization was rather sorely misguided, to say the least. I get a big laugh every time I think of it, and I'm sure that Laughter and a few others found the story equally funny.  yeah the end of that story was a literal laugh-out-loud read ... mixed with more than a shred of poignancy for sure -- especially for what happened at the start .. |
|
yeah the end of that story was a literal laugh-out-loud read ... mixed with more than a shred of poignancy for sure -- especially for what happened at the start ..