|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2023 0:10:36 GMT -5
Satori - Does it Exist?
WWW: On the plane of being everything IS. On the plane of existing everything seems.
There are no living beings (as the Lord Buddha said) because living is a function of Time and exists only on the plane of seeming.
Being IS (even our language makes that conclusion inevitable), but 'living beings' beings apparently engaged in the process of changing from hour to hour, year to year - are a function of Time and merely (seem to) exist.
Enlightenment IS: it is just the normal state of being (as opposed to existing). Thus it was possible for the Lord Buddha to say that no such thing as 'Enlightenment' exists either - for if it is the state of being it has no need of a name, is nothing separate and nameable, and can only be so called as an estimation regarded from the plane of seeming.
It is clear therefore why the Masters said there was nothing to be attained, that 'there are no such states as before and after attainment', for you cannot attain something you already have, and there can be no states of before and after something that is already there.
But, looked at from the plane of seeming, there 'seems' to be something to be attained, and states of before and after such attainment, and that something is the turning over of the mind - paravritti, liberation, enlightenment, sambodhi, satori - but so to regard it would be deliberately to adopt the false vision of the plane of seeming (or dualism) which it was the aim of the Masters to eradicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2023 0:23:09 GMT -5
Zen is something special, indeed. Watts called Buddhism the religion of no-religion. And Zen takes this a step further still. I don't really get that as Zen is full of traditional garb and gizmos and rituals all repeated incessantly and religiously. Chants repeating the lineage of teachers, prostrations, blah blah blah. I asked a Zen teacher once why all the bowing and he said to me in his very Zen way "can you just *wholeheartedly* bow?" I was like why not wholeheartedly somersault?? Well, there's Zen as a spiritual discipline and there's Zen as a state of being. And then there's also a difference between the original Chinese version (Chan) and the later Japanese version (Zen). What most people associate with Zen seems to be the Japanese version of the spiritual discipline. When I talk about Zen I usually refer to either the state of being (natural state) or the original version (Chan) because to me the Japanese version comes across as a bit too rigid, too stiff and often a tad too bizarre. The Chinese version, which is much more grounded in Taoism, seems to me more down to earth in general. But that's just my opinion, seen from the outside. Your somersault should be fine though in either tradition.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 2, 2023 1:11:00 GMT -5
Zen is something special, indeed. Watts called Buddhism the religion of no-religion. And Zen takes this a step further still. I don't really get that as Zen is full of traditional garb and gizmos and rituals all repeated incessantly and religiously. Chants repeating the lineage of teachers, prostrations, blah blah blah. I asked a Zen teacher once why all the bowing and he said to me in his very Zen way "can you just *wholeheartedly* bow?" I was like why not wholeheartedly somersault?? There are many kinds of bowing. Besides the polite bowing, Japanese use body language as conversation cues, more than in other cultures. These cues are used to check that the meaning of what is being said is fully understood.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2023 5:47:30 GMT -5
Applied Zen and Real Zen (1)
WWW: Zen that can be taught cannot be real Zen.
Anything obtained by discipline, anything that can be learned, must ipso facto be a fake. Knowledge being intuitive, reasoning or training can only produce a substitute or an imitation. Zen is not communicable in words: it can only be suggested or pointed at.
Zazen and meditation are disciplines and in the nature of substitutes for satori. As such they should be a barrier to the realisation of what they seek to reveal. They may lead to the experience known as kensho - but has not that been found to be just that - a barrier to permanent enlightenment?
Meditation and 'quiet-sitting' have been roundly condemned by some of the greatest Masters.
Zeal was condemned two thousand years before Talleyrand said quietly to an official: 'Et ... surtout pas de zèle!'
The quoted definitions of Huang Po and Hui Hai prove that Dhyana, Ch'an, Zen means Non-attachment, and that Non-attachment means the absence of feelings such as hatred and love. Therefore the use of the word 'meditation' as a translation is quite misleading.
However, a state of pellucid-attention-devoid-of-ideation is in accordance with Zen and may also be considered as a form of meditation - thus completing the circle and reconciling the two concepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2023 6:20:23 GMT -5
Applied Zen and Real Zen (2)
WWW: The Lord Buddha himself, and many Masters after him, stated that there was nothing to be attained and that there are no such states as before and after attainment. This has just been explained in detail.
As long as there remains identification with an imaginary ego the state we describe (from the plane of seeming) as Enlightenment cannot be experienced, but as soon as such identification ceases and dualism can be transcended that state alone remains. For that state alone IS.
Intellectual comprehension is not capable of dispelling this illusory identification - for an eye cannot see itself. Only intuitive comprehension should be capable of producing that apparent turning over of the mind (paravritti) which is realization. Such a turning-over may be just a turning of our gaze from time to beyond it, from without to within.
Jesus said, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within.' 'Within' is our notion of the invisible dimension. It may be enough to look in the right direction.
What could there be to teach? What result could any technique or discipline be expected to produce that was not a fake?
What is there to do but let our gaze follow the pointing fingers of the Masters? When comprehension follows, the illusion should be dissipated.
Call that satori if you will, or enlightenment, but such words are evaluations of the false vision from the plane of seeming. There is nothing but seeing what is already there.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 5, 2023 11:31:55 GMT -5
The Phenomenal Self and the Illusory SelfWWW: A man without a false-ego would be like a hedgehog without bristles, but a man without an ego would be like a log of wood or a jellyfish - if he did not simply fall to pieces. Every conscious being must have an ego. Every unity has a centre, its rallying-point; the solar system and the atom have their nuclei, around which their elements are grouped. Far from being something superfluous, of which we should rid ourselves, it is the essential factor of the organism, as the heart is of the physical body. When one attacks the 'egoism' of somebody one is guilty of a misuse of words: it is not his ego that is insufferable but his 'illusory self'. The ego belongs to so-called relative-Reality. It may be masked by the fictitious 'me', but itself is a functional necessity. The ego, or nucleus of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which should be regarded as an aspect of Reality, can be the subject of pure, instantaneous perception, but the interpretation that our mind gives to this perception transforms it into an element of the illusory self. 'The Tathagata declares that Characteristics are not Characteristics' (Diamond Sutra XIV) Is Humility anything but the result of a diminution of the power of the fictitious-self? Is it not in fact a function of the degree of consciousness, or of the sensation, of self? This being so, it does not exist as a quality: it is only an evaluation. To seek humility as a thing-in-itself is absurd. All forms of discipline, oriental (yoga) or occidental, only attack symptoms and could only have a superficial and temporary effect - like a febrifuge against typhoid-fever. Our spiritual misery has but one basis, and there is only one treatment for it: its cause is the illusory self, and the treatment consists in realising that that does not exist. However, intellectual recognition is not enough. After all, the 'me' is our own creation; it is not imposed upon us from without; it is created by our reactions to everything that happens to us. It doesn't change the fact that ego .. is an opportunity.  But it's a one-way opportunity.It's an opportunity for insight by directing attention inward. Any attention directed outward on the subject will always risk distortion, as there's no way to do anything but witness it without creating it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 5, 2023 11:38:26 GMT -5
Zen is something special, indeed. Watts called Buddhism the religion of no-religion. And Zen takes this a step further still. I don't really get that as Zen is full of traditional garb and gizmos and rituals all repeated incessantly and religiously. Chants repeating the lineage of teachers, prostrations, blah blah blah. I asked a Zen teacher once why all the bowing and he said to me in his very Zen way "can you just *wholeheartedly* bow?" I was like why not wholeheartedly somersault?? As you might recall, ZD describes how this led to a very specific realization in great detail in Concrete. The way I'd put it is that belief has nothing to do with the existential truth, but to come to that perspective involves suspending everything that that you once thought was true. Decartes described this process as driven by a demon, and it can certainly be quite energetic. From that perspective, the rituals come into a new light. You see, true insight can't help but drop you to your knees. But, you don't have to kneel before the birdshit buddha unless you feel like it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 5, 2023 11:49:50 GMT -5
I don't really get that as Zen is full of traditional garb and gizmos and rituals all repeated incessantly and religiously. Chants repeating the lineage of teachers, prostrations, blah blah blah. I asked a Zen teacher once why all the bowing and he said to me in his very Zen way "can you just *wholeheartedly* bow?" I was like why not wholeheartedly somersault?? Well, there's Zen as a spiritual discipline and there's Zen as a state of being. And then there's also a difference between the original Chinese version (Chan) and the later Japanese version (Zen). What most people associate with Zen seems to be the Japanese version of the spiritual discipline. When I talk about Zen I usually refer to either the state of being (natural state) or the original version (Chan) because to me the Japanese version comes across as a bit too rigid, too stiff and often a tad too bizarre. The Chinese version, which is much more grounded in Taoism, seems to me more down to earth in general. But that's just my opinion, seen from the outside. Your somersault should be fine though in either tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 5, 2023 12:03:08 GMT -5
Applied Zen and Real Zen (1)
WWW: Zen that can be taught cannot be real Zen. Anything obtained by discipline, anything that can be learned, must ipso facto be a fake. Knowledge being intuitive, reasoning or training can only produce a substitute or an imitation. Zen is not communicable in words: it can only be suggested or pointed at. Zazen and meditation are disciplines and in the nature of substitutes for satori. As such they should be a barrier to the realisation of what they seek to reveal. They may lead to the experience known as kensho - but has not that been found to be just that - a barrier to permanent enlightenment? Meditation and 'quiet-sitting' have been roundly condemned by some of the greatest Masters. Zeal was condemned two thousand years before Talleyrand said quietly to an official: 'Et ... surtout pas de zèle!' The quoted definitions of Huang Po and Hui Hai prove that Dhyana, Ch'an, Zen means Non-attachment, and that Non-attachment means the absence of feelings such as hatred and love. Therefore the use of the word 'meditation' as a translation is quite misleading. However, a state of pellucid-attention-devoid-of-ideation is in accordance with Zen and may also be considered as a form of meditation - thus completing the circle and reconciling the two concepts. Obviously meditation and kensho are two-sided coins. Meditation can be a means to an end, but, ironically, only when any hope of reaching that end is suspended can there be any ... "progress". For me, the sudden experience of the absence of "I" was the beginning of a period of intense existential questioning. Luckily, I had the internet to suggest to me not to attach to it. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 5, 2023 17:09:23 GMT -5
As a geometry problem, it seems interesting. Seeing people doing that is scary. Done by Germans or Japanese is telling. To me, it is an example of waste of time and energy, misplaced focus. I just state these, with no emotional involvement. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2023 11:16:02 GMT -5
As a geometry problem, it seems interesting. Seeing people doing that is scary. Done by Germans or Japanese is telling. To me, it is an example of waste of time and energy, misplaced focus. I just state these, with no emotional involvement. Seriously? Actually, it's not that different from how a flock of birds or a school of fish move. They also don't bump into each other. They are all in alignment, not just with each other but with a higher mind which directs their moves. So you could as well just see it as an art form in its highest degree of perfection, true mastery. It's basically the mindset of the martial arts masters of China/Japan, where they reach such a state perfect skill and total alignment that there is no wrong move possible, like magic. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2023 11:25:27 GMT -5
The Phenomenal Self and the Illusory SelfWWW: A man without a false-ego would be like a hedgehog without bristles, but a man without an ego would be like a log of wood or a jellyfish - if he did not simply fall to pieces. Every conscious being must have an ego. Every unity has a centre, its rallying-point; the solar system and the atom have their nuclei, around which their elements are grouped. Far from being something superfluous, of which we should rid ourselves, it is the essential factor of the organism, as the heart is of the physical body. When one attacks the 'egoism' of somebody one is guilty of a misuse of words: it is not his ego that is insufferable but his 'illusory self'. The ego belongs to so-called relative-Reality. It may be masked by the fictitious 'me', but itself is a functional necessity. The ego, or nucleus of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which should be regarded as an aspect of Reality, can be the subject of pure, instantaneous perception, but the interpretation that our mind gives to this perception transforms it into an element of the illusory self. 'The Tathagata declares that Characteristics are not Characteristics' (Diamond Sutra XIV) Is Humility anything but the result of a diminution of the power of the fictitious-self? Is it not in fact a function of the degree of consciousness, or of the sensation, of self? This being so, it does not exist as a quality: it is only an evaluation. To seek humility as a thing-in-itself is absurd. All forms of discipline, oriental (yoga) or occidental, only attack symptoms and could only have a superficial and temporary effect - like a febrifuge against typhoid-fever. Our spiritual misery has but one basis, and there is only one treatment for it: its cause is the illusory self, and the treatment consists in realising that that does not exist. However, intellectual recognition is not enough. After all, the 'me' is our own creation; it is not imposed upon us from without; it is created by our reactions to everything that happens to us. It doesn't change the fact that ego .. is an opportunity. But it's a one-way opportunity.It's an opportunity for insight by directing attention inward. Any attention directed outward on the subject will always risk distortion, as there's no way to do anything but witness it without creating it. What he calls 'phenomenal self' or 'ego' is what I call the individual, and what he calls the 'illusionary self' is what I call the person (or SVP). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 14, 2023 9:13:57 GMT -5
“Transcending the Self ” - Which? (1)
WWW: It seems to be evident that we must conceive (a) an absolute-Self, which is the Absolute, which is one with the cosmic Essence, universal Mind (to bring together most of the usual terms), the noumenal Self which may be conceived as the personal aspect of the Absolute.
(b) Then a relative, or conditioned, Self—which is the manifested Self, the phenomenal Self, the “individual,” the incarnate Self, with its limited consciousness, its hereditary body and its psyche or mind, and which is part of all the phenomenal manifestations of the Absolute, of Reality. It is our center, our nucleus round which “we” (all the elements which our false perspective sees as one) are grouped.
(c) Finally there are the artificial “me’s,” fictitious, products without substance, of our mental activities, imaginary things, complexes, without permanence, changing, mechanical, living on psychic tensions, with which we falsely identify ourselves, and which dominate us by means of the affirmations and negations that they require of us and that we spend our whole lives in providing for.
It is these last that we have to transcend, that are the basis of our suffering.
Once we have eliminated these false “me s,” these illusory “selves,” these mirages in which we see, feel, think, live, the way will be open towards our full evolution. As long as we remain subject to the illusion of their reality, identified with them, we cannot evolve. The saint himself, by disciplining these “me s,” by rendering them positive instead of negative, cannot evolve. Only the Sage, who has understood, who eliminates them by understanding that they do not really exist, can come to obtain a glimpse of his veritable nature and, ultimately, become himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2023 9:34:02 GMT -5
“Transcending the Self ” - Which? (2)
WWW: When someone speaks to us of the “me,” the “ego,” the “self,” of the “personality,” the “individual,” the “being,” with capital letters or lower case, it is often difficult to know what is in question; it may be (a), (b), or (c), or a mixture of the three—nearly always a mixture of (b) and of (c).
Nevertheless (a) alone is real, (b) alone is relative, (c) alone is fictitious or illusory. It matters little which word is chosen provided it be specified or implied that it is a question of the “me,” “I,” “self,” “personality,” “ego,” “being”—that is absolute, relative (conditioned), or fictitious. Otherwise never can the word itself suffice.
At the same time it is not a question of three different things, nor of three degrees of one and the same thing—for there are no “things.” The relative-self represents a manifestation on the plane of phenomena of the Absolute-Self (the Self of all things)—of the Absolute manifesting, or perceived, as self, whereas the fictitious “me”s are transient mirages manufactured by the apparatus which is a part of the relative self.
Ultimately they are concepts rendered necessary in order that we may understand something; and it would be an error to suppose that any one of them really exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2023 9:52:45 GMT -5
WWW: When someone speaks to us of the “me,” the “ego,” the “self,” of the “personality,” the “individual,” the “being,” with capital letters or lower case, it is often difficult to know what is in question; it may be (a), (b), or (c), or a mixture of the three—nearly always a mixture of (b) and of (c). This is a good point. I've noticed that as well. Very often, even people who say they have realized (a) are actually unable to see the difference between (b) and (c). Some who are conflating (b) and (c) consider them both as phenomenal. Which often results in ESA. Some others who are conflating (b) and (c) consider them both as fictitious. Which often results in spiritual bypassing. |
|
But it's a one-way opportunity.It's an opportunity for insight by directing attention inward. Any attention directed outward on the subject will always risk distortion, as there's no way to do anything but witness it without creating it.