|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 8:11:05 GMT -5
That was Zen Master Bankei's name for It, one bad ass no nonsense Master. Thank you sdp do you know of any books that have his writings? Sure. "The Unborn, The Life and Teaching of Zen Master Bankei," translated by Norman Waddell. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 9:44:59 GMT -5
#1 is the sense Niz uses it (I think the quotes demonstrate this), I Am in the sense of being. When we say "I" to a thought (and in the quote Niz calls this self-identification), this negates 'I am' in the sense of being, the two are mutually exclusive. (Yea, I am a bad "sport", I will keep rubbing this in). IOW, saying "I" and saying 'I am' are two different things. If 'I am' is what you already take yourself to-be, then why would the teacher of Niz tell him to stay in the 'I am'? (IOW, he would already be there). Sorry this had driven you bananas pilgrim! This is an important discussion. Conradg said: In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. You replied" I consider your middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). You then say Niz says that I am is the sense of Being. So how is that different from conradg saying it is the I thought? I think the confusion is over the word thought. Thoughts can be many and varied so these thoughts cannot be I am. This is just semantics. I am can be described as the primary thought before anything is added to it such as I am hungry, I am going shopping. I say that I am is the sense of Being and I think that's what Conradg means too. I'm guessing when all thought and perception is absent -- like in NS -- what remains is just I Am in the being sense, or is that gone too? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 9:46:10 GMT -5
On the OP: identification is when "I" is thought. It doesn't matter what follows -- could be anything or nothing or both... Yes, that is correct, but not precise. The question is what lies behind the correctness? Why is that identification? BTW, #havenoclue. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 9:48:19 GMT -5
Sorry this had driven you bananas pilgrim! This is an important discussion. Conradg said: In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. You replied" I consider your middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). You then say Niz says that I am is the sense of Being. So how is that different from conradg saying it is the I thought? I think the confusion is over the word thought. Thoughts can be many and varied so these thoughts cannot be I am. This is just semantics. I am can be described as the primary thought before anything is added to it such as I am hungry, I am going shopping. I say that I am is the sense of Being and I think that's what Conradg means too. I'm guessing when all thought and perception is absent -- like in NS -- what remains is just I Am in the being sense, or is that gone too? That's gone, too. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 9:50:29 GMT -5
I've heard a few different interpretations of "I Am." Here are two: 1. it's just the sense of existence 2. it's a sense of being separate, in contrast to otherness Whereas I can see the sense of existence being necessary for feeling separate, the other way around is not necessary -- feeling separate in contrast to otherness is not fundamental to noticing being/existing. Take take on the "I AM" thingy, as a simpleton, is this: Being ON. Meaning: One knows ones purpose and is acting upon it. It's not just (mere) being(ness) or "alive(ness)". It's knowing, at every second of the day, what needs to be done in a given situation, and doing it without even thinking about it. It's natural and effortless. Just my two cent. Purpose is kind of heavy isn't it? ZD often refers to 'do what's next 100%' -- sounds like what you are saying too. But purpose could be a mind game, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 9:53:22 GMT -5
I'm guessing when all thought and perception is absent -- like in NS -- what remains is just I Am in the being sense, or is that gone too? That's gone, too.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:03:01 GMT -5
Thank you sdp do you know of any books that have his writings? Sure. "The Unborn, The Life and Teaching of Zen Master Bankei," translated by Norman Waddell. Thanks ZD, I absolutely love anything written about the unborn |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:10:47 GMT -5
#1 is the sense Niz uses it (I think the quotes demonstrate this), I Am in the sense of being. When we say "I" to a thought (and in the quote Niz calls this self-identification), this negates 'I am' in the sense of being, the two are mutually exclusive. (Yea, I am a bad "sport", I will keep rubbing this in). IOW, saying "I" and saying 'I am' are two different things. If 'I am' is what you already take yourself to-be, then why would the teacher of Niz tell him to stay in the 'I am'? (IOW, he would already be there). Sorry this had driven you bananas pilgrim! This is an important discussion. Conradg said: In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. You replied" I consider your middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). You then say Niz says that I am is the sense of Being. So how is that different from conradg saying it is the I thought? I think the confusion is over the word thought. Thoughts can be many and varied so these thoughts cannot be I am. This is just semantics. I am can be described as the primary thought before anything is added to it such as I am hungry, I am going shopping. I say that I am is the sense of Being and I think that's what Conradg means too. It's not just semantics. There is the ~sense~, I exist, I am here, now (Be, here, now, Neem Karoli Baba via Bhagavan Das via Ram Dass. He didn't say, Think, being, here, now), I Am. When you are just being, there is no (abstract) thought whatsoever. It's not just semantics. If I am wrong you have to negate all the points in my last (long) post. If you don't get this you don not fundamentally understand what Niz is saying. When his teachers said to stay in the 'I am' he did not mean think of the I am or any such. I Am comes previous to any thought. In the quotes from I Am That Niz is saying, the I-thought (he says thinking, feeling etc.) and the sense of being 'I am' are diametrically opposed. IOW, if you ~are in~, that is, identified-with I-thought, then you are not-in 'I am'. Yes, it is an important discussion. (Just ask maxdp, for one). If Conradg means in the sense of being, and you also, then clean up the language specificity. Get the word thought out. (I consider I have been very clear about this). OK...one more thing. You see, most beginners are completely and almost continually lost in thought, the ever-present mind chatter. If a clear distinction is not made then they can think, OK, it's OK to think the I-thought. But it isn't see? There is all the difference in the world, and if this distinction is not made someone can go years thinking the are doing something significant, when indeed they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 11:19:15 GMT -5
Sure. "The Unborn, The Life and Teaching of Zen Master Bankei," translated by Norman Waddell. Thanks ZD, I absolutely love anything written about the unborn Bankei's story is quite remarkable, and it indicates how deep the path can go. He began searching for the truth at an early age, and his intense focus upon that issue caused his family to throw him out of their home at the age of 11. He wandered around and at some point met someone from the Shin sect who introduced him to the Amida Buddha mantra. He chanted this so incessantly that he fell into deep mantra-induced samadhis. At the age of 16 he met ZM Umpo who ordained him and introduced him to a strenuous zazen practice regimen. At 19 he left Umpo and travelled around the country interviewing masters while continuing to pursue hard-core zazen. At 23 he went back to Umpo, and Umpo told him to stop searching for answers outside himself. He then sealed himself into a small room, and practiced around the clock until he was near death from tuberculosis. Shortly before what appeared to be imminent death he had a big enlightenment experience, but he didn't know how to express what he had realized. A few days later he had another big enlightenment experience that removed all of his doubts and freed him. After his health returned, he went to see Umpo, who acknowledged his attainment and told him to get confirmation from other Zen Masters. He was now about 26. He heard about a famous Chinese Zen Master, Dosha, and went to see him. Dosha confirmed his enlightenment, but then said, "But you still have to clarify the matter beyond, which is the essence of our school." Bankei could not believe that anything could improve upon his clarity or exist beyond what he had realized, so he laughed at Dosha and left. However, he hung around the temple observing Dosha for several days, and gradually realized that he had underestimated the man. He decided to stay with Dosha, and continued practicing and having interviews with Dosha. The following year, while sitting in the darkness of the meditation hall, Bankei had another enlightenment experience. After a subsequent encounter with Dosha, Dosha told the temple's head monk, "Bankei has finally completed the great matter." Bankei continued deepening his realization, and he travelled around to many hermitages and temples. In 1653 he was back at one of his old hermitages surrounded by several disciples. Through a kind of second sight Bankei knew that his old master, Umpo, was ill. One of the monks with him at the time, Sen, thought that he was a fraud because Umpo was living in a distant town. Bankei told him that he knew that, but insisted that Umpo was ill. Sen asked to accompany him on his trip to see if he was making up the story of his master's illness. Along the way Bankei told Sen that the wife of an old friend had just died in Osaka. Sen told him that he was a total fake, but they detoured to Osaka, and when they arrived, Bankei's old friend greeted them at the door with the news that his wife had died three days earlier. Sen was reportedly astounded. They continued on to Ako, where Umpo lived, but Bankei arrived too late to see his old master; Umpo had died the night before after an illness. Bankei taught for 45 years, and sometimes had 6000 people attend his retreats and sermons. He travelled between three different temples teaching about the Unborn and conducting practice retreats. He died at the age of 72. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:23:55 GMT -5
Thanks ZD, I absolutely love anything written about the unborn Bankei's story is quite remarkable, and it indicates how deep the path can go. He began searching for the truth at an early age, and his intense focus upon that issue caused his family to throw him out of their home at the age of 11. He wandered around and at some point met someone from the Shin sect who introduced him to the Amida Buddha mantra. He chanted this so incessantly that he fell into deep mantra-induced samadhis. At the age of 16 he met ZM Umpo who ordained him and introduced him to a strenuous zazen practice regimen. At 19 he left Umpo and travelled around the country interviewing masters while continuing to pursue hard-core zazen. At 23 he went back to Umpo, and Umpo told him to stop searching for answers outside himself. He then sealed himself into a small room, and practiced around the clock until he was near death from tuberculosis. Shortly before what appeared to be imminent death he had a big enlightenment experience, but he didn't know how to express what he had realized. A few days later he had another big enlightenment experience that removed all of his doubts and freed him. After his health returned, he went to see Umpo, who acknowledged his attainment and told him to get confirmation from other Zen Masters. He was now about 26. He heard about a famous Chinese Zen Master, Dosha, and went to see him. Dosha confirmed his enlightenment, but then said, "But you still have to clarify the matter beyond, which is the essence of our school." Bankei could not believe that anything could improve upon his clarity or exist beyond what he had realized, so he laughed at Dosha and left. However, he hung around the temple observing Dosha for several days, and gradually realized that he had underestimated the man. He decided to stay with Dosha, and continued practicing and having interviews with Dosha. The following year, while sitting in the darkness of the meditation hall, Bankei had another enlightenment experience. After a subsequent encounter with Dosha, Dosha told the temple's head monk, "Bankei has finally completed the great matter." Bankei continued deepening his realization, and he travelled around to many hermitages and temples. In 1653 he was back at one of his old hermitages surrounded by several disciples. Through a kind of second sight Bankei knew that his old master, Umpo, was ill. One of the monks with him at the time, Sen, thought that he was a fraud because Umpo was living in a distant town. Bankei told him that he knew that, but insisted that Umpo was ill. Sen asked to accompany him on his trip to see if he was making up the story of his master's illness. Along the way Bankei told Sen that the wife of an old friend had just died in Osaka. Sen told him that he was a total fake, but they detoured to Osaka, and when they arrived, Bankei's old friend greeted them at the door with the news that his wife had died three days earlier. Sen was reportedly astounded. They continued on to Ako, where Umpo lived, but Bankei arrived too late to see his old master; Umpo had died the night before after an illness. Bankei taught for 45 years, and sometimes had 6000 people attend his retreats and sermons. He travelled between three different temples teaching about the Unborn and conducting practice retreats. He died at the age of 72. Thanks, he was for sure on to something using the term the unborn, I tell you just the phrase itself holds power. Did you ever download a copy of the Unborn Niz that I uploaded here when I first came here. It's a small book but it can and will put you in the witness, very quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:25:23 GMT -5
What "I AM" means isn't the same for all. Some are just "empty", then the "I AM" is not full. There is nothing else but what one could called (mere) being(ness). Thoughts are expressed by the "I AM" by some via the mind, which is a receiver from that which is beyond (mere) mind. For others there are no thoughts that come from this (beyond) "I AM". The only expression of thought that come from those are from what I call the hive-mind. In christian terms: it comes from satan, an-sat, not true. , here. By 'I am' Niz (nor his teacher) meant the words I am. The words 'I am' are there to represent something else (as are all words, all words represent something). This something else is not verbal in any way whatsoever. The words 'I am' represent the (nonverbal) sense of beingness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:31:32 GMT -5
Yes, that is correct, but not precise. The question is what lies behind the correctness? Why is that identification? BTW, #havenoclue. You're in good company. (See the OP). But you can explore it just a little bit if you wish to. Just watch the mind in operation. Eventually, you will see a ~*common "denominator"*~. IOW, something the same will always be there, in any case, in all situations. Always, every time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:34:37 GMT -5
I'm guessing when all thought and perception is absent -- like in NS -- what remains is just I Am in the being sense, or is that gone too? That's gone, too. How can Being be gone? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:37:36 GMT -5
Sorry this had driven you bananas pilgrim! This is an important discussion. Conradg said: In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. You replied" I consider your middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). You then say Niz says that I am is the sense of Being. So how is that different from conradg saying it is the I thought? I think the confusion is over the word thought. Thoughts can be many and varied so these thoughts cannot be I am. This is just semantics. I am can be described as the primary thought before anything is added to it such as I am hungry, I am going shopping. I say that I am is the sense of Being and I think that's what Conradg means too. It's not just semantics. There is the ~sense~, I exist, I am here, now (Be, here, now, Neem Karoli Baba via Bhagavan Das via Ram Dass. He didn't say, Think, being, here, now), I Am. When you are just being, there is no (abstract) thought whatsoever. It's not just semantics. If I am wrong you have to negate all the points in my last (long) post. If you don't get this you don not fundamentally understand what Niz is saying. When his teachers said to stay in the 'I am' he did not mean think of the I am or any such. I Am comes previous to any thought. In the quotes from I Am That Niz is saying, the I-thought (he says thinking, feeling etc.) and the sense of being 'I am' are diametrically opposed. IOW, if you ~are in~, that is, identified-with I-thought, then you are not-in 'I am'. Yes, it is an important discussion. (Just ask maxdp, for one). If Conradg means in the sense of being, and you also, then clean up the language specificity. Get the word thought out. (I consider I have been very clear about this). OK...one more thing. You see, most beginners are completely and almost continually lost in thought, the ever-present mind chatter. If a clear distinction is not made then they can think, OK, it's OK to think the I-thought. But it isn't see? There is all the difference in the world, and if this distinction is not made someone can go years thinking the are doing something significant, when indeed they are not. So you agree with me. I am is the sense of Being. We are not talking about thinking of Being. Some people prefer to call it the primordial I that's all. It's just words. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:46:41 GMT -5
Take take on the "I AM" thingy, as a simpleton, is this: Being ON. Meaning: One knows ones purpose and is acting upon it. It's not just (mere) being(ness) or "alive(ness)". It's knowing, at every second of the day, what needs to be done in a given situation, and doing it without even thinking about it. It's natural and effortless. Just my two cent. Purpose is kind of heavy isn't it? ZD often refers to 'do what's next 100%' -- sounds like what you are saying too. But purpose could be a mind game, eh? I would say purpose in the sense of momentary, not in the sense of future oriented. My Dad is in the hospital right now, twenty-seven days out of the last 35 (two different issues). Two or three times I have noticed a small puddle of water in open pathways, the hall. If stepped on just right, the person stepping on would go down and possibly hurt. I almost cannot walk past it seeing it. I always have an extra paper towel in my pocket, so I, right then and there, wipe it up, and walk on. I can see a fall possibly happening from a small puddle of water. I was in construction for 33 years. If I saw a roofing nail where there was auto traffic, I'd pick it up (but now mostly screws are used). Or a small screw, anything that could flip up and go into a tire, an electrical staple even (seen that cause a flat tire before). A small thing, but it could have kept an individual out-of an hour + trouble. I am a slob. I am slowly learning to pick up one piece of trash now, prevents a mess later. To wash one dish now is easier than washing a sink full later. That's what I take alert-peace-e to be saying. You just do the next thing that needs to be done, but in all things seek to be present to the doing, not just react from habit (mindlessly). |
|
