Huang-po
The Zennist
Huang-po writes:
As to performing the six paramitas and vast numbers of similar
practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges,
since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not
try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices. When
there is occasion for them, perform them; and, when the occasion is
passed, remain quiescent. If you are not absolutely convinced that the
Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
incompatible with the Way. The Mind is the Buddha, nor are there any
other Buddhas or any other mind. It is bright and spotless as the
void, having no form or appearance whatever. To make use of your
minds to think conceptually is to leave the substance and attach
yourselves to form. The Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of form
or attachment. To practice the six paramitas and a myriad of similar
practices with the intention of becoming a Buddha thereby is to
advance by stages, but the Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of
stages. Only awake to the One Mind, and there is nothing whatsoever
attained. This is the real Buddha. The Buddha and all sentient are
the One Mind and nothing else. - The zen teachings of Huang Po,
Shambahala Press, John Blofeld
Musings by the Zennist (http://www.teleport.com/~zennist/zennist.html)
The Teachings of Dark Zen
After my first year of sincere Zazen sitting I started to check out
the writings of the very ancestors that we ritually chanted every
morning. Huang-po jumped right at me by saying there is NO practice
to be done. This was quite different from what we at the Zen Center
where doing. For we had our rituals, our meditations and our
idealized life styles that we where all striving for. In asking my
old teacher he stated it meant pious actions and practices such as
chanting for merit or visualizing doing something or giving something.
I also thought that it may also mean putting your body in a form or
mind in a traced out state. So was Huang-po against Zazen or did he
have a different notion about Zazen. Actually, it seems that Zazen is
a Japanese word with no Chinese translation, its an Japanese
invention. Also I found out later that Still sitting is a pureland
(One Practice) form, as much as chanting Buddhas name or the title to
the Lotus sutra is. I can only muse then that the zazen of Huang-po
was not at all the still sitting done in the Zendo, chanting or even
any conceptualization I could come up with.
What was Huang-po then talking about? If I can not conceptualize it
how can I practice it? This seems to be the very point he was saying.
The Masters was pointing to a remembrance. Like the Koan, "A seven
Chin Robe", we lay down our aversions, to remember our True Nature.
When I realized this, Zen made sense to me. For no practice, form,
institution could ever be zen or even bring it to you. It seemed that
Zen point asks us to step up from these very forms we adopted as Zen
to remember what was there all along. I guess these practices are
just stand ins for our Mortal life, where when we step up from
Pretender zen we at the same time Step up from our own Mortal bodies,
realizing and remembering the very mind that manifested and moves what
we call our phenomenal existence. This stepping up, or disembodiment,
is not the Enlightenment, it seems to be the start of what is called
the Bodhisattva path. For here, one returns to the very situations
and circumstances that once fooled them with a profound realization or
Power, being the knowledge of Buddha.
Well, I moved vary fast in my essay here, but I am told that if it can
not be said in a page, then don’t say it.
Comments are welcome, though my position on immaturity or anger driven
post is to not respond.
The Zennist
http://www.teleport.com/~zennist/zennist.html
THE ZENNIST - The Teachings of Mystical Zen - Dark Zen
http://www.teleport.com/~zennist/zennist.html
Mystical Zen? Isn't that why you came to Zen in the first place....Or did
you forget that?
Ned Ludd
In <4t5j37$j...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
writes:
>
> Huang-po writes:
[snip - admonishment against dependence on fixed dharmas]
>
> Huang-po jumped right at me by saying there is NO practice to be
> done.
>
No, he didn't say that. Read the words, Mark:
"When there is occasion for them, perform them;
and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent."
This does not mean that "there is no practice to be done". It
means that when it is time to meditate, meditate; and when the
time for meditation has passed, don't meditate.
In fact, one of my favorite stories of Huang Po, recorded in the
same book you cite, concerns a time when he DID do a practice:
Our Master once attended an assembly at the Bureau of the Imperial
Salt Commissioners at which the Emperor T'ai Chung was also present.
The emperor noticed our Master enter the hall of worship and make
a triple prostration to the Buddha, whereupon he asked: "If we are
to seek nothing from the Buddha, Dharma or Sangha, what does Your
Reverence seek by such prostrations?" Huang Po said, "Though I
seek not from the Buddha, or from the Dharma or from the Sangha,
it is my custom to show respect in this way."
[this conversation continued, wherein the Son of Heaven received
two slaps to the head, an unheard event, before or after.]
> For no practice, form, institution could ever be zen or even bring
> it to you. It seemed that Zen point asks us to step up from these
> very forms we adopted as Zen to remember what was there all along.
>
Very wrong, Mark. Zen does not ask that we remember things; and
to speak of conceptualizing ANYTHING while quoting Huang Po is a
great insult to this old master.
> I guess these practices are just stand ins for our Mortal life,
> where when we step up from Pretender zen we at the same time Step
> up from our own Mortal bodies, realizing and remembering the very
> mind that manifested and moves what we call our phenomenal existence.
> This stepping up, or disembodiment, is not the Enlightenment, it
> seems to be the start of what is called the Bodhisattva path.
>
No. Here is what Huang Po said about the Bodhisattva path (again,
in the same book that you quote):
"Thus the mind of the Bodhisattva is like the Void,
and everything is relinquished by it."
This means Up, Down, Mortal, Immortal, Remembering, Forgetting,
Enlightenment and Ignorance are ALL relinquished on the Bodhisattva
path.
Your idea of "stepping up" illustrates what I see as part of the
"Zen Disease". So often the Zennies talk about "transcending"
things or getting "above" them. Even the great Hakuin spoke of
"leaping over the empty valley of the Hinayana". Your Fa Yen
quote (subsequent post), mentioned "transcending the ordinary and
the holy", and even Huang Po has used the term "transcend".
This is a failure, and blindness to the great contribution of Tao
to Zen Buddhism. Tao does not "step up" or seek to transcend. In
fact, if anything, going LOW is getting closer to Tao:
"A good person is like water. Water benefits all things,
and does not compete with them. It dwells in the lowly
places that all disdain, thereby coming close to Tao."
So, China's great contribution to Zen Buddhism was quickly lost,
even by the Chinese (and became invisible to the Japanese).
So "stepping up" is stepping AWAY from your true nature. To seek
"disembodiment" is to deny your true self. As Huang Po said (in
that same book):
"Your true nature is something never lost to you even in moments
of delusion, nor is it gained at the moment of enlightenment."
So, in conclusion, did Huang Po say that we should not practice?
Absolutely not! He even told us when such forms are useful:
"Enlightenment springs from the Mind, regardless of your practice
of the six paramitas and the rest. All such practices are merely
expedients for handling 'concrete' matters when dealing with the
problems of everyday life."
GMF
Huang-po is laughing his ass off! :)
-George
bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> >
> > In <4t5j37$j...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
> > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > Huang-po jumped right at me by saying there is NO practice to be
> > > done.
> > >
> >
> > No, he didn't say that. Read the words, Mark:
[snipped a bunch of stuff]
> He's an imposter and a phony and gets off on dressing up in zen clothes.
> I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't so serious and trying to pull other people into his charade.
>
> -- good luck
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| George M. Frichter
| Bartol Research Institute
| University of Delaware
| Newark, DE 19716, USA
| fric...@lepton.bartol.udel.edu
| http://poincare.math.ukans.edu/~frichter/frichter.html
-------------------------------------------------------
The Zennist
ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
> "There is no law to teach."
Who are you quoting here Ned? Sounds like a slogan prelude to some
dogmatic mind set. Perhaps?
Ned, am I detecting nihilism in your writings. I sure am getting that
from you.
"The Blessed One replied: People of this world are dependent in their
thinking on one of two things: on the notion of being whereby they
take pleasure in realism, or in the notion of non-being whereby they
take pleasure in nihilism; in either case they imagine emancipation
where there is no emancipation. Those who are dependent upon the
notion of being, regard the world as rising from a causation that is
really existent, and that this actually existing and becoming world
does not take its rise from a causation that is non-existent. This is
the realistic view as held by some people. Then there are other
people who are dependent on the notion of the non-being of all things.
These people admit the existence of greed, anger and folly, and at the
same time they deny the existence of the things that produce greed,
anger and folly. This is not rational, for greed, anger and folly are
no more to be taken hold of as real than are things; they neither have
substance nor individual marks. Where there is a state of bondage,
there is binding and means for binding; but where there is
emancipation, as in the case of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, masters and
disciples, who have ceased to believe in both being and non-being,
there is neither bondage, binding nor means for binding." - Chapter 3,
Lankavatara Sutra, Buddhist Bible edited by Dwight Goddard.
It is my experience that Zen Teachings with out a proper teacher does
lead one to nihilism. What I mean by a proper teacher is one who
teaches you how to read the sutras, understand the meanings of words
and phrases. A teacher can not give you the intuit knowing (gotric
insight), that comes on ones own endeavors and intentions. Yet
sometimes a Slap, "HO!", blowing out of the candle, rock hitting the
bamboo rake can bring about a remembrance of the Originativness of
mind. Then from there, the Student is said to be traveling the
Bodhisattva path.
>> I don't know about you, but I take this Dharma and Zen studies very
>> serious...
>>
> An area perhaps to apply some effort to?
Why not? Got anything better to do?
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> In <4t5j37$j...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
> writes:
> >
> >
> > done.
> >
>
>
> and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent."
>
> means that when it is time to meditate, meditate; and when the
> time for meditation has passed, don't meditate.
>
>
> > it to you. It seemed that Zen point asks us to step up from these
> > very forms we adopted as Zen to remember what was there all along.
> >
>
> to speak of conceptualizing ANYTHING while quoting Huang Po is a
> great insult to this old master.
>
The Zennist
> and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent."
> means that when it is time to meditate, meditate; and when the
> time for meditation has passed, don't meditate.
Ned, you are quite the arm chair Buddhist! Huang po is referring to
social customs, nationalism, warlords birthdays and such. He is
saying that we can do any form we please as long as we bear in mind
"This pure Mind, the source of everything, shines on forever with all
the brilliance of its own perfection" says Huang po. Anyway, we
aren’t Jehovah Witnesses you know!
I can agree though that Huang po and company would say there is a
practice, and strike anyone in the mouth if they speak it! One thing
is clear in this book that I like so much, that Huang po has no
bargaining ground or Achilles heal when it comes to Zen/Ch’an.
> In fact, one of my favorite stories of Huang Po, recorded in the
> same book you cite, concerns a time when he DID do a practice:
> Our Master once attended an assembly at the Bureau of the Imperial
> Salt Commissioners at which the Emperor T'ai Chung was also present.
> The emperor noticed our Master enter the hall of worship and make
> a triple prostration to the Buddha, whereupon he asked: "If we are
> to seek nothing from the Buddha, Dharma or Sangha, what does Your
> Reverence seek by such prostrations?" Huang Po said, "Though I
> seek not from the Buddha, or from the Dharma or from the Sangha,
> it is my custom to show respect in this way."
The rest of the story:
"But what purpose does it serve?" insisted the shramanera( the Emperor
serving as a layman),whereupon he suddenly received a slap.
"Oh," he exclaimed, "how uncouth you are!"
"What is this?" cried the Master. "Imagine making a distinction
between refined and uncouth!" So saying he administed another slap,
causing the shramanera to betaken himself elsewhere!
(*Note in the back of the book says this is a famous story about the
Master who slapped the Emperor. Huang po sect did not have any
political power in his country and the Emperor out of deep respect for
Huang po let himself be slapped)
POOR INDEED NED! Half quotes and slander is the worst in my book.
You would show the Master saying there is a practice, wile what you
hide says that if you conceive of any practice you are already in
grave error. The Emperor students assumed that Huang po was making
merit, or one of the many Vajrayana practices that Buddhism uses.
THINK NED! What is Huang po saying. Slap! "What is this?" The
master beams at you. Slap!
Why did the Tathagata say "I truly attained nothing from complete
unexcelled enlightenment."? Slap!
From Part 7, The Zen Teachings of Huang po:
"This Dharma is Mind, beyond which there is no Dharma; and this Mind
id the Dharma, beyond which there is no mind. Mind in itself is not
mind, yet neither is it no mind. To day that mind is no-mind implies
something existent*. (*Note: Meaning mind is an arbitrary term for
something that can not be defined, conceived or contemplated.)
> [this conversation continued, wherein the Son of Heaven received
> two slaps to the head, an unheard event, before or after.]
I think the rest of the story shows the why and the meaning of the
slap, rather than the Master acting badly as the above statement
suggest.
>> For no practice, form, institution could ever be zen or even bring
>> it to you. It seemed that Zen point asks us to step up from these
>> very forms we adopted as Zen to remember what was there all along.
>>
> Very wrong, Mark. Zen does not ask that we remember things; and
> to speak of conceptualizing ANYTHING while quoting Huang Po is a
> great insult to this old master.
Ah, Ned! First you say Huang Po does Practices, then you say that
Conceptualizing anything, is an insult to these old Baldies. What
does the Master mean by Conceptualizing? He is not saying "don’t
think or Do anything" Nor is he saying to stop thoughts or to attain
any bliss mind state or tranced out Zazen posture. What he says, like
all the Old worthies of his time means is representative thought.
This is what master Fayan was teaching. Note that Translations
differ, and that some are good and some are bad. So you have to read
lots of this stuff to figure out what the gist of the sentence is.
Blofeld used Conceptualizing, wile Cleary used Objective Thought, and
others used Representational Thinking.
"Without having understood senses and objects, as soon as they possess
themselves of some false interpretation they become obsessed by and
lose the correct basis completely" - Master Fayan.
> No. Here is what Huang Po said about the Bodhisattva path (again,
> in the same book that you quote):
> "Thus the mind of the Bodhisattva is like the Void,
> and everything is relinquished by it."
The quote is from section 23 of the Teachings of Huang po.
What is it that the Bodhisattva relinquishes? Conceptual thought. Or
what is sometimes stated as Sentient Beings and Buddhas. Though we
can use representative thought to mean the same.
> This means Up, Down, Mortal, Immortal, Remembering, Forgetting,
> Enlightenment and Ignorance are ALL relinquished on the Bodhisattva
> path.
Yep! Thats basicly the point, sounds like disembodiment or
transcendence to me.
> Your idea of "stepping up" illustrates what I see as part of the
> "Zen Disease". So often the Zennies talk about "transcending"
> things or getting "above" them. Even the great Hakuin spoke of
> "leaping over the empty valley of the Hinayana". Your Fa Yen
> quote (subsequent post), mentioned "transcending the ordinary and
Ř the holy", and even Huang Po has used the term "transcend".
Ned, If you don’t see this, how can you know? Slap! Yeah, its an
intuit knowing, a seeing with out eyes, a sensing with out senses.
Remember the Heart Sutra? "Therefore "Saariputra, in the emptiness
[of all phenomena] there is no form, no sensation, no concept, no
conditioning forces, no consciousness; no eye,
ear, nose, tongue, body or sensation; no form, sound, scent, taste,
touch-object or objects of thought; no constituent element of vision,
till we come to no constituent element of mental perception; there is
no
ignorance, nor the destruction of ignorance till we come to no old age
and no death, nor the extinction of old age and death. There is no
suffering, its origination, extinction, or path. Neither is there
gnosis nor possession, nor witness or state witnessed. Therefore
"Saariputra, because there is no gnosis, no possession, or witness or
state witnessed, the Bodhisattva dwells in reliance on the Perfection
of
Wisdom, his or her Mind free of obstruction (cittaavara.na). Because
there is no obstruction in their Mind, there is no fear; and
transcending all error, Nirvaana is reached."
What’s the Goddess pointing to Ned? A trancendenance.
> This is a failure, and blindness to the great contribution of Tao
> to Zen Buddhism. Tao does not "step up" or seek to transcend. In
> fact, if anything, going LOW is getting closer to Tao:
> "A good person is like water. Water benefits all things,
> and does not compete with them. It dwells in the lowly
> places that all disdain, thereby coming close to Tao."
Low or High, its transcendence by any other name.
> So, China's great contribution to Zen Buddhism was quickly lost,
Ř even by the Chinese (and became invisible to the Japanese).
So true. The degeneration of Zen is perhaps a never ending task. Yet
the other end of the stick is the genesis or Origination of Zen in
this very age. Just think Ned, that men and women are returning to
their True Nature and teaching in any way and style they can. What a
wonderful thing. I honor this greatly, so I can’t pin my teachings or
anyone else’s on any culture, language, style or even idealism. I
will use any means and ways to wake up living beings. Even the
kitchen sink! Hehehe.
> So "stepping up" is stepping AWAY from your true nature. To seek
> "disembodiment" is to deny your true self. As Huang Po said (in
> that same book):
I will take this as YOUR interpretation. But from what I can see, its
based on half quotes, slanderous readings and non-understanding of the
basic point; that’s my opinion.
> "Your true nature is something never lost to you even in moments
Ř of delusion, nor is it gained at the moment of enlightenment."
Its a remembrance! Why "Practice" if you remember? Do you get it
now Ned?!
> So, in conclusion, did Huang Po say that we should not practice?
> Absolutely not! He even told us when such forms are useful:
> "Enlightenment springs from the Mind, regardless of your practice
> of the six paramitas and the rest. All such practices are merely
> expedients for handling 'concrete' matters when dealing with the
> problems of everyday life."
Lets make this clear. The Six Paramitas are: Charity, morality,
patience under affliction, zealous applications, right control of mind
and the application of the highest wisdom. The Master as any wise
person would note that such qualities are indeed helpful for the
dealing with every day problems. Yet, in my original post I pointed
out that this very same Master stated, "As to performing the six
paramitas and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as
countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally
complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that
perfection by such meaningless practices." - Some how I think we are
going in circles here! blah!
Ned, I’m not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice, no
transcendence and that any thing other than solipsism is false view.
What is wrong with ‘Stepping up’. Do you really think you are going
to maintain your mortal body forever? Perhaps you should consider
Christianity, for they teach such stuff.
But then again, you have this funny sense of humor, by posting such
stuff then saying its a joke. I don’t know about you, but I take this
Dharma and Zen studies very serious. There are some here who think
its all a joke, then others here that think anything stated or said is
a joke. Then there are just jokers who know nothing and only joke -
those I can laugh with, but this time I’m laughing at you.
Ned Ludd
In <4t78po$m...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
writes:
>
> Ned, you are quite the arm chair Buddhist!...
> ...Anyway, we aren't Jehovah Witnesses you know!
>
But Jehovah's Witnesses are us.
> POOR INDEED NED! Half quotes and slander is the worst in my book.
> You would show the Master saying there is a practice, wile what you
> hide says that if you conceive of any practice you are already in
> grave error.
>
OK.
>> This means Up, Down, Mortal, Immortal, Remembering, Forgetting,
>> Enlightenment and Ignorance are ALL relinquished on the Bodhisattva
>> path.
> Yep! Thats basicly the point, sounds like disembodiment or
> transcendence to me.
>
No. Nothing is left behind. Nothing is transcended. Nothing moves.
>> Your idea of "stepping up" illustrates what I see as part of the
>> "Zen Disease". So often the Zennies talk about "transcending"
>> things or getting "above" them. Even the great Hakuin spoke of
>> "leaping over the empty valley of the Hinayana". Your Fa Yen
>> quote (subsequent post), mentioned "transcending the ordinary and
>> the holy", and even Huang Po has used the term "transcend".
> Ned, If you don't see this, how can you know? Slap! Yeah, its an
> intuit knowing, a seeing with out eyes, a sensing with out senses.
> Remember the Heart Sutra? "Therefore "Saariputra, in the emptiness
> [of all phenomena] there is no form, no sensation, no concept, no
> conditioning forces, no consciousness; no eye, ear, nose, tongue,
> body or sensation; no form, sound, scent, taste, touch-object or
> objects of thought; no constituent element of vision, till we come
> to no constituent element of mental perception; there is no
> ignorance, nor the destruction of ignorance till we come to no old
> age and no death, nor the extinction of old age and death. There
> is no suffering, its origination, extinction, or path. Neither is
> there gnosis nor possession, nor witness or state witnessed.
> Therefore "Saariputra, because there is no gnosis, no possession,
> or witness or state witnessed, the Bodhisattva dwells in reliance
> on the Perfection of Wisdom, his or her Mind free of obstruction
> (cittaavara.na). Because there is no obstruction in their Mind,
> there is no fear; and transcending all error, Nirvaana is reached."
>
Too many words, Mark.
> What's the Goddess pointing to Ned? A trancendenance.
>
Maybe she's just giving you the finger.
>> "A good person is like water. Water benefits all things,
>> and does not compete with them. It dwells in the lowly
>> places that all disdain, thereby coming close to Tao."
> Low or High, its transcendence by any other name.
>
If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>> So, China's great contribution to Zen Buddhism was quickly lost,
>> even by the Chinese (and became invisible to the Japanese).
> So true. The degeneration of Zen is perhaps a never ending task.
> Yet the other end of the stick is the genesis or Origination of
> Zen in this very age. Just think Ned, that men and women are
> returning to their True Nature and teaching in any way and style
> they can.
>
"There is no law to teach."
>> So "stepping up" is stepping AWAY from your true nature. To seek
>> "disembodiment" is to deny your true self. As Huang Po said (in
>> that same book):
> I will take this as YOUR interpretation. But from what I can see,
> its based on half quotes, slanderous readings and non-understanding
> of the basic point; that's my opinion.
>
OK.
>> "Your true nature is something never lost to you even in moments
>> of delusion, nor is it gained at the moment of enlightenment."
> Its a remembrance! Why "Practice" if you remember? Do you get it
> now Ned?!
>
I don't believe there is anything to "get". (Let alone anything
to "remember".)
>> So, in conclusion, did Huang Po say that we should not practice?
>> Absolutely not! He even told us when such forms are useful:
>> "Enlightenment springs from the Mind, regardless of your practice
>> of the six paramitas and the rest. All such practices are merely
>> expedients for handling 'concrete' matters when dealing with the
>> problems of everyday life."
> Lets make this clear...
> ...Some how I think we are going in circles here! blah!
>
What do you have against circles?
> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice, no
> transcendence and that any thing other than solipsism is false view.
> What is wrong with "Stepping up". Do you really think you are going
> to maintain your mortal body forever? Perhaps you should consider
> Christianity, for they teach such stuff.
>
What makes you think you you've even "got" a mortal body now?
Buddhism never peddled immortality. The Taoists apparently were
interested in it for a while, but what good did it do them?
"Stepping up" sounds like too much work. Especially if true nature
is never lost or gained.
> I don't know about you, but I take this Dharma and Zen studies very
> serious...
>
An area perhaps to apply some effort to?
Ned
Ned Ludd
In <31F77B...@ix.netcom.com> bodi...@ix.netcom.com writes:
Zennist wrote:
>> Huang-po jumped right at me by saying there is NO practice to be
>> done.
>
>> and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent."
>> means that when it is time to meditate, meditate; and when the
>> time for meditation has passed, don't meditate.
>>
>> For no practice, form, institution could ever be zen or even bring
>> it to you. It seemed that Zen point asks us to step up from these
>> very forms we adopted as Zen to remember what was there all along.
>>
>> Very wrong, Mark. Zen does not ask that we remember things; and
>> to speak of conceptualizing ANYTHING while quoting Huang Po is a
>> great insult to this old master.
>>
> Ned, I'm sorry, but I think your efforts are hopeless. This guy is
> trippin'. He's an imposter and a phony and gets off on dressing up
> in zen clothes. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't so serious and
> trying to pull other people into his charade.
>
Well, maybe. But pretending to be Buddha is the same as being
Buddha, right?
So I'll keep listening.
Ned
Ned Ludd
In <4t9mnt$t...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
asks:
>
Ned wrote:
>> Proper teacher... teaches you how to read... understand the meanings
>> of words...
>> Oh I'm sure that's EXACTLY why Buddha walked the earth!
>
Zennist:
>Why did Buddha walk the earth?
>
Because it was his turn.
>>>>> I don't know about you, but I take this Dharma and Zen studies
>>>>> very serious...
>>>>
>>>> An area perhaps to apply some effort to?
>>>
>>> Why not? Got anything better to do?
>>
>> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
>
> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not easy to
> find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>
If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
Ned
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
The Zennist wrote:
>
> ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>
> > Proper teacher... teaches you how to read... understand the meanings
> > of words...
>
> > Oh I'm sure that's EXACTLY why Buddha walked the earth!
>
>
> >>>> serious...
> >>>>
> >>> An area perhaps to apply some effort to?
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> > Ned
>
> Mabey you just have a good nihilsim. I must say, its not easy to fine
> one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>
>
See Ned. I tried to warn you.
-- bodhidance
Foot
On Jul 26, 1996 06:12:41 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
Foot:
Too caught up in views Zennist. They are all as useless as the moment
past.
Put down the books and stop trying to cover your ass with their pages and
wipe some of the shit off, get rid of some of the smell, and COME ON
DOWN!!!
>>
>
>See Ned. I tried to warn you.
>
> -- bodhidance
Foot:
But he's so easy bodhidance. Give him some time to reflect. Hell, I
needed 8 months of constant attention before I got through the last
obstacle. (David). It's all so personal and those that want to make it a
monolithic serious endeavor and save the world take some time, I know. The
more *goodness* we bring to the table, the longer it takes it seems.
karen
On 27 Jul 1996 05:18:36 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
Foot:
> (I will now seriously enlighten everyone who has not yet received my
>blessing)
Yeah, right. I noticed that you didn't even remark on the Quaker oats
crack. Too perfect to get down and buji-boogie?
Zennist:
> Why not? Got anything better to do?
Foot:
>How about laugh at yourself. That should fill up at least one or two
>lifetimes, no?
Suits me fine.
Ned:
> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
Foot:
>That's where the sense of humor comes from, nowhere.
Shhh, that'll take all the mystery out of life!
karen
---
Silence means security
Silence means approval
- R.E.M.
karen
>Huang-po is laughing his ass off! :)
<waving hi to Dr. George>
Which isn't difficult, considering that he's dead. So that'd be his
no-ass, I guess.
Ned Ludd
In <31fb803a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> ma...@ix.netcom.com (karen)
writes:
>>
>> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>
> I don't know, but I think you'd like to be it. ;)
>
>> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
>
>
But then I would HAVE something.
Ned
P.S. Although I will always have (and hold and love and treasure
forever):
>
> I am, at this point, so fucking sick of Zen!
> Pee-eww, what a stink! GET OVER IT! Take a walk! Sing a song!
> Go out for pizza, anything! Just wake up, for chrissakes!!! The
> whole world is yours and you don't even know it! WAKE UP, DAMN IT!!!
>
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
Ned Ludd wrote:
> >>> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not easy to
> >>> find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
> >>
> >> If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
> >
> > Heavy burden there, Ned. Ya might consider dropping it once in a
> > while.
> >
>
> How would I know when I've dropped it?
>
> Ned
If you don't know then you haven't.
-- dust floats around in the cool breeze
Ned Ludd
In <31fb81e9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> ma...@ix.netcom.com (karen)
writes:
>>> Why did Buddha walk the earth?
>>
>
> Such silly questions! Here, have a brownie and relax. Sheesh!
karen
On 26 Jul 1996 14:54:59 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
Zennist:
>>Why did Buddha walk the earth?
>
> Because it was his turn.
Why the hell do any of us walk the earth? Why do YOU walk the earth?
Such silly questions! Here, have a brownie and relax. Sheesh!
>> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not easy to
>> find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>
> If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
Heavy burden there, Ned. Ya might consider dropping it once in a while.
karen
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 20:04:34 -0700, bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I get the feeling that Zennist had a bad experience with his teacher. He probably
>wouldn't accept his pseudo-enlightenment so now Zennist is going to make us all pay.
That'd be about right, IMO.
Of course, what do I know? I'm still IN THIS MORTAL BODY! Yeah, and I
have no intention of becoming disembodied anytime soon! So there, Mark!
(I'm thinking that those who'd decry *this mortal body* so damned much
really oughta have a beer or two; or maybe they just need to get laid.)
Ha! Yes I wrote that! No, no one forged this post! Ha! Foot said I
am now a Buji Master, so I can say whatever I want. I trust the
process! Ha!
karen
On 25 Jul 1996 19:09:12 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
I don't know, but I think you'd like to be it. ;)
> Even a good thing isn't a good as nothing.
See what I mean?
karen
On 28 Jul 1996 21:08:37 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>> Heavy burden there, Ned. Ya might consider dropping it once in a
>> while.
>>
>
> How would I know when I've dropped it?
Well, it'll be down there a level or two below you. Turn off your jet
pack, and go to the lower level. Is it there? Good. Now, just to make
sure, fire off a few rounds with your nail gun. Wait a while, just to
make sure. It it rises up again, use a pipe bomb. That'll do it.
karen (Yeah, I know, they're from two different games. Shoot me. ;)
Foot
On Jul 28, 1996 21:13:07 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'bodi...@ix.netcom.com' wrote:
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>
>> >>> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not easy to
>> >>> find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>> >>
>> >> If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
>> >
>> > while.
>> >
>>
>> How would I know when I've dropped it?
>>
>
>If you don't know then you haven't.
>
> -- dust floats around in the cool breeze
Foot
Dirk Tebben
On 25 Jul 1996 19:09:12 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>
> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>
I had a good friend once who claimed to be a nihilist. Whenever
someone would ask him how come he still did lots of nice, selfless
things, he would shrug and ask "Why not?". Then he would turn and
say, with a gleam in his eye, "But I could change my mind any
second."
I called myself a nihilist briefly, then realized I wasn't.
--
[ "Don't be misled! Look directly! What is this?" --Bassui ]
[ "I'm not a cat. I'm a little psycho kitten." --Mioawara Shiro ]
[ Here Lies One Whose Name Was Writ in Water --John Keats' Epitaph ]
[ Dirk Tebben Disclaimer: I have no one else's opinion to use. ]
Ned Ludd
In <31FC3A...@ix.netcom.com> bodi...@ix.netcom.com and others
wrote:
>
>>>>>> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not easy
>>>>>> to find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
>>>>
>>>> Heavy burden there, Ned. Ya might consider dropping it once in
>>>> a while.
>>>
>>> How would I know when I've dropped it?
>>
>
>
Clear, as far as clarity goes. Joshu said, "This old monk
does not abide in clarity." Do you think he was a nihilist?
Ned
Ned Ludd
In <4thq7a$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dte...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dirk
Tebben) writes:
Ned wrote:
>> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>>
> I had a good friend once who claimed to be a nihilist. Whenever
> someone would ask him how come he still did lots of nice, selfless
> things, he would shrug and ask "Why not?". Then he would turn and
> say, with a gleam in his eye, "But I could change my mind any
> second."
>
An excellent position to be in.
> I called myself a nihilist briefly, then realized I wasn't.
>
When did you know you weren't (ie. what event or realization)?
Ned
Foot
On Jul 29, 1996 15:35:40 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
the Buddha was and as are we. If one doesn't find the MIND in their very
Mind, aren't they a Samsaric Buddhist. If Samsara is still a mystery for
us, after all these years, we should immediately follow the Zennist. The
kids of old (Zen Masters) knew this mystereous secret. I'm going to shar
it with you but don't divulge this secret mystereous teaching to anyone
else or it will loose its power of mystery.
Enlightenment doesn't make your life more easily livable, just more readily
available.
So learn to live with yourself as you find it and WALAH! And stay out of
the courts if at all possible.
Foot
P.S.
If you would take the modern day psychological profiles and put them over
some of the greatest people that ever lived, I'm sure they would be locked
up for delusions of grandeur, psychosis, fleabitus, mesmeric intentions,
and a host of thousands of other named conditions. Thing is, they didn't
read that stuff and therefore just lived and acted and learned what worked
to get desired results. Maybe through intuition they got into
relationship with others in a way that sustained them while on this earth.
When I die there will be trillions of people who don't even know and never
will know I ever lived, let alone died, thank goodness. How could I
possibly ever please a trillion and more people, hell, I can't even please
two for very long.
>
>
karen
On 28 Jul 1996 21:07:02 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>>> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>>
>> I don't know, but I think you'd like to be it. ;)
>>
>>> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
>>
>> See what I mean?
>>
>
> But then I would HAVE something.
My advice then is to drink heavily.
>P.S. Although I will always have (and hold and love and treasure
> forever):
>>
>> I am, at this point, so fucking sick of Zen!
>> Pee-eww, what a stink! GET OVER IT! Take a walk! Sing a song!
>> Go out for pizza, anything! Just wake up, for chrissakes!!! The
>> whole world is yours and you don't even know it! WAKE UP, DAMN IT!!!
Thus I prove that I am a wrathful, compassionate bodhisattva.
karen (and completely full of shit ;)
Foot
On Jul 28, 1996 16:21:46 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen)' wrote:
>On 27 Jul 1996 05:18:36 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
>
>Foot:
>> (I will now seriously enlighten everyone who has not yet received my
>>blessing)
>crack. Too perfect to get down and buji-boogie?
What are you, an elephant or something?
>Zennist:
>> Why not? Got anything better to do?
>
>Foot:
>>How about laugh at yourself. That should fill up at least one or two
>>lifetimes, no?
>Suits me fine.
>
>Ned:
>
>>That's where the sense of humor comes from, nowhere.
Now that's really funny. Zennist with no mystery. What would he do? Real
question is, what would I do without him. He's a real treat after YKW.
Foot
On Jul 29, 1996 00:12:05 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen)' wrote:
>On 28 Jul 1996 21:07:02 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>
>>>> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>>>
>>> I don't know, but I think you'd like to be it. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But then I would HAVE something.
>
>My advice then is to drink heavily.
>
>>P.S. Although I will always have (and hold and love and treasure
>> forever):
>>>
>>> I am, at this point, so fucking sick of Zen!
>>> Pee-eww, what a stink! GET OVER IT! Take a walk! Sing a song!
>>> Go out for pizza, anything! Just wake up, for chrissakes!!! The
>>> whole world is yours and you don't even know it! WAKE UP, DAMN IT!!!
>
>Thus I prove that I am a wrathful, compassionate bodhisattva.
Foot
Foot
On Jul 28, 1996 16:21:43 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen)' wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 20:04:34 -0700, bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>I get the feeling that Zennist had a bad experience with his teacher. He
>probably
>>wouldn't accept his pseudo-enlightenment so now Zennist is going to make
us
>all pay.
>
>Of course, what do I know? I'm still IN THIS MORTAL BODY! Yeah, and I
>have no intention of becoming disembodied anytime soon! So there, Mark!
>
>
>(I'm thinking that those who'd decry *this mortal body* so damned much
>really oughta have a beer or two; or maybe they just need to get laid.)
>
>Ha! Yes I wrote that! No, no one forged this post! Ha! Foot said I
>am now a Buji Master, so I can say whatever I want. I trust the
>process! Ha!
Well, you sure sound like a happy Buji Master, giving out such relavant
advice about people who take themselves seriously while taking their body
so lightly. Such a division would be cause for unification with another.
The process can be trusted.
Ned Ludd
In <4tj9t9$8...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> fo...@usa.pipeline.com Foot
and others wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you just have a good nihilism. I must say, its not
>>>>>>>> easy to find one who really totes a good Nihilistic view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're toting it, it's not good nihilism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy burden there, Ned. Ya might consider dropping it once
>>>>>> in a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would I know when I've dropped it?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't know then you haven't.
>>>
>>> If you do know, then you haven't. Now are you quite clear Ned?
>>
>> Clear, as far as clarity goes. Joshu said, "This old monk
>> does not abide in clarity." Do you think he was a nihilist?
>
> So learn to live with yourself as you find it and WALAH!
> ...When I die there will be trillions of people who don't even
> goodness. How could I possibly ever please a trillion and more
> people, hell, I can't even please two for very long.
>
Where did you find two?
Ned
karen
On 29 Jul 1996 08:27:12 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
Foot:
>Well, you sure sound like a happy Buji Master, giving out such relavant
>advice about people who take themselves seriously while taking their body
>so lightly. Such a division would be cause for unification with another.
>The process can be trusted.
Yep, I'm a happy gal (happy in the deeper sense of joy). Just don't let
my shadow know about it, though. ;)
Nope, I don't know a durned thing.
Yep, you can't just live in your head (maybe that's why I'm so darned
happy right now - I'm learning this for myself).
To quote JN:
"Don't neglect the body through attachment to the intellect."
I'm thinking I should get that quote engraved on a boffin' stick so I
can wake myself up with it from time to time. ;)
karen
On 29 Jul 1996 08:27:07 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
Foot:
> (I will now seriously enlighten everyone who has not yet received my
>blessing)
karen:
>Yeah, right. I noticed that you didn't even remark on the Quaker oats
>crack. Too perfect to get down and buji-boogie?
Foot:
>What are you, an elephant or something?
Yep, thaaat's it. Thaaaat's why I'm working out every day and going
low-fat. How'dja guess?
Oh...you meant...um....no, I'd forget my own name if I didn't have these
here spiffy name tags in all my clothes. ;)
Zennist:
> Why not? Got anything better to do?
Foot:
>How about laugh at yourself. That should fill up at least one or two
>lifetimes, no?
karen:
>Suits me fine.
Ned:
> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
Foot:
>That's where the sense of humor comes from, nowhere.
karen:
>Shhh, that'll take all the mystery out of life!
Foot:
>Now that's really funny. Zennist with no mystery. What would he do?
Ummm.... <thinking...thinking...>....ummm....he could martinize his
shorts! He could eat olive loaf! <bla!> He could blow himself up like
a balloon! *
>Real question is, what would I do without him. He's a real treat after YKW.
{Auto-snip my witty reply to that one}
Don't get me started on *that* subject.
karen ( * Ren and Stimpy ref, for the R&S-impaired)
karen
On 29 Jul 1996 08:26:03 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
>>>>> Oh my God, nihilism!! Has there ever been a decent nihilist?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, but I think you'd like to be it. ;)
>>>>
>>>>> Even a good thing isn't as good as nothing.
>>>>
>>>> See what I mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> But then I would HAVE something.
>>
>>My advice then is to drink heavily.
>>
>>>P.S. Although I will always have (and hold and love and treasure
>>> forever):
>>>>
>>>> I am, at this point, so fucking sick of Zen!
>>>> Pee-eww, what a stink! GET OVER IT! Take a walk! Sing a song!
>>>> Go out for pizza, anything! Just wake up, for chrissakes!!! The
>>>> whole world is yours and you don't even know it! WAKE UP, DAMN IT!!!
>>
>>Thus I prove that I am a wrathful, compassionate bodhisattva.
>
>Not a word preceeding this sentence was false.
I'm thinking the line *after* your assertion was the most accurate:
>>karen (and completely full of shit ;)
Do I know myself or what!
Foot
On Jul 30, 1996 01:13:34 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen)' wrote:
>On 29 Jul 1996 08:27:12 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
>
>Foot:
>>Well, you sure sound like a happy Buji Master, giving out such relavant
>>advice about people who take themselves seriously while taking their body
>>so lightly. Such a division would be cause for unification with another.
>>The process can be trusted.
>
>Yep, I'm a happy gal (happy in the deeper sense of joy). Just don't let
>my shadow know about it, though. ;)
Buji:
Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. (In other
words, never explain a joke to someone who didn't get it).
>
>Yep, you can't just live in your head (maybe that's why I'm so darned
>happy right now - I'm learning this for myself).
>
>To quote JN:
>"Don't neglect the body through attachment to the intellect."
>
>I'm thinking I should get that quote engraved on a boffin' stick so I
>can wake myself up with it from time to time. ;)
Buji:
When I was someone's employee I became so good that I had to work for
myself.
Since I don't have anyone around that's wanting the job of kicking my butt
daily to get me going, I'll simply record, "GET BUSY YOU LAZY BASTARD" or
"DO THOSE FRIGGIN TAXES NOW YOU PUTZ".
Michael Dediu
> Huang-po writes:
> If you are not absolutely convinced that the
> Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
> meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
> incompatible with the Way.
This does indeed say that attachment to meditation and other practices
will not deliver Buddha.
> The Mind is the Buddha, nor are there any
> other Buddhas or any other mind. It is bright and spotless as the
> void, having no form or appearance whatever.
This is fundamental Zen.
> To make use of your
> minds to think conceptually is to leave the substance and attach
> yourselves to form.
This is the hard part to avoid, or extinguish.
> To practice the six paramitas and a myriad of similar
> practices with the intention of becoming a Buddha thereby is to
> advance by stages, but the Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of
> stages.
Again, a critique of meditation and other practices.
> Only awake to the One Mind, as there is nothing else to be
> attained. This is the real Buddha.
Fundamental Zen.
> So was Huang-po against Zazen or did he
> have a different notion about Zazen.
Huang po did not prescribe anything else than the immediate recognition
of your own mind.
> What was Huang-po then talking about? If I can not conceptualize it
> how can I practice it?
The only thing he prescribed was the recognition of your mind. This is
accomplished by quieting all thoughts and seeing the void left behind.
Any sort of conceptualization is a thought, and this very thought will
stick in your mind, thus preventing you from emptying it.
> The Master was pointing to a remembrance.
Wrong, a rememberance is a thought which will fill your mind, thus
prevent you from emptying it. You must clear all rememberances.
> realizing the very mind that manifests and moves what
> we call our phenomenal existence.
This is enlightenement, if you can understand these very words you wrote.
> Mystical Zen?
Zen is not mystical: Zen is damn clear. Don't fool people otherwise.
Foot
On Jul 29, 1996 23:52:07 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd )' wrote:
Foot:
>>>
>>> does not abide in clarity." Do you think he was a nihilist?
>>
>> just more readily available...
>> So learn to live with yourself as you find it and WALAH!
>> And stay out of the courts if at all possible...
>> ...When I die there will be trillions of people who don't even
>> know and never will know I ever lived, let alone died, thank
>> goodness. How could I possibly ever please a trillion and more
>> people, hell, I can't even please two for very long.
>>
>
She insists that she is real and you're right, I must then be unreal if
there is to be peace in the world. In the end there can be only ONE. :-)
pretending to be many and pretending to suffer.
>
>
karen
On 31 Jul 1996 05:27:55 GMT, fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
Buji:
>Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. (In other
>words, never explain a joke to someone who didn't get it).
Huh?
Buji:
>When I was someone's employee I became so good that I had to work for
>myself. Since I don't have anyone around that's wanting the job of kicking my butt
>daily to get me going, I'll simply record, "GET BUSY YOU LAZY BASTARD" or
>"DO THOSE FRIGGIN TAXES NOW YOU PUTZ".
Yep, sometimes I think tapes would be good. I used to have some mother
tapes that kept playing in my head ("Clean your room!" "Do your
homework!")... well, Mom's visiting next week so maybe I can get her on
tape, that'll set me straight.
Karen, clean the house!
Do the bills!
Don't stay up 'til 2 or 3 in the morning reading Usenet!
....you know, stuff like that. :)
karen
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOON I WILL BE JAVA MISTRESS KAREN http: TBA
karen ma...@ix.netcom.com Begin the Begin
Rob is most definitely more enlightened than *me*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Tebben
In article <4tilqf$9...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
I realized there were people that I loved. Basically I grew up and
started to question the virtue of selfishness.
Ned Ludd
In <4tq291$j...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dte...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dirk
Tebben) writes:
>
Dirk wrote:
>> I called myself a nihilist briefly, then realized I wasn't.
>
> When did you know you weren't (ie. what event or realization)?
>
> I realized there were people that I loved. Basically I grew up
> and started to question the virtue of selfishness.
>
Are all nihilists selfish? (How could a good nihilist recogize
a self?)
Ned
Jim Schoonover
In article <320012...@webbnet.com> Michael Dediu <de...@webbnet.com> writes:
[...]
>> Huang-po writes:
>> If you are not absolutely convinced that the
>> Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
>> meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
>> incompatible with the Way.
>This does indeed say that attachment to meditation and other practices
>will not deliver Buddha. [...]
Please excuse an interjection from a non-Buddhist source. But I was
reminded of something from the Ashtavakra Gita:
You are unattached, actionless, self-effulgent, without blemish.
This indeed is your bondage, that you practice meditation.
I'll spare you my exposition of this verse and how it may or may
not relate to Huang-po or your comments on his words.
Foot
On Aug 01, 1996 15:19:58 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
Foot
>
>
Ned Ludd
In <4ts27c$o...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot)
writes:
Dirk wrote:
>> I realized there were people that I loved. Basically I grew up
>> and started to question the virtue of selfishness.
>>
> Are all nihilists selfish? (How could a good nihilist recogize
> a self?)
>
> Pain, usually it always get's down to the undeniable hurt of pain.
>
No shortage of pain. So if I see another's pain I'm a saint, but
if I see my own pain I'm a nihilist? Bah!
Ned
Foot
On Aug 02, 1996 22:08:50 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
that they were a nihilist I would inflict pain on them and reask the
question if they were still in ear shot.
Foot
Foot
On Jul 31, 1996 19:11:48 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'Michael Dediu
<de...@webbnet.com>' wrote:
>> Huang-po writes:
>> If you are not absolutely convinced that the
>> Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
>> meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
>> incompatible with the Way.
>
>This does indeed say that attachment to meditation and other practices
>will not deliver Buddha.
>
>> other Buddhas or any other mind. It is bright and spotless as the
>> void, having no form or appearance whatever.
>
>This is fundamental Zen.
>
>> To make use of your
>> minds to think conceptually is to leave the substance and attach
>> yourselves to form.
>
>This is the hard part to avoid, or extinguish.
Foot
>> To practice the six paramitas and a myriad of similar
>> practices with the intention of becoming a Buddha thereby is to
>> advance by stages, but the Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of
>> stages.
Foot
>Again, a critique of meditation and other practices.
>
>> Only awake to the One Mind, as there is nothing else to be
>> attained. This is the real Buddha.
>
>Fundamental Zen.
>
>> So was Huang-po against Zazen or did he
>> have a different notion about Zazen.
>
>Huang po did not prescribe anything else than the immediate recognition
>of your own mind.
>
>> What was Huang-po then talking about? If I can not conceptualize it
>> how can I practice it?
>
>The only thing he prescribed was the recognition of your mind. This is
>accomplished by quieting all thoughts and seeing the void left behind.
>Any sort of conceptualization is a thought, and this very thought will
>stick in your mind, thus preventing you from emptying it.
>
>> The Master was pointing to a remembrance.
>
>Wrong, a rememberance is a thought which will fill your mind, thus
>prevent you from emptying it. You must clear all rememberances.
>
>> realizing the very mind that manifests and moves what
>> we call our phenomenal existence.
>
>This is enlightenement, if you can understand these very words you wrote.
>
>> Mystical Zen?
>
>Zen is not mystical: Zen is damn clear. Don't fool people otherwise.
Why put limitations on MIND?
Foot
Foot
On Aug 01, 1996 18:10:25 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'jsch...@ppdpost.ks.symbios.com (Jim Schoonover)' wrote:
>In article <320012...@webbnet.com> Michael Dediu <de...@webbnet.com>
>writes:
>[...]
>>> If you are not absolutely convinced that the
>>> Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
>>> meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
>>> incompatible with the Way.
>
>>This does indeed say that attachment to meditation and other practices
>
>Please excuse an interjection from a non-Buddhist source. But I was
>reminded of something from the Ashtavakra Gita:
>
>You are unattached, actionless, self-effulgent, without blemish.
>This indeed is your bondage, that you practice meditation.
situation.
If you buy what he says and it is not YOUR truth, a lifetime can be wasted.
Ask questions.
>I'll spare you my exposition of this verse and how it may or may
>not relate to Huang-po or your comments on his words.
sisters. You didn't think that I'm here to hear about what dead men said
to the masses do you?
Foot
>
>
GMF
Jim Schoonover wrote:
>
> In article <320012...@webbnet.com> Michael Dediu <de...@webbnet.com> writes:
> [...]
> >> Huang-po writes:
> >> If you are not absolutely convinced that the
> >> Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices, and
> >> meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite
> >> incompatible with the Way.
>
> >This does indeed say that attachment to meditation and other practices
> >will not deliver Buddha. [...]
>
> Please excuse an interjection from a non-Buddhist source. But I was
> reminded of something from the Ashtavakra Gita:
>
> You are unattached, actionless, self-effulgent, without blemish.
> This indeed is your bondage, that you practice meditation.
>
> not relate to Huang-po or your comments on his words.
Rinzai nods in agreement, playing that old familiar tune,
then compassionately whacks George in the head fifteen times.
Meanwhile, Huang-po continues to laugh his ass off, :)
and George wonders what the hell just went down.
- George
-------------------------------------------------------
| George M. Frichter
| Bartol Research Institute
| University of Delaware
| Newark, DE 19716, USA
| fric...@lepton.bartol.udel.edu
| http://poincare.math.ukans.edu/~frichter/frichter.html
-------------------------------------------------------
julie vaux
sobs of release - oh look an actual article that's ZEN in alt.zen
thanks guys for persevering with trying to keep the zen in alt.zen
sighed grrr on a mission from the muses and benten
Rob Young
jul...@fisher.biz.usyd.edu.au (julie vaux) sed:
>sobs of release - oh look an actual article that's ZEN in alt.zen
>thanks guys for persevering with trying to keep the zen in alt.zen
> sighed grrr on a mission from the muses and benten
Hm. I must not have been paying attention. I'll be more careful about
letting those slip by in the future.
;)
Rob
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOON I WILL BE JAVAMASTER http://www.oz.net/~roby
Rob Young ro...@oz.net Your Personal Ape King
I don't have to be enlightened... I only have to be more
enlightened than *you*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foot
On Jul 27, 1996 20:04:34 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'bodi...@ix.netcom.com' wrote:
>Foot wrote:
>
>> >> > Even a good thing isn't a good as nothing.
>> >>
>> >> > Ned
>> >>
>> >> Mabey you just have a good nihilsim. I must say, its not easy to
fine
>> >>
>>
>> Foot:
>> Too caught up in views Zennist. They are all as useless as the moment
>> past.
>> Put down the books and stop trying to cover your ass with their pages
and
>> wipe some of the shit off, get rid of some of the smell, and COME ON
>> DOWN!!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >See Ned. I tried to warn you.
>> >
>> > -- bodhidance
>>
>> Foot:
>> But he's so easy bodhidance. Give him some time to reflect. Hell, I
>> needed 8 months of constant attention before I got through the last
>> obstacle. (David). It's all so personal and those that want to make it
a
>> monolithic serious endeavor and save the world take some time, I know.
The
>> more *goodness* we bring to the table, the longer it takes it seems.
>I get the feeling that Zennist had a bad experience with his teacher. He
>probably
>wouldn't accept his pseudo-enlightenment so now Zennist is going to make
us all
>pay.
>
> -- just another day in paradise
Through every orifice of our bodies. Yet every post I post is either a
positive or negative affirmation of life itself no mater what the SLIMMIST
does or says.
Foot
Foot
On Jul 25, 1996 15:45:03 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd )' wrote:
Zennist wrote:
>> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice,
There's practice alright, it's just that there's no guarantee that YOUR
practicing THE practice will lead to YOUR particularly awakening or
remembrance, or anyone else's. Make their everyday life a little better
perhaps but it's no more than that necessarily, which ain't all that bad
BTW if one has a mind to do it for that reason. To say that YOUR
particular practice will lead YOU anywhere is to practice with attachment
to the result and is dead practice.
Foot
Foot
On Jul 25, 1996 06:47:45 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
'bodi...@ix.netcom.com' wrote:
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>> In <4t5j37$j...@nadine.teleport.com> zen...@teleport.com (The Zennist)
>> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > Huang-po jumped right at me by saying there is NO practice to be
>> > done.
Sure, anyone who told you that you didn't have to live your life would
appeal to you.
Now you're trying to make the expounding of Zen your life. Give it up,
they'll eat you
alive.
>> >
>>
>> No, he didn't say that. Read the words, Mark:
>>
>> "When there is occasion for them, perform them;
>> and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent."
>>
>> This does not mean that "there is no practice to be done". It
>> means that when it is time to meditate, meditate; and when the
>> time for meditation has passed, don't meditate.
>>
>>
>> > For no practice, form, institution could ever be zen or even bring
>> > it to you. It seemed that Zen point asks us to step up from these
>> > very forms we adopted as Zen to remember what was there all along.
>> >
>>
>> Very wrong, Mark. Zen does not ask that we remember things; and
>> to speak of conceptualizing ANYTHING while quoting Huang Po is a
>> great insult to this old master.
>>
>>Ned, I'm sorry, but I think your efforts are hopeless. This guy is
trippin'.
>He's an imposter and a phony and gets off on dressing up in zen clothes.
>I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't so serious and trying to pull other
people
>into his charade.
>
> -- good luck
I think we can wake him up though. How could we do less for him, in our
own way, than he is trying to do for us?
Foot
Ned Ludd
In <4uucs0$2...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot)
writes:
> I think we can wake him up though. How could we do less for him,
> in our own way, than he is trying to do for us?
>
Ten thousand words, finally one sentence.
Ned
Vanengel
In article <4uqof8$s...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) writes:
>Zennist wrote:
>>> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice,
>
>There's practice alright, it's just that there's no guarantee that YOUR
>practicing THE practice will lead to YOUR particularly awakening or
>remembrance, or anyone else's. Make their everyday life a little better
>perhaps but it's no more than that necessarily, which ain't all that bad
>BTW if one has a mind to do it for that reason. To say that YOUR
>particular practice will lead YOU anywhere is to practice with attachment
>to the result and is dead practice.
>Foot
===============
Sounds a little pessimistic heh ? Agreed that practice with "attachment to
the result" is dead practice. But serious seekers will end up discovering
that they have wandered into a dead-end street, and then shift their
practice to other levels and other depths ... till ultimately "they" will
see the light.
Although it is also true that at that moment, there will be "nobody" left
to see the light ...
===========
Jacques.
Foot
On Aug 15, 1996 19:36:35 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'vane...@aol.com
(Vanengel)' wrote:
>In article <4uqof8$s...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) writes:
>
>>Zennist wrote:
>>>> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice,
>>
>>There's practice alright, it's just that there's no guarantee that YOUR
>>practicing THE practice will lead to YOUR particularly awakening or
>>remembrance, or anyone else's. Make their everyday life a little better
>>perhaps but it's no more than that necessarily, which ain't all that bad
>>BTW if one has a mind to do it for that reason. To say that YOUR
>>particular practice will lead YOU anywhere is to practice with attachment
>>to the result and is dead practice.
>>Foot
>
>===============
>Sounds a little pessimistic heh ? Agreed that practice with "attachment to
>the result" is dead practice. But serious seekers
I say sincere seekers, serious seekers are to be avoided in my book.
Even then, sometimes we have to look deeper into a persons heart to know
where they are coming from. Sometimes people who are quite antagonistic
have hearts of gold.
will end up discovering
>that they have wandered into a dead-end street, and then shift their
>practice to other levels and other depths ... till ultimately "they" will
>see the light.
Maybe, or seeing the light becomes a foolish quest and they make themselves
at home as they are.
>
>Although it is also true that at that moment, there will be "nobody" left
>to see the light ...
>
>===========
>Jacques.
The moment never ends and *nobody* comes and goes as it wishes it seems.
At any rate, relaxation and ease are the by words of true spirituality at
it's best. Grace you might say.
Foot
Foot
On Aug 15, 1996 12:37:15 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
Foot
>
>
Foot
Foot
>
>
Dhyanasamudra
Vanengel wrote:
>
> In article <4uqof8$s...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) writes:
>
> >Zennist wrote:
> >>> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice,
> >
> >There's practice alright, it's just that there's no guarantee that YOUR
> >practicing THE practice will lead to YOUR particularly awakening or
> >remembrance, or anyone else's. Make their everyday life a little better
> >perhaps but it's no more than that necessarily, which ain't all that bad
> >BTW if one has a mind to do it for that reason. To say that YOUR
> >particular practice will lead YOU anywhere is to practice with attachment
> >to the result and is dead practice.
> >Foot
>
> ===============
> Sounds a little pessimistic heh ? Agreed that practice with "attachment to
> that they have wandered into a dead-end street, and then shift their
> practice to other levels and other depths ... till ultimately "they" will
> see the light.
>
> to see the light ...
>
> ===========
> Jacques.
==========================
Ma-tsu said:--
"Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
of ordinary people."
Let me comment briefly and say that the problem rests with our
definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
It is also possible that Zen Center zazen in some cases is mundane
practice.
D
Ned Ludd
In <32188D...@mail.idt.net> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net>
writes:
> "Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
> cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
> cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
> But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
> of ordinary people."
>
> Let me comment briefly and say that the problem rests with our
> definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
> practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
>
If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
you are not practicing correctly.
Ned
Foot
On Aug 19, 1996 18:24:30 in article <Re: Huang-po>,
Foot
>
>
Foot
On Aug 19, 1996 11:50:38 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'Dhyanasamudra
<arde...@mail.idt.net>' wrote:
>Vanengel wrote:
>>
>> In article <4uqof8$s...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) writes:
>>
>> >Zennist wrote:
>> >>> Ned, I'm not sure why you are asserting that there is a practice,
>> >
>> >There's practice alright, it's just that there's no guarantee that YOUR
>> >practicing THE practice will lead to YOUR particularly awakening or
>> >remembrance, or anyone else's. Make their everyday life a little
better
>> >perhaps but it's no more than that necessarily, which ain't all that
bad
>> >BTW if one has a mind to do it for that reason. To say that YOUR
>> >particular practice will lead YOU anywhere is to practice with
attachment
>> >to the result and is dead practice.
>> >Foot
>>
>> ===============
>> Sounds a little pessimistic heh ?
Not after the fact, only before it. The mind makes it seems so, not the
heart that's found its home in practice.
Foot
Agreed that practice with "attachment to
>> the result" is dead practice. But serious seekers will end up
discovering
>> that they have wandered into a dead-end street, and then shift their
>> practice to other levels and other depths ... till ultimately "they"
will
>> see the light.
The same thing can happen if one just paints for pleasure long enough.
It's under no one's
command or bidding. Sure, some things can increase the probability that
something can
happen but no one knows if it will be 3 minutes or 30 years before the shit
will hit the fan so to speak.
Best not to worry about it and enjoy this very moment, that's good practice
since the presence is always here.
Foot
>>
>> Although it is also true that at that moment, there will be "nobody"
left
>> to see the light ...
>>
>> ===========
>> Jacques.
Yet the light cannot be fooled.
Foot
arde...@mail.idt.net
> 'ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd )' wrote:
> >In <32188D...@mail.idt.net> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net>
> >writes:
> >> Ma-tsu said:--
> >> "Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
> >> cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
> >> cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
> >> But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
> >> of ordinary people."
> >>
> >> Let me comment briefly and say that the problem rests with our
> >> definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
> >> practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
> >>
> >
> >If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
> >you are not practicing correctly.
> >
> >Ned
==========================
Spiritual practice can certainly appear as mundane in the example of P'ang Yun's simple act of carrying water and chopping wood, in which a "difference" is not to be found. But I dare say, starting up a chainsaw ain't gonna accomplish P'ang Yun's "supernatural power and wonderful functioning" (the rest of the poem no one reads). For that Ned, you have to go through a spiritual practice, which transcend the mundane.
If this were not so, then any knave, just by "the carrying of water and chopping of wood" would be a Sage like P'ang Yun. And that would be Doogen's Zenji's version of Zen (and Joko Beck's). :o)
"The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the world."----P'ang Yun
D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
Vanengel
In article <32188D...@mail.idt.net>, Dhyanasamudra
<arde...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Ma-tsu said:--
>
>"Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
>cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
>cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
>But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
>of ordinary people."
(true story) ...
=========================
Once I met this monk
whose main task at the monastery
was to grow a vegetable garden.
But the soil was acid,
and in spite of all efforts
all techniques, yin/yang, fertilizers and others
he complained that nothing would grow,
and that he soon would have to abandon his project.
On the contrary, I told him, how beautiful !
A garden where "nothing" grows !!!
Isn't this why you are in this monastery in the first place ?
To make "nothing" grow ?
Unfortunately, he didn't laugh or smile.
================================
I partially disagree with Ma-tsu :
While insight is instantaneous
and not something that can be grown,
to live and get deeply rooted in "it"
needs practice and patiently cultivating one's garden,
so that the flowers of "nothingness" can grow.
================================
Jacques.
Foot
On Aug 21, 1996 06:47:50 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'arde...@mail.idt.net'
wrote:
>> 'ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd )' wrote:
>> >In <32188D...@mail.idt.net> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net>
>> >> Ma-tsu said:--
>> >> "Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
>> >> cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
>> >> cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
>> >> But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
>> >> of ordinary people."
>> >>
>> >> definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
>> >> practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
>> >>
>> >
>> >If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
>> >you are not practicing correctly.
>> >
>> >Ned
>
>==========================
>
>Spiritual practice can certainly appear as mundane in the example of P'ang
>Yun's simple act of carrying water and chopping wood, in which a
"difference"
>is not to be found. But I dare say, starting up a chainsaw ain't gonna
>accomplish P'ang Yun's "supernatural power and wonderful functioning" (the
rest
>of the poem no one reads). For that Ned, you have to go through a
spiritual
>practice, which transcend the mundane.
becomes mundane and
one has to renew it again each moment. In this instant, how can two
oppossed things exist outside harmony. Disharmony can't exist without
being actively created as you do here.
Foot
>If this were not so, then any knave, just by "the carrying of water and
>chopping of wood" would be a Sage like P'ang Yun.
chopping wood, doesn't their original nature take care of the rest. If
they aren't worrying about being sagelike, why should you? Who do you ask
to shit when you have to go, Mother Nature?
Foot
And that would be Doogen's
>Zenji's version of Zen (and Joko Beck's). :o)
dangereous.
Foot
>"The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the
>world."----P'ang Yun
Foot
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
arde...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> > >> Let me comment briefly and say that the problem rests with our
> > >> definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
> > >> practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
> > >>
> > >
> > >If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
> > >you are not practicing correctly.
> > >
> > >Ned
>
> ==========================
>
> Spiritual practice can certainly appear as mundane in the example of P'ang Yun's simple act of carrying water and chopping wood, in which a
"difference" is not
>
> If this were not so, then any knave, just by "the carrying of water and chopping of wood" would be a Sage like P'ang Yun. And that would be
Doogen's Zenji's v
>
> "The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the world."----P'ang Yun
>
> D
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
> http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
sadly -- very few realize it.
-- bd
Mark Vetanen
bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> "The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the world."----P'ang Yun
>>
>> D
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
>I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
> chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
> sadly -- very few realize it.
> -- bd
How is chopping wood and carrying water the same as the inner being
that is nver touched by the dust of the world.
I would like BD to take this question on.
ID,
Mark Vetanen
THE ZENNIST - The Teachings of Mystical Zen - Dark Zen
http://www.teleport.com/~zennist/zennist.html
Foot
On Aug 21, 1996 00:53:01 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'vane...@aol.com
(Vanengel)' wrote:
>I partially disagree with Ma-tsu :
>While insight is instantaneous
>and not something that can be grown,
>to live and get deeply rooted in "it"
>needs practice and patiently cultivating one's garden,
>so that the flowers of "nothingness" can grow.
Foot
Dhyanasamudra
Vanengel wrote:
>
> In article <32188D...@mail.idt.net>, Dhyanasamudra
> <arde...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>
> >Ma-tsu said:--
> >
> >"Spritiual cultivation does not belong among those things that can be
> >cultivatd. If we say it can be obtained by cultivation then, once
> >cultivated, it can again be lost, which is the case with the Hearers.
> >But if we say it is not cultivatable at all, then we are in the state
> >of ordinary people."
>
> =========================
> Once I met this monk
> whose main task at the monastery
> was to grow a vegetable garden.
>
> But the soil was acid,
> and in spite of all efforts
> all techniques, yin/yang, fertilizers and others
> he complained that nothing would grow,
> and that he soon would have to abandon his project.
>
> On the contrary, I told him, how beautiful !
> A garden where "nothing" grows !!!
> Isn't this why you are in this monastery in the first place ?
> To make "nothing" grow ?
>
> Unfortunately, he didn't laugh or smile.
>
> ================================
> While insight is instantaneous
> and not something that can be grown,
> to live and get deeply rooted in "it"
> needs practice and patiently cultivating one's garden,
> so that the flowers of "nothingness" can grow.
>
> Jacques.
========================
That was exactly the view of Patriarch Tsung Mi of the Ho Tse line (a
gent who, I feel, was a Zen genius).
D
karen
On 19 Aug 1996 18:24:30 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>> Let me comment briefly and say that the problem rests with our
>> definition of "practice" and the difference between spititual
>> practices and mundane practices in light of Ma-tsu's words.
>>
>
> If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
> you are not practicing correctly.
Bingo.
karen
---
One of the first things you learn when hiking in the mountains
is that, generally speaking, DOWN IS GOOD.
karen
On 21 Aug 1996 06:47:50 GMT, arde...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>If this were not so, then any knave, just by "the carrying of water and chopping of wood"
>would be a Sage like P'ang Yun.
True.
But there is chopping and carrying and then there is chopping and carrying.
Do you know the difference?
>And that would be Doogen's Zenji's version of Zen (and Joko Beck's). :o)
With all due respect, BULLSHIT.
And cut the smileys every time you say something this assinine.
And do please figure out how to word wrap, pref. at 80 chars/line or less.
Thanks.
karen
---
A candy bar,
a falling star,
or a reading from Dr. Seuss.
- R.E.M.
Ned Ludd
In <8406090...@dejanews.com> arde...@mail.idt.net writes:
Ned wrote:
>> If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
>> you are not practicing correctly.
>>
> Spiritual practice can certainly appear as mundane in the example
> of P'ang Yun's simple act of carrying water and chopping wood, in
> up a chainsaw ain't gonna accomplish P'ang Yun's "supernatural
> power and wonderful functioning" (the rest of the poem no one
> reads). For that Ned, you have to go through a spiritual practice,
> which transcend the mundane.
>
If it works, do it.
> If this were not so, then any knave, just by "the carrying of water
> and chopping of wood" would be a Sage like P'ang Yun. And that
> would be Doogen's Zenji's version of Zen (and Joko Beck's). :o)
>
Hell, D, I can't even glow in the dark. And lifting water and
carrying wood are getting harder and harder!
> "The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the
> world."----P'ang Yun
>
The Summit - no dust!
How could one so tiny hope
To reach such great heights?
- Ned
Dhyanasamudra
Foot wrote:
>
> You lost me on that one. If a person is totally carrying water and
> chopping wood, doesn't their original nature take care of the rest.
To realize our "original nature" is not accomplished by carrying water
and chopping wood anymore than picking up a pencil and a piece of
paper will make a knave a intelligent. On the other hand Foot, it is
true that intelligent people can use a pencil and can write on a piece
of paper. The logic is very simple--don't you agree?
Said another way, simple acts are the manifestation of Buddha-nature,
but it doesn't stand to reason that doing simple acts will reveal
Buddha-nature. Incidentally, this pop Zen idea of being "aware of
what you are doing" so as to be "totally" involved, was attacked long
ago by Tsung Mi as being unathentic Zen.
> Nor by your dung teachings.
Foot, old boy, my so-called "dung teachings" do depend upon which end
of my body you are looking at. I hope that our next encounter finds
you at the opposite end going after my ideas rather than my person.
At any rate, I enjoy a good fight, hell that is why I came here--and
shall continue to wage a war of ideas.
Your friendly ole Buzzard,
D
Dhyanasamudra
karen wrote:
>
> With all due respect, BULLSHIT.
==================
Gosh Karen, does this mean that you ran out of ideas? that your
limited knowledge of Buddhism sufficies no more, and that you have to
resort to scatology? :o)
Boy, pretty soon you will be complaining about my spelling errors and
other petty drivel such as "word wrap, pref. at 80 chars/line or less"
(why should it matter Karen, anything I have to say is not, according
to, deserving of print).
Scatologically yours,
D :-D
karen
>> With all due respect, BULLSHIT.
>
> ==================
>
>Gosh Karen, does this mean that you ran out of ideas?
Gosh Ardent, I guess so!
>that your limited knowledge of Buddhism sufficies no more, and that you have to
>resort to scatology? :o)
I suppose so. Forgive me, omnipotent, omniscient Master Zenmar, I knew
not what I was doing. Oh please enlighten me, great dark master of the
classics! Oh, do have pity on this humble, ignorant lass! Help me to
transcend this mortal body! To repudiate the vile dangers of pop zen!
Oh SAVE me, great master!
>Boy, pretty soon you will be complaining about my spelling errors and
>other petty drivel such as "word wrap, pref. at 80 chars/line or less"
>(why should it matter Karen, anything I have to say is not, according
>to, deserving of print).
According to whom?
>Scatologically yours,
I've no doubt of that.
Dhyanasamudra
karen wrote:
> Forgive me, omnipotent, omniscient Master Zenmar, I knew
> not what I was doing. Oh please enlighten me, great dark master of the
> classics! Oh, do have pity on this humble, ignorant lass! Help me to
> transcend this mortal body! To repudiate the vile dangers of pop zen!
> Oh SAVE me, great master!
======================
You will not be forgiven Karen. You must live in pop Zen hell
forever. You will be forced to take your daily buji Zen lessons from
Joko Beck's dog that "doesn't worry about the meaning of life". Among
other tortures, you will be forced to read Katagiri's *Returning to
Silence* chanting the dictum that "impermanence is Buddha-nature"
without end. Finally, the most fiendish torture of all is that you
will have to do these things while sitting on a zafu, never to
stand-up or lie down again.
I say--Ha!--Ha! Do you hear me? Ha--Ha!
--- A streetcar Named Desire
<tee hee>
D
karen
>> Forgive me, omnipotent, omniscient Master Zenmar, I knew
>> not what I was doing. Oh please enlighten me, great dark master of the
>> classics! Oh, do have pity on this humble, ignorant lass! Help me to
>> transcend this mortal body! To repudiate the vile dangers of pop zen!
>> Oh SAVE me, great master!
>
> ======================
>
>You will not be forgiven Karen. You must live in pop Zen hell
>forever. You will be forced to take your daily buji Zen lessons from
>Joko Beck's dog that "doesn't worry about the meaning of life". Among
>other tortures, you will be forced to read Katagiri's *Returning to
>Silence* chanting the dictum that "impermanence is Buddha-nature"
>without end.
Cool.
>Finally, the most fiendish torture of all is that you
>will have to do these things while sitting on a zafu, never to
>stand-up or lie down again.
Don't have no zafu, don't have no Zen school,
don't have no teacher to rob my soul.
>I say--Ha!--Ha! Do you hear me? Ha--Ha!
>
> --- A streetcar Named Desire
Yeah, I hear ya.
><tee hee>
heh.
karen (no soul either, for that matter. destitute am I...)
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
Dhyanasamudra wrote:
>
> karen wrote:
>
> > Forgive me, omnipotent, omniscient Master Zenmar, I knew
> > not what I was doing. Oh please enlighten me, great dark master of the
> > classics! Oh, do have pity on this humble, ignorant lass! Help me to
> > transcend this mortal body! To repudiate the vile dangers of pop zen!
> > Oh SAVE me, great master!
>
> ======================
>
> You will not be forgiven Karen. You must live in pop Zen hell
> forever. You will be forced to take your daily buji Zen lessons from
> Joko Beck's dog that "doesn't worry about the meaning of life". Among
> other tortures, you will be forced to read Katagiri's *Returning to
> Silence* chanting the dictum that "impermanence is Buddha-nature"
> will have to do these things while sitting on a zafu, never to
> stand-up or lie down again.
>
>
> --- A streetcar Named Desire
>
>
> D
Hey 'D', now you're getting it. Just go with it. You won't fall.
(Sounds a little like 'pop' zen though.)
-- merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream
Ned Ludd
In <4vki2n$9...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot)
writes:
>>> Scatologically yours,
>>
>> I've no doubt of that.
>>
>> karen
>
> Outside of the language there is only reality...
>
Important Information About _Reality_(*)
- Reality only works when you use it. Use it every time
you have sex.
- Before you try Reality, be sure to read the directions
and learn how to use it properly.
* Quoted from instructions accompanying _Reality_ Female
Condoms. [Reprinted from last month's "Funny Times"]
Foot
On Aug 23, 1996 04:42:31 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen)' wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:19:11 -0400, Dhyanasamudra
><arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>>> With all due respect, BULLSHIT.
>>
>> ==================
>>
>>Gosh Karen, does this mean that you ran out of ideas?
>
>Gosh Ardent, I guess so!
>
>>that your limited knowledge of Buddhism sufficies no more, and that you
have
>to
>>resort to scatology? :o)
>
>classics! Oh, do have pity on this humble, ignorant lass! Help me to
>transcend this mortal body! To repudiate the vile dangers of pop zen!
>Oh SAVE me, great master!
>
>>other petty drivel such as "word wrap, pref. at 80 chars/line or less"
>>(why should it matter Karen, anything I have to say is not, according
>>to, deserving of print).
>
>According to whom?
>
>
>I've no doubt of that.
>
>karen
create a Zen Mystery,
and then forget that you have created the mystery and that the only mystery
exists within the context of the language. Then you say that's what
everyone is looking for. Outside of the language there is only reality,
not mystery, and because language can't touch it doesn't mean that it is
not readily available
without making a mystery out of it.
Don't use the system of language to name that which the system of language
cannot reach, and then tell us that its a mystery and we've forgetten
that's what we came for. Its very clear, drop the assertion that its a
mystery, cop to the fact that *mystery* is a creation of language only, and
stop selling your phony baloney wares as if we've forgotten that the
language was used to create the artificial misnomer of reality as mystery.
Did you think I was some idiot or something? Who did you think would buy
that crap?
Foot
Rob Young
Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> sed:
>Said another way, simple acts are the manifestation of Buddha-nature,
>but it doesn't stand to reason that doing simple acts will reveal
>Buddha-nature.
...it doesn't stand to "reason"... I'll buy that!
:)
Rob
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOON I WILL BE JAVAMASTER http://www.oz.net/~roby
Rob Young ro...@oz.net Your Personal Ape King
I don't have to be enlightened... I only have to be more
enlightened than *you*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Young
ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) sed:
>In <4vki2n$9...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot)
>writes:
>>>>
>>>> Scatologically yours,
>>>
>>> I've no doubt of that.
>>>
>>> karen
>>
>Foot:
>> Outside of the language there is only reality...
>>
> Important Information About _Reality_(*)
> - Reality only works when you use it. Use it every time
> you have sex.
:))
> - Before you try Reality, be sure to read the directions
> and learn how to use it properly.
:\
> * Quoted from instructions accompanying _Reality_ Female
> Condoms. [Reprinted from last month's "Funny Times"]
Oh.... heh... that's where I thought this was going. Really. Heh.
*blush*
Foot
On Aug 22, 1996 11:10:53 in article <Re: Huang-po>, 'Dhyanasamudra
<arde...@mail.idt.net>' wrote:
>Foot wrote:
First of all, foot didn't write the following.
>Someone wrote:
>> You lost me on that one. If a person is totally carrying water and
>> chopping wood, doesn't their original nature take care of the rest.
>
>To realize our "original nature" is not accomplished by carrying water
>and chopping wood anymore than picking up a pencil and a piece of
>paper will make a knave a intelligent. On the other hand Foot, it is
>true that intelligent people can use a pencil and can write on a piece
>of paper. The logic is very simple--don't you agree?
>
>but it doesn't stand to reason that doing simple acts will reveal
>what you are doing" so as to be "totally" involved, was attacked long
>ago by Tsung Mi as being unathentic Zen.
>
>
>> Nor by your dung teachings.
Foot
>
>Foot, old boy, my so-called "dung teachings" do depend upon which end
>of my body you are looking at. I hope that our next encounter finds
>you at the opposite end going after my ideas rather than my person.
to the ideas if I can find any.
Just looking for a pulse first. Sometimes a proctologist is needed to get
your attention.
>At any rate, I enjoy a good fight, hell that is why I came here--and
>shall continue to wage a war of ideas.
off proving that the only thing that you're really good at is fighting for
ideas. What if I have no need of and new ideas and only want to play. Can
you de*feet* me?
Foot
>Your friendly ole Buzzard,
>
>D
Foot
Rob Young
zen...@teleport.com (Mark Vetanen) sed:
>bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> "The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the world."----P'ang Yun
>>>
>>> D
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
>>> http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
>>I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
>> chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
>> sadly -- very few realize it.
>> -- bd
>How is chopping wood and carrying water the same as the inner being
>that is nver touched by the dust of the world.
huh? chop wood, carry water.
>I would like BD to take this question on.
yes, I'm sure you would.
...chop wood, carry water
Dhyanasamudra
bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
>
> chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
>
> sadly -- very few realize it.
>
> -- bd
========================
It is very easy to read P'ang Yun's poem out of its original Buddhist
context, giving it a buji, pop Zen spin. To do so would be an error.
P'ang Yun, who studied with the great Ma-tsu, was not an ordinary man,
insofar has he had realized the "summit" of the "inner being" that is
"never touched" by the "dust of the world". This "inner being" is
Sagehood. And it has nothing to do with the five skandhas and the
mundane, samsaric world of hard labor.
But when Sagehood is reached Bodhi--yes, these simple acts are a
demonstration of "supernatural power and wonderful functioning (C.
yung)", just the same as Ma-tsu raising his eyebrows.
Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
is Sagehood. That is so inane, it doesn't even deserve a nasty
comment on my part.
Don't you think that Ned would agree with this?
D
karen
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 05:13:37 GMT, ro...@oz.net (Rob Young) wrote:
>>>>> Scatologically yours,
>>>>
>>>> I've no doubt of that.
>>>>
>>>> karen
>>>
>>Foot:
>>> Outside of the language there is only reality...
>>>
>
>> Important Information About _Reality_(*)
>
>> - Reality only works when you use it. Use it every time
>> you have sex.
>
> :))
>
>> - Before you try Reality, be sure to read the directions
>> and learn how to use it properly.
>
> :\
>
>> * Quoted from instructions accompanying _Reality_ Female
>> Condoms. [Reprinted from last month's "Funny Times"]
>
>Oh.... heh... that's where I thought this was going. Really. Heh.
Ned never disappoints.
>*blush*
Yeah, right.
karen
---
Silence means security
Silence means approval
- R.E.M.
Ned Ludd
In <321fbf38...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> ma...@ix.netcom.com
(karen) writes:
Ned wrote:
>>> * Quoted from instructions accompanying _Reality_ Female
>>> Condoms. [Reprinted from last month's "Funny Times"]
>>
>> Oh.... heh... that's where I thought this was going. Really. Heh.
>
> Ned never disappoints.
>
Gonna tattoo THAT one on my forehead!
Ned
Ordinary Joe
Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
[...]
>Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
>assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
>would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
>is Sagehood.
OK, but what does this have to do with you?
Joe
P.S. OK, OK, here's a hint: whose concern should Sagehood be but
a Sage?
bodi...@ix.netcom.com
Dhyanasamudra wrote:
>
> bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
> >
> > chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
> >
> > sadly -- very few realize it.
> >
> > -- bd
>
> Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
> assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
> would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
> comment on my part.
>
> Don't you think that Ned would agree with this?
>
> D
Who ever said that? Do you enjoy inventing false arguments so you can
pick them apart?
I think you got caught in your own silly web and now you're trying to
retreat and cover your tracks.
And I think Ned said something like, 'If you're discriminating between
the sacred and the mundane you're not practicing correctly.'(sic?)
.. . . and that says it all
-- great awakened kindness, great loving dance
Ned Ludd
In <321FC7...@mail.idt.net> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net>
writes:
> I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
> chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
> sadly -- very few realize it.
> It is very easy to read P'ang Yun's poem out of its original
> Buddhist context, giving it a buji, pop Zen spin. To do so would
> be an error. P'ang Yun, who studied with the great Ma-tsu, was not
> an ordinary man, insofar has he had realized the "summit" of the
> "inner being" that is "never touched" by the "dust of the world".
> This "inner being" is Sagehood. And it has nothing to do with the
> five skandhas and the mundane, samsaric world of hard labor.
>
> But when Sagehood is reached Bodhi--yes, these simple acts are a
> demonstration of "supernatural power and wonderful functioning (C.
> yung)", just the same as Ma-tsu raising his eyebrows.
>
> assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage.
> Nor would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such
> activities is Sagehood. That is so inane, it doesn't even deserve
> a nasty comment on my part.
>
> Don't you think that Ned would agree with this?
>
Whaa...?
Sages don't gotta chop no wood or carry no water! "The Sage does
nothing, and everything is done."
Besides I much prefer the statement "lift water and carry wood"
rather than your version. It's so much more miraculous!
Ned
Dhyanasamudra
Foot wrote:
> Its very clear, drop the assertion that its a
> mystery, cop to the fact that *mystery* is a creation of language only, and
> stop selling your phony baloney wares as if we've forgotten that the
> language was used to create the artificial misnomer of reality as mystery.
> Did you think I was some idiot or something? Who did you think would buy
> that crap?
> Foot
====================
Dear Foot-in-the-mouth,
Why don't you stop selling your dog-meat Zen as mutton? Get out of B.
Dalton's bookstore and read some real books about Zen. Zen, Mr. Foot,
is not a one size fits all sock. Allow someone else to present
another Zen more orthodox than your pop--all is semantic
bullshit--version, that you learned at some dysfunctional Zen center
out West.
Just because you haven't the wit to see beyond your nose Foot, :o)
don't deride the faith of others who see Zen as mystical.
BTW, for a Zennist who dislikes language, you sure use a lot of it
trying to say its all bullshit!
Your friendly old Buzzard
Dream
ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
>In <8406090...@dejanews.com> arde...@mail.idt.net writes:
>>
>Ned wrote:
>>> If you are differentiating between spiritual and mundane,
>>> you are not practicing correctly.
>>>
>D. man:
>> Spiritual practice can certainly appear as mundane in the example
>> of P'ang Yun's simple act of carrying water and chopping wood, in
>> which a "difference" is not to be found. But I dare say, starting
>> up a chainsaw ain't gonna accomplish P'ang Yun's "supernatural
>> power and wonderful functioning" (the rest of the poem no one
>> reads). For that Ned, you have to go through a spiritual practice,
>> which transcend the mundane.
>> "The summit of the inner being is never touched by the dust of the
>> world."----P'ang Yun
>>
Well, no offense meant, but why would you want to go there? And maybe
one day, P'ang Yun will think about coming back down...
Dream
arde...@mail.idt.net
In article <4vm1fu$i...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
fo...@usa.pipeline.com(Foot) wrote:
> First its necessary to show up and meet a few of the natives before going
> off proving that the only thing that you're really good at is fighting for
> ideas. What if I have no need of and new ideas and only want to play. Can
> you de*feet* me?
===========================
"Natives"? Sure Chief Turf Lord. As for ideas, your quips are hardly ideas. And Foot old chap, if you want to play with dirt and water, do so. I will just continue informing the lurkers that the pop Zen around your village is buji and gedo Zen.
As for your own interpretation of Zen, here are some words by J.C. Cleary that fit your Zen like a glove, Foot:--
"....the libertines and avant-garde artists and writers of old China were excited and attracted by the unconventional behavior and talk of the Zen masters. They proceeded to imitate Zen styles, using their interest in Zen as a license to revel in their own subjectivity. They equated their own whimsical iconoclasm and self-indulgence with the spontaneity of the Zen adepts. They perused Zen literature picking out bits and pieces they could take out of context and misinterpret....This apporach to Zen has been followed by the modern adherents of "Beat Zen" who mix Zen ideas into a melange of countercultural attitudes and lifestyles."
Ned Ludd
In <8410220...@dejanews.com> arde...@mail.idt.net writes (to
Foot):
>
> And Foot old chap, if you want to play with dirt and water, do so.
> I will just continue informing the lurkers that the pop Zen around
> your village is buji and gedo Zen.
>
> As for your own interpretation of Zen, here are some words by J.C.
> Cleary that fit your Zen like a glove, Foot:--
>
> "....the libertines and avant-garde artists and writers of old
> China were excited and attracted by the unconventional behavior
> and talk of the Zen masters. They proceeded to imitate Zen
> styles, using their interest in Zen as a license to revel in their
> own subjectivity. They equated their own whimsical iconoclasm and
> self-indulgence with the spontaneity of the Zen adepts. They
> perused Zen literature picking out bits and pieces they could take
> out of context and misinterpret....This apporach to Zen has been
> followed by the modern adherents of "Beat Zen" who mix Zen ideas
> into a melange of countercultural attitudes and lifestyles."
>
Kinda like when Buddhism hit China and got mixed in with
the Tao. This "mixing" and "melange" occurred big time
in Tibet, and really everywhere the religion propagated.
Also, it was a time of changes and new things and Strange Days.
Here's another quote about those times:
> The issue here isn't simply technology, but a new and pervasive
> one(s). The evidence of history is that any such event kicks out
> the jams from a society which results in a period of "Dystopia" --
> or, if you prefer (and I do), a period of enhanced personal freedom
> until the social power manages to pull itself back together and
> grab up all the puppet strings again. In the meantime, some folks
> take advantage of it and enjoy life in the seams between the
> regenerating vectors of social control. This time around they're
> called "cyberpunks".
>
> vagans et goliardois,
>
[this is from a poster named Sourcerer on alt.cyberpunk]
Dhyanasamudra
Rob Young wrote:
>
> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> sed:
>
> >Said another way, simple acts are the manifestation of Buddha-nature,
> >but it doesn't stand to reason that doing simple acts will reveal
> >Buddha-nature.
>
========================
Golly Rob, I have no idea that you were rational and shared in the
general approbation that Buddhism is 'reasonable'. Heck, I thought
you were one of those pop Zen cult freaks who use Zen Buddhism as a
license to reveal their own subjective vanity. ;o)
Welcome to the league of rational Buddhists!
D
Rob Young
ma...@ix.netcom.com (karen) sed:
>Don't have no zafu, don't have no Zen school,
>don't have no teacher to Rob my soul.
Hey! What would be wrong with that?
Rob
p.s. hoo-boy... that's getting a little arrogant either for me... I
must be gettin ready for a BIG fall... hee
karen
On 25 Aug 1996 12:24:23 GMT, ned...@ix.netcom.com(Ned Ludd ) wrote:
Ned wrote:
> * Quoted from instructions accompanying _Reality_ Female
> Condoms. [Reprinted from last month's "Funny Times"]
Rob:
> Oh.... heh... that's where I thought this was going. Really. Heh.
karen:
> Ned never disappoints.
Ned:
> Gonna tattoo THAT one on my forehead!
Yep, it'll drive women wild.
karen (or something... ;)
genein
Dhyanasamudra wrote:
>
> Foot wrote:
>
> > Its very clear, drop the assertion that its a
> > mystery, cop to the fact that *mystery* is a creation of language only, and
> > stop selling your phony baloney wares as if we've forgotten that the
> > language was used to create the artificial misnomer of reality as mystery.
> > Did you think I was some idiot or something? Who did you think would buy
> > that crap?
> > Foot
>
> ====================
>
> Dear Foot-in-the-mouth,
> Just because you haven't the wit to see beyond your nose Foot, :o)
> don't deride the faith of others who see Zen as mystical.
> Your friendly old Buzzard
mystical zen?.....my horse reared up when he heard it....(easy boy easy... pat, pat)
genein [lets unveil mysteries not create them]
Dhyanasamudra
bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Dhyanasamudra wrote:
> >
> > bodi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > > I think you proved Ned's point quite well:
> > >
> > > chopping wood, carrying water is the miracle.
> > >
> > > sadly -- very few realize it.
> > >
> >
> > ========================<snip>
>
> > Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
> > assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
> > would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
> > is Sagehood. That is so inane, it doesn't even deserve a nasty
> > comment on my part.
> >
> > Don't you think that Ned would agree with this?
> >
>
> Who ever said that? Do you enjoy inventing false arguments so you can
> pick them apart?
>
> I think you got caught in your own silly web and now you're trying to
> retreat and cover your tracks.
>
> And I think Ned said something like, 'If you're discriminating between
> the sacred and the mundane you're not practicing correctly.'(sic?)
>
> . . . and that says it all
>
> -- great awakened kindness, great loving dance
=======================
Oh please spare the New Age psycho-babble. Your post doesn't even
deserve one of my more frisky replies.
D
Dhyanasamudra
Ordinary Joe wrote:
>
> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
> >assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
> >would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
> >is Sagehood.
>
>
> Joe
>
> P.S. OK, OK, here's a hint: whose concern should Sagehood be but
> a Sage?
Are you a psychologist or sumptin; or one is them thar self-help pop
Zennnists? What is the point? Either you understand what I am saying
as a matter of reason, or you need re-read my post until you "get it".
D
Ordinary Joe
Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Ordinary Joe wrote:
>>
>> Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
>> >assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
>> >would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
>> >is Sagehood.
>>
>> OK, but what does this have to do with you?
>>
>
>Zennnists?
Neither the first, nor the second (as far as I know).
> What is the point?
The point is this: There are two ways in which one can deal with
a zen saying, such as the above. One is from an exterior or "objective"
point of view (as you have done above); the other is from a vital or
personal point of view.
From a personal point of view, the concern about whether *someone
else* is or is not a Sage is totally irrelevant. The "attainment"
of other people is simply none of one's business. Whether this
person is a buddha or that one is a bumpkin is irrelevant. What
matters is whether in YOUR activity YOU are manifesting the buddha
nature.
So, from an "objective" point of view, you are quite right:
obviously we are not all buddha. But who cares? Life is short.
Do you have time to waste troubling over such nonsense? If so,
please give me some!
So my point was this: Attend to your own most vital concern
(chop wood, carry water) and let the rest take care of itself.
>Either you understand what I am saying
>as a matter of reason,
How is it that you are able to assume that you are
necessarily more reasonable than anybody else?
Perhaps you are a raving lunatic babbling in the dark?
Perhaps there is a slight possibility that I am as reasonable
as you?
> or you need re-read my post until you "get it".
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Why need I, pray tell?
Joe
Debbie Meads
> Ordinary Joe wrote:
> > Dhyanasamudra <arde...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >Keeping the above in mind, I must say again, that it is wrong to
> > >assume that anyone "carrying water and chopping wood" is a Sage. Nor
> > >would it be correct to say that "awareness" of doing such activities
> > >is Sagehood.
> > OK, but what does this have to do with you?
> > Joe
> > P.S. OK, OK, here's a hint: whose concern should Sagehood be but
> > a Sage?
> Are you a psychologist or sumptin; or one is them thar self-help pop
> Zennnists? What is the point? Either you understand what I am saying
> as a matter of reason, or you need re-read my post until you "get it".
>
> D
Dhyanasamudra,
I think there are more options available than
"either you see things my way because of reason
or you re-read my posts until you see things my way".
My choice?
You say nothing to hear.
Debbie