An Observation
Dean Crabb
here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
etc. It seems mostly its baed around discussion on teachings,
philosophies and what one thinks about Zen and enlightenment.
Dean
AvStörenfried
A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
(tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
unless they have seen the same.
AvS
Karl Senior
AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com> wrote in message
news:3998DB...@buddhist.com...
An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
:o)
Karl
A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.166 / Virus Database: 79 - Release Date: 20-Jun-00
Karl Senior
Dean Crabb <dean....@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
news:3998BDF9...@dingoblue.com.au...
Quite correct Dean.
That was why I began posting some martial art practises.
Those who are interested may give them a go or may not as the case may be.
Talking about teachings and philosophies in my experience serves only to
convince oneself that one is either doing well or 'on the path.' It is as
futile as reading about the experiences of others and accepting that as a
gospel. I post experiences from time to time so others may highlight flaws
in my thinking and I guess that is why you do the same......yes/no?
Take care and good endeavour.
:o)
Karl
Karl Senior
> penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> unless they have seen the same.
Considering what the latter part of this statement, you sure do talk a lot.
Dean Crabb
>
> Quite correct Dean.
>
> That was why I began posting some martial art practises.
>
> Those who are interested may give them a go or may not as the case may be.
>
> Talking about teachings and philosophies in my experience serves only to
> convince oneself that one is either doing well or 'on the path.' It is as
> futile as reading about the experiences of others and accepting that as a
> gospel. I post experiences from time to time so others may highlight flaws
> in my thinking and I guess that is why you do the same......yes/no?
Oh yes, definitely. That's mostly why I do it. Sharing what is happening in
my life and then having other people comment can really open up areas of
growth in the practice that hadn't even occurred to me. Its great. The
practice to me is most important, the philosophy I don't care too much for.
Plus I think if someone reads it and gets something out of it, bonus for
them.
Dean
il...@angelfire.com
AND, we are awakening each other. Some do get awakened while some
others don't.
-- ilgu
il...@respublica.fr
http://www.itsmysite.com/yourpage/ (Home page)
http://live.altavista.com/clubs-zenzen (Zen club site)
http://www.respublica.fr/ilgu/findex96.htm (Page d'accueil)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
AvStörenfried
del...
> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
> > for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > unless they have seen the same.
>
> An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
>
> :o)
> Karl
Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
> A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
>
If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
AvS
AvS
AvStörenfried
>
> > Indeed, the task of
> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > unless they have seen the same.
>
>
> :o)
> Karl
Advanced minds tend to do that Karl. Have you seen how many volumes
comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
doesn't fool anybody.
AvS
dashar
times....
Something seems rather out of kilter here.
Why this: penetrating the rind of mental conceptions; then this: step back
from thought forms.
Why this: following the pure precepts; then this: see their pure
substance.
Why this: precepts (pl.); then this: substance (sing.)
Why this: following; then: seeing.
With regard to experiences, I might grant that such is best done poetically,
but to "see" that is Beauty itself.
"(tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
unless they have seen the same." I dunno, it seems to me tathata is always
seen uniquely.
Help me out here. (If you tell me I haven't seen it yet and refuse to
answer, I will be quite disappointed.)
dashar
mayoi
Well, imo one of the beauties of this newsgroup (alt.zen) is its
flexibility - just about everything comes up here. If you'd like to
discuss practice and what's going on in your life there'll prolly be
someone around who's interested - go ahead and give it a shot!
Another suggestion is to scout around for a mailing list - there are
several excellent Buddhist mailing lists on the net that are oriented
toward practice, including the Universal Zendo list. If you're
interested, the URL for subscription info is
http://www.silverspin.net/zendo/
Karen
Steven A. Lightfoot
wrote:
If you can't see the pure substance in everyone else, even though
they have not yet, you haven't seen the real pure substance in
yourself and are just bullshitting.
Steven A. Lightfoot
wrote:
>Karl Senior wrote:
>
>del...
>
>> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
>> > for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
>> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
>> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
>> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
>> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
>> > unless they have seen the same.
>>
>> An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
>>
>> :o)
>> Karl
>
>Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
>refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
>
>> A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
>>
>
>If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
>they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
>mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
>
>AvS
>
>AvS
Unsupported thoughts are pure precepts but there's no one there to act
on them, just witness their beauty and don't have any other second
thoughts to activate the mental aspects of dividing thoughts into real
and unreal, true and false, enlightened and unenlightened, etc.
Steven A. Lightfoot
wrote:
>Karl Senior wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed, the task of
>> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
>> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
>> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
>> > unless they have seen the same.
>>
>> Considering what the latter part of this statement, you sure do talk a lot.
>>
>> :o)
>> Karl
>
>Advanced minds tend to do that Karl.
Yes, I agree. :-)
Have you seen how many volumes
>comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
>lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
>doesn't fool anybody.
>
>AvS
Nobody fools anyone around here Ardie. Haven't you noticed you have
to speak for everyone cause they don't buy your garbage mind creation?
dashar
I can agree with this ("definition"), but I just hate it when you say it like
this.
dashar
"Steven A. Lightfoot" wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:16:26 -0400, AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Karl Senior wrote:
> >
> >del...
> >
> >> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
> >> > for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
> >> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
> >> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> >> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> >> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> >> > unless they have seen the same.
> >>
dashar
dashar
"Steven A. Lightfoot" wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:55:56 -0400, AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com>
> wrote:
>
Virginia Lore
There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.
I used to spin down into a moment and write whatever came to me and post
it without editing or attaching to it. I don't know if I could do that
now...
Virginia
ca314159
Be the clean lens. Transparent. No character. Silent.
Whatever comes through; like dreams,
witness them without thought.
And gravity, a weak force; yet firm.
A paradox.
Become transparent to gravity.
Sit without resisting.
Feel it's gentle yet firm grasp.
It is your umbilical cord as you float in mental space;
witness the whole earth;
and gently guided by these, supple yet strong umbilicals;
more, see the whole universe.
Now I know why the eastern method takes so long.
There are many different umbilicals. All need to be understood.
Learn one well then another...
Yet this slow manner, produces much more deeper wisdom
than I'll ever understand. Though must be important
to go by both paths: east and west. One needn't be an
expert of the universe; alone. There is always another.
Yoda: "There is another."
dashar wrote:
>
> Yes, but "witnessing" is the necessary "action".
>
> I can agree with this ("definition"), but I just hate it when you say it like
> this.
>
> dashar
>
> "Steven A. Lightfoot" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:16:26 -0400, AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Karl Senior wrote:
> > >
> > >del...
> > >
> > >> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
> > >> > for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
> > >> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
> > >> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> > >> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> > >> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > >> > unless they have seen the same.
> > >>
> > >> An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
> > >>
> > >> :o)
> > >> Karl
> > >
> > >Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
> > >refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
> > >
> > >> A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
> > >>
> > >
> > >If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
> > >they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
> > >mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
> > >
> > >AvS
> > >
> > >AvS
> >
> > Unsupported thoughts are pure precepts but there's no one there to act
> > on them, just witness their beauty and don't have any other second
> > thoughts to activate the mental aspects of dividing thoughts into real
> > and unreal, true and false, enlightened and unenlightened, etc.
--
Gleason Pace
This is true. Anyone who comes to zen/buddhism hoping to it will not
require attention to dogma, ritual, etc will be dissapointed. Actually
ritual and dogma can have a use in getting free of the notion that mentation
is good for anything besides fixing dinner. Might as well give the mind
some busy work to do. Helps keep it off the streets at night. The same
argument can be made in Christianity.
> (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> unless they have seen the same.
And since there is nothing further to discuss, does endless haggling over
interpretation make sense?
Noah Sombrero
dashar
Be the clean lens. Transparent. No character. Silent.
Whatever comes through; like dreams,
witness them without thought."
Yeah, well, I dunno....
Regarding the symbology of the Tibetan prayer wheel Lama Anagarika Govinda wrote:
"But what is the origin of the revolving wheel? The 'turning of the wheel of the
Dharma'...means 'the setting in motion of the forces of the Universal and Moral
Law"....(I)t is not sufficient that this act has been performed once by the
Enlightened One - every single human being that strives for Enlightenment must
*repeat* this *creative act* by *realizing* it in *his own mind*." (Emph. added.)
First the turning (repentance, if you will), *then* the transparency. A 180 degree
twist, you might say.
Otherwise, "enlightenment" looks an awful like "Waiting for Godot", to me, and is just
as tradgi-comic (which is what "no character" means to me).
And, these dreams are a lot like Jung's myths, if you ask me.
dashar
ca314159 wrote:
> > > >> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts. As
> > > >> > for the dhyâna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
> > > >> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
> > > >> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> > > >> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> > > >> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > > >> > unless they have seen the same.
> > > >>
Gleason Pace
> comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
> lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
> doesn't fool anybody.
Hmm, the thought that Karl might be trying to fool somebody. And he seems
so clear and right minded to me. Not that I don't fire a shot over his bow
once in a while.
Now Ardie, Ardie might well be trying to fool somebody. Probably himself.
Noah Sombrero
Gleason Pace
>
> Have you seen how many volumes
> >comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
> >lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
> >doesn't fool anybody.
> >
>
> Nobody fools anyone around here Ardie. Haven't you noticed you have
> to speak for everyone cause they don't buy your garbage mind creation?
A funny moment in the ancient dispute between you too. I laugh and wonder
just what is it that is so funny here. A five year old argument over
whether to buy large eggs or small. Sublime absurdity.
Noah Sombrero
dashar
This describes a situation similar to a predicament Freud found himself in.
Having defined religion as an illusion of the people, he saw that the superego
(conscience) didn't have a leg to stand on and was fearful the ego could not
properly support the order necessary for society's well being.
Likewise, when the self is eliminated, so to speak, the *sangha* crumbles
without the force of a teaching.
If one wants to play this game, one must have faith not only in the teaching but
in the "goodness" of the teaching.
But, quite frankly, without a self, *any* teaching can look good in the right
circumstances. This is why the "teaching" nearly always commences *before"
practice.
dashar
Gleason Pace wrote:
> > A great deal of the practice involves following the pure precepts.
>
> This is true. Anyone who comes to zen/buddhism hoping to it will not
> require attention to dogma, ritual, etc will be dissapointed. Actually
> ritual and dogma can have a use in getting free of the notion that mentation
> is good for anything besides fixing dinner. Might as well give the mind
> some busy work to do. Helps keep it off the streets at night. The same
> argument can be made in Christianity.
>
> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > unless they have seen the same.
>
Gleason Pace
in.
> Having defined religion as an illusion of the people, he saw that the
superego
> (conscience) didn't have a leg to stand on and was fearful the ego could
not
> properly support the order necessary for society's well being.
An aha moment for me. It might well be that the ego cannot properly support
the order necessary for society's well being. Thus society's ills. Dare we
hope?
Noah Sombrero
dashar
Wherein, then, lies the standard of value for that which would "cure" society's
ills? The teaching (conscience) can't solve its own problems. Besides, without
the self, there is no conscience.
dashar
AvStörenfried
> Unsupported thoughts are pure precepts but there's no one there to act
> on them, just witness their beauty and don't have any other second
> thoughts to activate the mental aspects of dividing thoughts into real
> and unreal, true and false, enlightened and unenlightened, etc.
Thoughts are always conditioned, hence they cannot be pure precepts.
AvS
AvStörenfried
snip...
> Regarding the symbology of the Tibetan prayer wheel Lama Anagarika Govinda wrote:
>
> "But what is the origin of the revolving wheel? The 'turning of the wheel of the
> Dharma'...means 'the setting in motion of the forces of the Universal and Moral
> Law"....(I)t is not sufficient that this act has been performed once by the
> Enlightened One - every single human being that strives for Enlightenment must
> *repeat* this *creative act* by *realizing* it in *his own mind*." (Emph. added.)
In esoteric Buddhism to turn the wheel of Dharma (also, the wheel of
Brahmā) is to generate those psychic conditions within us which free us
of the corporeal body (i.e., the "home"). In other words, by setting
our mind on proper saddharma (true-dharma) we cycle in that direction
and attain pure bodies. On the other hand, to turn the wheel of samsara
is to become a bondsman to the cycle of rebirth and redeath.
AvS
Bill
<vl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I've been gone a couple of years and back for only a couple of weeks.
>There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
>And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.
It still sounds the same to me.
Waves of thoughts upon the ocean of mind.
>
>I used to spin down into a moment and write whatever came to me and post
>it without editing or attaching to it. I don't know if I could do that
>now...
Not unless you would like to have it shredded.
>
>Virginia
>
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Dean Crabb wrote:
>
>> I was contemplating this newsgroup and the conversations that happen
>> here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
>> about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
>> their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
>> etc. It seems mostly its baed around discussion on teachings,
>> philosophies and what one thinks about Zen and enlightenment.
>>
>> Dean
>>
I tend to sit a lot while sailing. I've shared the experiences
but everyone seems to be looking for something else. They even
have the audacity to call that zen.
dashar
dashar
"AvStörenfried" wrote:
> Dashar wrote:
>
> snip...
>
> > Regarding the symbology of the Tibetan prayer wheel Lama Anagarika Govinda wrote:
> >
> > "But what is the origin of the revolving wheel? The 'turning of the wheel of the
> > Dharma'...means 'the setting in motion of the forces of the Universal and Moral
> > Law"....(I)t is not sufficient that this act has been performed once by the
> > Enlightened One - every single human being that strives for Enlightenment must
> > *repeat* this *creative act* by *realizing* it in *his own mind*." (Emph. added.)
>
> In esoteric Buddhism to turn the wheel of Dharma (also, the wheel of
> Brahmâ) is to generate those psychic conditions within us which free us
AvStörenfried
> A funny moment in the ancient dispute between you too. I laugh and wonder
> just what is it that is so funny here. A five year old argument over
> whether to buy large eggs or small. Sublime absurdity.
Here is one of Steven's more memorable quotes (small eggs) from the past
(after his ECT?):
//If you don't wise up soon and realize that you'll never
conquer alt.zen with your *brand* of Buddhism, I'm going to start
following you all over the place and expose you wherever I find you to
whomever you're relating with. You think you don't like my commenting
on your every post now, just wait until I get serious about you.//
AvS
Bill
wrote:
Exactly. They do make good tinder for the wood stove, however.
>
>AvS
AvStörenfried
>
> > Advanced minds tend to do that Karl. Have you seen how many volumes
> > comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
> > lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
> > doesn't fool anybody.
>
> so clear and right minded to me. Not that I don't fire a shot over his bow
> once in a while.
>
> Now Ardie, Ardie might well be trying to fool somebody. Probably himself.
>
Pay attention, friend. Such minimalist rhetoric even fools the rhetor.
I was merely being compassionate with Karl, trying to help the lad
sublate his present state of mind.
AvS
AvStörenfried
> Why this: penetrating the rind of mental conceptions; then this: step back
> from thought forms.
Well, if you've done it it is possible to step back from thought-forms
after one has penetrated them (as to see their content which is
formless).
> Why this: following the pure precepts; then this: see their pure
> substance.
I understand it perfectly.
> Why this: precepts (pl.); then this: substance (sing.)
I understand it perfectly.
> Why this: following; then: seeing.
>
> With regard to experiences, I might grant that such is best done poetically,
> but to "see" that is Beauty itself.
>
> "(tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> unless they have seen the same." I dunno, it seems to me tathata is always
> seen uniquely.
What do you mean by "uniquely"?
> Help me out here. (If you tell me I haven't seen it yet and refuse to
> answer, I will be quite disappointed.)
No friend, the aporia lies within yourself. Eveything I've said is
perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
still have too much dust in your eyes.
AvS
Bill
wrote:
Why is it that we are always lacking?
Could it be that there is nothing to be gained?
Ned Ludd
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000815...@homer19.u.washington.edu...
>
> I've been gone a couple of years and back for only a couple of weeks.
> There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
> And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.
> it without editing or attaching to it. I don't know if I could do that
> now...
>
Oh hell, take a shot. You can't poison a poisoned well. And who
knows, maybe you'll be the antidote.
Ned
dashar
One more question, then I'll leave you alone (for the time being).
Why is it that,
when you
or Steven
or Caksi
...
aren't clear
*I* get so damn much dust in my eyes.
LOL
dashar
AvStörenfried
> If you can't see the pure substance in everyone else, even though
> they have not yet,
Don't assume that I can't. Have you read the Avatamsaka Sutra of late,
Steven? You need to get better informed. Even though the Buddha saw
everyone from his position in the Dharma-dhâtu (dharma substance) to be
fully possessed of the "wisdon of a Tathagata" he saw too, that
<<because of their ignorance and confusion they neither know nor see
*that*>>.
> you haven't seen the real pure substance in
> yourself and are just bullshitting.
Get real, Steven. You've no way of assessing my wisdom.
AvS
AvStörenfried
> And since there is nothing further to discuss, does endless haggling over
> interpretation make sense?
I don't follow you here. Two people cannot have the same vision and
have two conflicting "haggling" interpretations. Period. E.g., if
Steven says clear water is black with lots of cow shit in it and I claim
that it is crystal clear and germ free, one of the "interretations" is
wrong.
AvS
AvStörenfried
> Likewise, when the self is eliminated, so to speak, the *sangha* crumbles
> without the force of a teaching.
And that is why the Buddha said in the Lankavatara Sutra:
nairaattmyavaadino 'bhaa.syaa bhik.sukarmaa.ni varjaya/
baadhakaa buddhadharmaa.naa.m sadasatpak.sad.r.s.taya.h// [Lanka X:
359-60 (vv. 762-71)]
[Tr. "Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in
the religious rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
being and non-Being."]
AvS
AvStörenfried
of weeks.
There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.>>
Give us an example of your hara/gut Zen?
AvS
dashar
dashar
ca314159
Wax on, wax off.
Until you know the difference.
dashar wrote:
>
> "Don't spit on the lens. You'll see noisy light.
> Be the clean lens. Transparent. No character. Silent.
> Whatever comes through; like dreams,
> witness them without thought."
>
> Yeah, well, I dunno....
>
> Regarding the symbology of the Tibetan prayer wheel Lama Anagarika Govinda wrote:
>
> "But what is the origin of the revolving wheel? The 'turning of the wheel of the
> Dharma'...means 'the setting in motion of the forces of the Universal and Moral
> Law"....(I)t is not sufficient that this act has been performed once by the
> Enlightened One - every single human being that strives for Enlightenment must
> *repeat* this *creative act* by *realizing* it in *his own mind*." (Emph. added.)
>
> > > > >> > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > > > >> > unless they have seen the same.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> :o)
> > > > >> Karl
> > > > >
> > > > >Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
> > > > >refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
> > > > >
> > > > >> A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
> > > > >they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
> > > > >mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
> > > > >
> > > > >AvS
> > > > >
> > > > >AvS
> > > >
> > > > Unsupported thoughts are pure precepts but there's no one there to act
> > > > on them, just witness their beauty and don't have any other second
> > > > thoughts to activate the mental aspects of dividing thoughts into real
> > > > and unreal, true and false, enlightened and unenlightened, etc.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
--
Virginia Lore
Arnie's, Karen's, Deborah's, and others whose names are gone but whose
impressions still come to me as gentle and compassionate and honest. I
don't have an example...haven't been writing/practicing, just dipping in
now and then and tasting.
When I said "I don't know if I could do that now" I meant I don't know if
I could do that now, not I don't know if it would be okay if I do that
now. Posting here gave me an attention to the quality of a moment that I
don't have. The closest thing to stillness and awareness in my life used
to happen when my fingers were moving on the keyboard. But I've never
been a Buddhist or gone to someone else to teach me how to sit. I've just
done what I've done and noticed what I've noticed and been how I've been.
This newsgroup helped me do, notice, be with some intention from day to
day. I liked it. I still see a lot I like--poetry, integrity,
observation. An original subject line is sometimes a sign that I'm going
to find value in what I read.
Virginia
Gleason Pace
Or more likely both. But if, as you say, there is nothing more to discuss,
what are you and Stephen discussing?
Noah Sombrero
dashar
but when either/or fades
and neither/nor rises
*that's* the Difference
dashar
Gleason Pace
> (after his ECT?):
>
> //If you don't wise up soon and realize that you'll never
> conquer alt.zen with your *brand* of Buddhism, I'm going to start
> following you all over the place and expose you wherever I find you to
> whomever you're relating with. You think you don't like my commenting
> on your every post now, just wait until I get serious about you.//
Well, of course, you will not conquer a.z or a.p.z for that matter. I guess
that, if some one thought my posts were important enough one way or the
other that every one should be commented on I, would be quite flattered.
If there is something worth hearing in what I have to say, it is because I
have paid dearly with the years of my life for it. Hecklers will only
expose themselves as hecklers if they question it. If I have nothing worthy
to say, that will be appearant as well, even if my friend logs on and
praises what I say. Stephen can take nothing from you.
It hasn't been too long since some witty person here told Karl he was a
twat. Witness how much harm Karl has suffered at that comment.
Noah Sombrero
Gleason Pace
>
> Pay attention, friend. Such minimalist rhetoric even fools the rhetor.
> I was merely being compassionate with Karl, trying to help the lad
> sublate his present state of mind.
So does midi and maximalist rhetoric. Please accept our compassion in
return.
Noah Sombrero
ca314159
Similar problems there though.
The nasty part: when a gust of wind turns the helicopter about.
All the controls are reversed and
the blade is headed towards one's neck.
One learns to move and reshape their mind very quickly that way.
It becomes multifaceted and limber; but with control.
Curtis Youngblood has mastered this "zen" art:
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22curtis+youngblood%22&hc=0&hs=0
I remember after flying that I would be in a strong trance-like
state of mind for a day or two.
The traditional arts are undoubtably good teachers.
I'm just pointing out a non-traditional one.
I'm no teacher, just talking loudly.
--
dashar
Now we're discussing "alertness" (or something) not awareness - though the two may not be
unrelated. But neither has anything to do with a "strong trance-like state of mind". (I will
grant that, perhaps, certain qualities within the possible denotation of "trance" may also be
present in awareness. It is interesting, though, that "trance" has linguistic roots in fear,
death, unconsciousness.)
Helicopters or no....
dashar
swift
AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com> wrote in message
news:3999A2...@buddhist.com...
> Gleason Pace wrote:
>
> > And since there is nothing further to discuss, does endless haggling
over
> > interpretation make sense?
>
> I don't follow you here. Two people cannot have the same vision and
> have two conflicting "haggling" interpretations. Period. E.g., if
> Steven says clear water is black with lots of cow shit in it and I claim
> that it is crystal clear and germ free, one of the "interretations" is
> wrong.
>
Yes, Ardie, i know it's hard to follow, but if I were you,
and Steven said that, i'd just accept that i was missing
something: ) funny...but i wouldn't take my advice, if
i were you... aaargghh...
....aaarghh... don't drink the water Ardie...aarghh...
you wouldn't believe i'm trying to give up giving advice
would you...aaarrgghh...Steven...
Bill
wrote:
Sounds like the bildge water I had at the drunken barnicle convention.
swift
Karl Senior
> Oh yes, definitely. That's mostly why I do it. Sharing what is happening
in
> my life and then having other people comment can really open up areas of
> growth in the practice that hadn't even occurred to me. Its great. The
> practice to me is most important, the philosophy I don't care too much
for.
>
> Plus I think if someone reads it and gets something out of it, bonus for
> them.
:o) *bows*
Karl
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.166 / Virus Database: 79 - Release Date: 20-Jun-00
Bill
<vl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Gut-zen: not mine so much as Stephanie's, Bill's, Ned's, yes, sometimes
>Arnie's, Karen's, Deborah's, and others whose names are gone but whose
>impressions still come to me as gentle and compassionate and honest. I
>don't have an example...haven't been writing/practicing, just dipping in
>now and then and tasting.
>
>When I said "I don't know if I could do that now" I meant I don't know if
>I could do that now, not I don't know if it would be okay if I do that
>now. Posting here gave me an attention to the quality of a moment that I
>don't have. The closest thing to stillness and awareness in my life used
>to happen when my fingers were moving on the keyboard. But I've never
>been a Buddhist or gone to someone else to teach me how to sit. I've just
>done what I've done and noticed what I've noticed and been how I've been. =
>=20
>This newsgroup helped me do, notice, be with some intention from day to
>day. I liked it. I still see a lot I like--poetry, integrity,
>observation. An original subject line is sometimes a sign that I'm going
>to find value in what I read.
>
>Virginia
Hmmm, just curious - in what, or where does this value reside?
I don't mean this as a cunning question, it has always been of
intrest to me. I suspect that the value is totally subjective,
like the taste of an apple, but it does appear to be related
somehow to the words that are posted. Quite often the phrase
"rings true" is used to describe a consensual perception, but
that alone doesn't seem to constitute value. I would like to
know precisely what "value" is. It doesn't appear to have a form.
It's not anything that can be described in conventional terms and
so remains an enigma as to it's real nature, it seems to me.
I've noticed that people tend to see colors differently, so it's
not too far fetched to assume that the subjective taste of an
apple or the perception of value is experienced differently
depending on ones background of past experience. Also I think
this is the reason that universal values cannot be imposed from
without even though there is a seemingly endless effort to
impose values upon others who have not had the same background of
previous experiences. Also, I'm not saying that you are imposing
your values, it's just a general observation of various people's
belief systems.
So what is "value" exactly? I tend to question with a certain
amount of doubt (grain of salt, if you will) the existence of
value other than what an individual experiences. Surely we may
share common values, but there are probably more uncommon values
that we cannot share because of the different past experiences
we have had.
Just musing ...
Bill
>
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, AvSt=F6renfried wrote:
>
>> Virginia: <<I've been gone a couple of years and back for only a couple
>> of weeks.
>> There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen. =
>=20
>> And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.>>
>>=20
>> Give us an example of your hara/gut Zen?
>>=20
>> AvS
>>=20
>
Karl Senior
> perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
> Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
> still have too much dust in your eyes.
LOL.......'Until the Buddha gives you right view, '
What the fuck do you mean by this oh so contrived remark?
Are you so imbued that the buddha has come to you and given you 'right
view'?
:o)
Karl
*the intensely amused twat*
Karl Senior
> Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
> refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
Is it talking about the big universal self or one's self?
>
> > A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come
from?
> >
>
> If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
> they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
> mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
Then how can they be precepts, especially as the pre means
before......before what?
Karl
*curious twat*
Karl Senior
> Karl Senior wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed, the task of
> > > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all
one
> > > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure
substance
> > > (tathatâ). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with
anyone
> > > unless they have seen the same.
> >
lot.
> >
> > :o)
> > Karl
>
> Advanced minds tend to do that Karl. Have you seen how many volumes
> comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
> lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
> doesn't fool anybody.
If it being advanced means I have to talk a lot....I'm pretty sure my mind
must have missed the point.
Children say little but Christ and Bud adored their purity.
:o)
Karl
Karl Senior
> Have you seen how many volumes
> comprise the Chinese canon? Did you know that Zen B. has produced more
> lit. than any other Buddhist order? BTW, your minimalist rhetoric
> doesn't fool anybody.
Do you assume I have to try to be minimalist......a man who has climbed a
mountain and appreciated the view from the top would probably not try to
describe it to others.....rather he might help others climb so they may
appreciate it too.
Incidently was the Chinese canon written by one person or multiple?
A town is made up of thousands of perspectives.......none of them
definitive.........
Karl Senior
> Get real, Steven. You've no way of assessing my wisdom.
How would you assess it?
Karl Senior
> have two conflicting "haggling" interpretations. Period. E.g., if
> Steven says clear water is black with lots of cow shit in it and I claim
> that it is crystal clear and germ free, one of the "interretations" is
> wrong.
To a person who is colour blind red is green..........to a person who is not
colour blind green is green......who is right?
Karl
:o)
Jazz
Virginia Lore <vl...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000815...@homer19.u.washington.edu...
> I've been gone a couple of years and back for only a couple of weeks.
> There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
>
> it without editing or attaching to it. I don't know if I could do that
> now...
>
> Virginia
Welcome back, Virginia.
How can one know a woman poster?
--
*Gassho*
- Jazz
http://home1.gte.net/sawyerj/index.html
ICQ: 27846834
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Dean Crabb wrote:
>
> > I was contemplating this newsgroup and the conversations that happen
> > here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
> > about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
> > their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
> > etc. It seems mostly its baed around discussion on teachings,
> > philosophies and what one thinks about Zen and enlightenment.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
>
Jazz
Dean Crabb <dean....@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
news:3998BDF9...@dingoblue.com.au...
> I was contemplating this newsgroup and the conversations that happen
> here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
> about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
> their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
> etc.
Let us thank them for leaving us more time to contemplate ourselves.
--
*Gassho*
- Jazz
http://home1.gte.net/sawyerj/index.html
ICQ: 27846834
Jazz
> Gut-zen: not mine so much as Stephanie's, Bill's, Ned's, yes, sometimes
> Arnie's, Karen's, Deborah's, and others whose names are gone but whose
> impressions still come to me as gentle and compassionate and honest. I
> don't have an example...haven't been writing/practicing, just dipping in
> now and then and tasting.
>
> When I said "I don't know if I could do that now" I meant I don't know if
> I could do that now, not I don't know if it would be okay if I do that
> now. Posting here gave me an attention to the quality of a moment that I
> don't have. The closest thing to stillness and awareness in my life used
> to happen when my fingers were moving on the keyboard. But I've never
> been a Buddhist or gone to someone else to teach me how to sit. I've just
> done what I've done and noticed what I've noticed and been how I've been.
> day. I liked it. I still see a lot I like--poetry, integrity,
> observation. An original subject line is sometimes a sign that I'm going
> to find value in what I read.
>
> Virginia
There is much value in what you write!
--
*Gassho*
- Jazz
http://home1.gte.net/sawyerj/index.html
ICQ: 27846834
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, AvStörenfried wrote:
> Virginia: <<I've been gone a couple of years and back for only a couple
> of weeks.
> There seem to be fewer women posting now than then. And less gut-zen.
> And more head-zen. The playfulness is still here.>>
>
> Give us an example of your hara/gut Zen?
>
> AvS
>
Dean Crabb
Dean Crabb wrote:
> I was contemplating this newsgroup and the conversations that happen
> here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
> about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
> their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
> etc. It seems mostly its baed around discussion on teachings,
> philosophies and what one thinks about Zen and enlightenment.
>
> Dean
.... and for sure this thread has become another example of that. :-)
Dean
Dean Crabb
Jazz wrote:
> Dean Crabb <dean....@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3998BDF9...@dingoblue.com.au...
> > I was contemplating this newsgroup and the conversations that happen
> > here today. I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
> > about their practice and their lives, the things they are working on in
> > their practice, the stumbling blocks they've come across, the successes
> > etc.
>
> Let us thank them for leaving us more time to contemplate ourselves.
... but are we? That's my point.
Dean
ca314159
reality in one's head is an important tool. The physical alertness
is definitely there, but this by itself cannot yield the required
perfection to over-come all contingencies. There is a small hole
between thought and action, between conscious mind and body which
cannot be closed by any perfection of mere "alertness".
The "awareness" is the something that closes that hole.
Some call it "spiritual" and I would agree that this word
expresses the personal sense of closing that last small gap
which the consciousness mind has trouble with.
The activity of flying the helicopter requires intense alertness.
So much so that the conscious mind is fully occupied with
problems of alertness. With the conscious mind completely
attending to the matters of activity, the unconscious mind
may work freely; untethered by thought. (In this state of mind
the unconscious mind is "available", and brain-washing may
take place at this point by an unscrupulous teacher.)
But complete untetherment is of no physical use.
That merely results in the trance-like after-effect.
The conscious mind must be influenced gently but firmly by
unconscious mind without it becoming aware of this communication.
It must close that last small hole between the conscious mind's
simulation of reality and the body's reaction to it. This
"small hole" is a paradox that the conscious mind cannot by
itself deal with. There are many ways to describe exactly
what this hole is, but if one studies many paradoxes, one will
attain a better "feeling", for dealing with it.
In a sense, that seems to be what koans are for. They expose
you to various flavors of paradoxes until eventually you sense or
feel what is happening in your whole mind; conscious and unconscious,
when it perceives the paradox.
If the conscious mind becomes aware of this communication,
then the "complete alertness" suffers; because the conscious
mind is no longer fully occupied with alertness, and chaotic
actions set in and spoil the whole "spiritual" effect.
This is an alternative method, to the non-physical meditation
of secular Buddhism. This method seems closer to the essence
of Zen as being both mind and body. Not just mind. (Historically
Zen apparently came about because too many people were sitting
around meditating and doing nothing. So it took the good part,
and added to it, but not too much. The whole idea is to control
potentials, not necessarily increase them.) But any similar
mental-phsyical activity can also work in this sense, ikebana,
archery, surfing, as long as the conscious mind is fully
occupied in deep concentration, and the unconscious mind is
then allowed to poke through in a very small but controlled way
to complete the "awareness". The whole mind conscious and
unconscious are aware of what's going on and they are in "synch",
so to speak.
This activity increases ones appreciation for zen as
art/engineering (mental and physical action). But zen
as a philosophic religion: zen Buddhism seems something more
than this and seems to requires broad experience in life
as a pre-requisite; rather than focused attention.
So in asia there is a saying that goes something like:
"send your pretty kid travelling"
and in the movie Kung Fu, after Carradine masters the arts,
the master says:
"It's time for you to leave."
Experience cannot be taught.
One suggestion, emphasize your own character from time to time;
in humility of course, but exaggerate it so that you can recognize
it. Otherwise how will you know just what it is you are supposed to
wipe clean from the mind's own lense. If someone says something
that seems confusing or upsetting or ... speak out loudly and
even yell loudly, expose yourself to yourself. If done with
humility, this will not hurt you or others. But it seems essential
that one should know the noisy extremes, before they can know the
quiet means. One cannot control what it doesn't know; whether it
is inside or outside their minds.
One becomes their own best enemy in this manner. They criticize
themselves, until eventually a convergence takes place and the
arguments grow fewer and fewer, until the only thing left is
a small hole. A paradox. Then self-critcism does nothing to close
it; and one must allow the unconscious mind to do the rest.
This can be done collectively, on the net. Alot of people are
searching for answers criticizing each other. In a sense the
net is facilitating a global consciousness in perceiving itself
and you may have noticed that in many people interacting with each
other some mentally converge and others mentally diverge.
Some travel in mental orbits repeating themselves over and over, etc.
The conscious mind's own highways are logical, the unconscious mind's
primordial wilderness of analogies, is there also.
Uh oh. I've said too much. Well, whatever.
If it is truth, good.
Otherwise you will know the truth even better,
by knowing what truth isn't, better.
Looking for truth, is looking for noise as well.
How can one tell them apart if they know one well,
and not the other ?
Why does the zen master yell a non-sense ?
So that you will know sense ?
The "small hole", is the fine line that separates
inside from outside.
One thing from another.
One idea from another.
How fine is that line ?
> > > > > > > > >> > for the dhyāna practice, who cares about other's experiences? The
> > > > > > > > >> > important thing is to get your own gold. Indeed, the task of
> > > > > > > > >> > penetrating the rind of mental conceptions is difficult. It is all one
> > > > > > > > >> > can do just to step back from thought-froms and see their pure substance
> > > > > > > > >> > (tathatā). Seeing that, there is nothing further to discuss with anyone
> > > > > > > > >> > unless they have seen the same.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> An intersting perspective. Sounds a bit self orientated to me though ;o)
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> :o)
> > > > > > > > >> Karl
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
> > > > > > > > >refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come from?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
> > > > > > > > >they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
> > > > > > > > >mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >AvS
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >AvS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unsupported thoughts are pure precepts but there's no one there to act
> > > > > > > > on them, just witness their beauty and don't have any other second
> > > > > > > > thoughts to activate the mental aspects of dividing thoughts into real
> > > > > > > > and unreal, true and false, enlightened and unenlightened, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
--
AvStörenfried
>
> > Self-orientated? Odd remark. Haven't you read that the self is a
> > refuge, Karl? This is mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
>
> Is it talking about the big universal self or one's self?
One's self would be the no-self of the five aggegates which is finite.
> > > A question has just sprung to mind - where did the pure precepts come
> from?
They come from the "original non-arising", i.e., Mind, which is pure in
itself.
> > If they came from somewhere determinate, they wouldn't be pure now would
> > they? Remember Karl, reflective consciousness is limited to what it can
> > mentally picture. Pure prepepts are out of its range.
>
> Then how can they be precepts, especially as the pre means
> before......before what?
Your idea of what constitutes a precept is fairly literal I presume. It
is important to know, first of all, what "pure precepts" (or
single-minded precepts) mean from an esoteric pov. In fine they mean
that source of all precepts is fundamentally pure. In other words, pure
precepts are the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the fundamental
source of all bodhisattvas & the potential of the Buddha-nature (cf.
Brahmajāla-sūtra: Brahma’s Net Sutra).
As for the practical side, when you contemplate pure precepts, it's
pretty difficult to get caught up in killing, robbery,etc.
AvS
ca314159
Consider a single piston engine.
The piston is connected to the drive shaft
via a piston rod. The end of that rod is
connected to the drive shaft with an offset
from it, so that when the piston goes up
and down the drive shaft turns around.
The power from the piston would be most intense
if it were focused completly on the drive shaft
but this is not possible.
Why ?
In order to convert the linear motion of the piston
to the circular motion of the shaft, the offset
of the rod from the shaft is needed. If this offset
is small more power is sent to the shaft if large,
less power. But the offset can never be zero. It
has to be some small size that is not too small
nor too large.
The offset is the small hole I spoke about. It follows
a small circular path.
If the offset were zero, then the full power of the piston
would be transferred to the shaft. But mechanically
and logically, the engine cannot function in this manner.
The "small hole" must be present. There must be an
offset.
This offset represents a sort of paradox because mechanically
and logically we cannot get rid of it even though theoretically
it would be good to do so since we can get perfect transmission
of power by doing so.
The Wankel engine seems to bypass this problem.
Does it ? Or is the same problem in the Wankel
engine; just differently analogued ?
Being able to get rid of that offset is a zen problem
from a western perspective.
AvStörenfried
snip...
> It hasn't been too long since some witty person here told Karl he was a
> twat. Witness how much harm Karl has suffered at that comment.
From a personal perspective, neither Steven nor Karl are anymore than
cybernetic dust in the wind. Nevertheless, if what they say is believed
to caputure the essence of Zen Buddhism, then those who uncritically
believe such might be bound for the hells (in a manner of speaking). My
job then, is to counter what they have to say when it goes wide of the
Zen target--at least for balance.
Closely related, if a.z and a.p.z wish to thrive, and not become victims
of Zen historicism (the attempt to make works of different periods
accessible to the modern reader by reconstructing their historical
background) then these forums need only 'let the facts speak for
themselves'. Put another way, our duty as discussants is to adapt to
Zen in whatever direction it may lead us. We shouldn't be in the
business of tweaking Zen Buddhism to adapt to the needs of the
twenty-first century mind. Eternal truths don't need to be tweaked or
warped. One either turns to them (authenticity) or turns away from them
(inauthentic being). There is no inbetween.
AvS
AvStörenfried
I can't recall the Buddha giving a shit about children. An infant
manifests personality right from jump street. Some can be downright
fussy and temperamental. Call it genetic or call it karma--they are not
pure. Pure beings don't enter the Six Destines. Siddhartha managed to
do it, but he was born spiritually (with a manomayakaya body).
AvS
AvStörenfried
> Do you assume I have to try to be minimalist......a man who has climbed a
> mountain and appreciated the view from the top would probably not try to
> describe it to others.....rather he might help others climb so they may
> appreciate it too.
Permit me to use the analogy of climbing a tree for my example. There
are also some who climb a tree that when asked what they saw they reply:
"There was a bird's nest on the top branch and three little blue eggs in
the nest." In other words, some people, even though they climb great
heights (personal experience), they never manage to see the view. These
are the minimalists.
>
> Incidently was the Chinese canon written by one person or multiple?
>
> A town is made up of thousands of perspectives.......none of them
> definitive.........
An analogy can only go so far. The canon is not a town or even a polity
of perspectives.
AvS
AvStörenfried
> >No friend, the aporia lies within yourself. Eveything I've said is
> >perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
> >Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
> >still have too much dust in your eyes.
> >
> >AvS
>
> Why is it that we are always lacking?
> Could it be that there is nothing to be gained?
I've debated with one Zennist on AOL for the past year who maintains
this view (viz., there is nothing to be gained). Essentially I've been
telling him that what the Zen teachers had in mind is that there is
nothing to be gained which is sensually determinate such as a mental
image. I've even told him that the ideas of "gain" and "loss" are
outside of tathatâ (that-ness) & dharma-dhâtu (dharma substance). More
importantly, I told him that nirvana is no-thing.
Needless to say, he is still holds to his belief that 'awakening' is the
realization that there is no such thing as awakening.
AvS
AvStörenfried
>
> AvS:
>
> One more question, then I'll leave you alone (for the time being).
>
> Why is it that,
> when you
> or Steven
> or Caksi
> ...
> aren't clear
> *I* get so damn much dust in my eyes.
>
> LOL
Try Adi Da. Lots of folks say he is clear (or am I confusing this with
Scientology?).
AvStörenfried
>
> > No friend, the aporia lies within yourself. Eveything I've said is
> > perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
> > Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
> > still have too much dust in your eyes.
>
> LOL.......'Until the Buddha gives you right view, '
Salvation in early Buddhism depended upon the saving intervention of the
Budha's grace, you might say. Buddhism, at least as she is harped the
canon, is a *revealed* religion. No Buddha, no authentic Buddhism. You
might as well wait for Maitreya.
> What the fuck do you mean by this oh so contrived remark?
>
> Are you so imbued that the buddha has come to you and given you 'right
> view'?
It really depends upon what you mean by the term "Buddha". That aside
you might find this rather interesting:
//Indeed upon examination of those instances recording the acquisition
of right view by a given individual we always find that it was acquired
at the end of a specially tailored oral initiation by the Buddha in
which he first descended to the level of the individual concerned and,
by means of a progressive talk, gradually guided him into a state of
consciousness in which he could see for himself the impermanence of the
phenomenal world, the sanctuary beyond and the path thereto.// - _Divine
Revelation in Pali Buddhism_ by Peter Masefield
AvS
AvStörenfried
>
> > Get real, Steven. You've no way of assessing my wisdom.
>
> How would you assess it?
First remove the swine.
AvS
AvStörenfried
> Or more likely both. But if, as you say, there is nothing more to discuss,
> what are you and Stephen discussing?
IMO, Steven is the Pied Piper leading spiritual infants to the hells.
Hopefully, fate will serve him some rat poison or he will finally get
some much needed ECT from his local asylum.
AvS
AvStörenfried
>
> > I don't follow you here. Two people cannot have the same vision and
> > have two conflicting "haggling" interpretations. Period. E.g., if
> > Steven says clear water is black with lots of cow shit in it and I claim
> > that it is crystal clear and germ free, one of the "interretations" is
> > wrong.
>
> To a person who is colour blind red is green..........to a person who is not
> colour blind green is green......who is right?
>
In the transcendent world of truth, Karl, defective senses have no power
to mislead us. But in Steven's world (which is ONLY in the sensory
realm) his so-called truth would be all colors, including black. I take
it you will agree with him. Yawn...
AvS
Norbert Sima
> No friend, the aporia lies within yourself. Eveything I've said is
> perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
> Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
> still have too much dust in your eyes.
Does that stem from a random-phrase-generator?
You know, AvS, you sure got everything right in this posting of
yours, but still - you just *understood* it, as a long-time and
eager pupil you sure gained some knowledge, but still - you're
just one step away, but afraid to take it, your ego still as big
as it was on day one of your learning path.
Stop wasting more time beating around the bushes, just take it.
--
"Feeling like a woman, looking like a man
Sounding like a no-no, make it when I can"
-Flash & the Pan, Walking in the rain
Virginia Lore
> So what is "value" exactly? I tend to question with a certain
> amount of doubt (grain of salt, if you will) the existence of
> value other than what an individual experiences. Surely we may
> share common values, but there are probably more uncommon values
> that we cannot share because of the different past experiences
> we have had.
Reef your sails and stay your weather helm, Bill, lest the lee take you
in.
Which is to say, I don't know what value is, but can say that at least one
place it resides is in a message you posted in 1997, which I have kept
since then, and for which I still thank you.
Virginia
Virginia Lore
> Welcome back, Virginia.
> How can one know a woman poster?
Well, she's usually wearing a bathing suit and leaning on a car.
(Color me slightly embarrassed to be caught on a hook of genderism).
VL
Gleason Pace
> is important to know, first of all, what "pure precepts" (or
> single-minded precepts) mean from an esoteric pov. In fine they mean
> that source of all precepts is fundamentally pure. In other words, pure
> precepts are the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the fundamental
> source of all bodhisattvas & the potential of the Buddha-nature (cf.
> Brahmajāla-sūtra: Brahma's Net Sutra).
Ah, so the pure precepts are pure because the pure precepts say so
(cf. Christianity).
But still, pure precepts are not within the scope of our poor awarenesses,
so it really does not matter if they are pure or not. We do not apprehend
them.
Noah Sombrero
Gleason Pace
> cybernetic dust in the wind. Nevertheless, if what they say is believed
> to caputure the essence of Zen Buddhism, then those who uncritically
> believe such might be bound for the hells (in a manner of speaking). My
> job then, is to counter what they have to say when it goes wide of the
> Zen target--at least for balance.
Ah so it is your job to save me from going to Hell. That has a familiar
ring to it somehow. Notice how I balance this. I allow all the many people
who want to save me from the many Hells to have their say. Then, if I feel
moved, I make my quiet reply, but maybe I remain silent.
The truth is that I also speak thinking that my words might someday, somehow
benefit somebody. But, as I see just how dependant beliefs are in myself
(starting first of all with the influence of my IQ whatever it is), I shrink
from saying that anyone would be assigned eternal torment because of
something so accidental as a belief.
> Closely related, if a.z and a.p.z wish to thrive,
Why should they wish to survive? Is their survival of any lasting
significance? How did they become personified anyway?
> themselves'. Put another way, our duty as discussants is to adapt to
> Zen in whatever direction it may lead us. We shouldn't be in the
> business of tweaking Zen Buddhism to adapt to the needs of the
> twenty-first century mind. Eternal truths don't need to be tweaked or
> warped. One either turns to them (authenticity) or turns away from
> them (inauthentic being). There is no inbetween.
Actually I have recently made a very similar point myself here. But in a
very different sort of way that, while not accepted, did not arouse general
antagonism to itself. That way, there is still room for people to reflect
on what I said, and maybe someday come to see it as their own idea in the
first place (or something) after the manner in which change most often comes
to people. It does not come by way of haranging ideologues. Sorry.
It also leave room for change to come to me. Haranging ideologues have a
harder time seeing that something might have been wrong in what they have
been saying; they have so much invested in it being true after all.
Noah Sombrero
Gleason Pace
So there is still something left to discuss. Do you think exchanging
vituperations with him will change his mind or lead infants the way you
thing they should go?
People are much more subtle and supple than that. You need to learn the
music infants will follow or you are likely to be marching out of town by
yourself. As will he as a matter of fact.
Actually neither one of you needs to worry about the influence of the other
at this point.
Noah Sombrero
grail...@ntsource.comnojunk
"I realised that not many people on here actually talk much
about their practices and their lives, the things they are
working on their practice, the stumbling blocks they've
come across, the successes, etc."
Dean, the few times I have shared information about my life, it
was taken and torn apart by big egos in alt.zen who had their
hey day with me. I would be glad to share privately (via private
email) something about my life and practices, but I have learned
over the years that alt.zen is like a pack of wolves with everyone
clamoring to have their big egos heard.
However, I am not a "zennie" as probably most people think in
terms of zen. If you had to put a label on me, you perhaps
might use "bhakta" or sufi initiate, or a universalist, etc.
Kathy
Note: to email me, remove the '3' and the 'nojunk'
--
Karl Senior
> Your idea of what constitutes a precept is fairly literal I presume. It
> is important to know, first of all, what "pure precepts" (or
> single-minded precepts) mean from an esoteric pov. In fine they mean
> that source of all precepts is fundamentally pure. In other words, pure
> precepts are the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the fundamental
> source of all bodhisattvas & the potential of the Buddha-nature (cf.
> Brahmajāla-sūtra: Brahma's Net Sutra).
>
> pretty difficult to get caught up in killing, robbery,etc.
Why is this?
:o)
Karl
Karl Senior
AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com> wrote in message
news:399AA7...@buddhist.com...
> Gleason Pace wrote:
>
> snip...
>
> > It hasn't been too long since some witty person here told Karl he was a
> > twat. Witness how much harm Karl has suffered at that comment.
>
> cybernetic dust in the wind. Nevertheless, if what they say is believed
> to caputure the essence of Zen Buddhism, then those who uncritically
> believe such might be bound for the hells (in a manner of speaking). My
> job then, is to counter what they have to say when it goes wide of the
> Zen target--at least for balance.
You bloody fool, you do hang yourself with your words.
If you are to correct Stephen or myself, you can only correct us by what you
think or believe zen to be.
But the pure you, the you that had your face before you were born, has no
beliefs. This is the beginning and the end of zen. Realisation of the true
you brings about the beginners mind that zen masters claim to be the correct
state for our minds to be. And the beginners mind is......................?
I write absolutely nothing that is to be believed for at the heart, beliefs
are but learned stuff and as such this stuff is in the same state of flux as
the universe..............
Are two dog barks ever the same.............?
:o)
Karl
*doing the same thing he's just criticised Avs for doing*
Karl Senior
The kiddie reference is nothing to do with their temperaments, it is to do
with their open state of mind - beginning, accepting but
non-accepting.................
:o)
Karl
Karl Senior
> Karl wrote:
>
> > Do you assume I have to try to be minimalist......a man who has climbed
a
> > mountain and appreciated the view from the top would probably not try to
> > describe it to others.....rather he might help others climb so they may
> > appreciate it too.
>
> Permit me to use the analogy of climbing a tree for my example. There
> are also some who climb a tree that when asked what they saw they reply:
> "There was a bird's nest on the top branch and three little blue eggs in
> the nest." In other words, some people, even though they climb great
> heights (personal experience), they never manage to see the view. These
> are the minimalists.
Yes and they're not worse and not better, only different.
Can you not see your judgemental mind condemning people for not following
the same path as yourself.
It was the Bud himself who said there are a thousand ways to awakenment.
>
> >
> > Incidently was the Chinese canon written by one person or multiple?
> >
> > A town is made up of thousands of perspectives.......none of them
> > definitive.........
>
> An analogy can only go so far. The canon is not a town or even a polity
> of perspectives.
Only if the point is missed.........
Karl Senior
> Budha's grace, you might say. Buddhism, at least as she is harped the
> canon, is a *revealed* religion. No Buddha, no authentic Buddhism. You
> might as well wait for Maitreya.
>
> > What the fuck do you mean by this oh so contrived remark?
> >
> > Are you so imbued that the buddha has come to you and given you 'right
> > view'?
>
> It really depends upon what you mean by the term "Buddha".
I have read that buddha means awakened, or awakened one - do you have a
different interpretation?
I am curious, do you worship the Buddha?
There is another interesting quote that goes something like this - 'if you
treat everybody as though they are enlightenend, you will be.'
Can't remember where it comes from but it seems appropriate.
Good endeavour Avs
Karl
:o)
Karl Senior
A banal statement.
How would you remove the swine?
Karl Senior
When are you going to realise that you are writing from everything you've
ever learned from your senses. They're all you have to communicate with the
world. There is nothing wrong with any sense......indeed they are completely
neautral until imbued with intention.......and where does intention come
from?
It is desire that causes us to mis-use the senses.
Tell me Avs what are your desires?.........and don't lie and say you have
non.......you're posts have already given much away.
:o)
Karl
Bill
<karl.s...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>AvStörenfried <hs...@buddhist.com> wrote in message
>news:399AA7...@buddhist.com...
>> Gleason Pace wrote:
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> > It hasn't been too long since some witty person here told Karl he was a
>> > twat. Witness how much harm Karl has suffered at that comment.
>>
>> From a personal perspective, neither Steven nor Karl are anymore than
>> cybernetic dust in the wind. Nevertheless, if what they say is believed
>> to caputure the essence of Zen Buddhism, then those who uncritically
>> believe such might be bound for the hells (in a manner of speaking). My
>> job then, is to counter what they have to say when it goes wide of the
>> Zen target--at least for balance.
>
>You bloody fool, you do hang yourself with your words.
>
>If you are to correct Stephen or myself, you can only correct us by what you
>think or believe zen to be.
>
>But the pure you, the you that had your face before you were born, has no
>beliefs. This is the beginning and the end of zen. Realisation of the true
>you brings about the beginners mind that zen masters claim to be the correct
>state for our minds to be. And the beginners mind is......................?
^
___________________________________________________________________________|
>
>I write absolutely nothing that is to be believed for at the heart, beliefs
>are but learned stuff and as such this stuff is in the same state of flux as
>the universe..............
>
>Are two dog barks ever the same.............?
Mu!
>
>:o)
>Karl
>*doing the same thing he's just criticised Avs for doing*
>
Mu! :-)
Bill
<karl.s...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> Your idea of what constitutes a precept is fairly literal I presume. It
>> is important to know, first of all, what "pure precepts" (or
>> single-minded precepts) mean from an esoteric pov. In fine they mean
>> that source of all precepts is fundamentally pure. In other words, pure
>> precepts are the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the fundamental
>> source of all bodhisattvas & the potential of the Buddha-nature (cf.
>> Brahmajāla-sūtra: Brahma's Net Sutra).
>>
>> As for the practical side, when you contemplate pure precepts, it's
>> pretty difficult to get caught up in killing, robbery,etc.
>
>
>Why is this?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly's "Pogo"
>
>:o)
>Karl
>
Karl Senior
Bill <Robic...@nwnexus.net> wrote in message
news:399ae69e...@news.blarg.net...
*smiles*
this reference is lost on me..........*shrugs*.........help?
Bill
wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>> >No friend, the aporia lies within yourself. Eveything I've said is
>> >perfectly clear to an ariyan. You simpley lack *right view*. Until the
>> >Buddha gives you right view, acquire as much merit as you can. You
>> >still have too much dust in your eyes.
>> >
>> >AvS
>>
>> Why is it that we are always lacking?
>> Could it be that there is nothing to be gained?
>
>I've debated with one Zennist on AOL for the past year who maintains
>this view (viz., there is nothing to be gained). Essentially I've been
>telling him that what the Zen teachers had in mind is that there is
>nothing to be gained which is sensually determinate such as a mental
>image.
Or a conclusion? A fixed POV? A thought? Thoughts are impermanent.
>I've even told him that the ideas of "gain" and "loss" are
>outside of tathatâ (that-ness) & dharma-dhâtu (dharma substance). More
>importantly, I told him that nirvana is no-thing.
Seems that gain and loss are closely related to the notion that there
is some permanent entity amist impermanent thoughts (conclusions) that
gains or looses. The Buddha, upon his awakening, realized that this
craving for existence (and conversely non-existence) is based on the
assumption that there is some mental self image that gains or looses.
So dharma-dhâtu, being originally unaffected by gain and loss makes
the emptiness of dependent origination vividly clear which dispells
the notion of a permanent substantial entity that thinks thoughts and
arives at conclusions, being itself a hastely drawn conclusion.
So I don't believe that nirvana is no-thing as opposed to thing or
not-no-thing, but rather the cessation of the narcissic craving
for permanence amidst impermanence. What remains is primordial
mind that is not attaining or becoming, being originally pure like
a mirror that may reflect images but is not the images themselves
and is unaffected by the images reflected by it - rigpa - the
mirror-like wisdom of Akshobhya (Mi-bskyod-pa) one of the five
dhyani buddhas that are antidotes for the five poisons.
However, I think it's unwise to discuss Tantra in a newsgroup
since it's certain to be mis-interperted by those who don't
practice it and would only serve to cause further confusion.
In this regard, Zen seems to be the best antidote for the
extroversion of Western dualistic thought, imho. ;-)
>
>Needless to say, he is still holds to his belief that 'awakening' is the
>realization that there is no such thing as awakening.
>
Well, that isn't what I meant by: < Why is it that we are always
lacking? Could it be that there is nothing to be gained? >
I don't think it's possible to gain what there is already.
However, "first a mountain is a mountian, then the mountain is seen
as it's constituent parts, then it is just a mountain again." is
more of what I had in mind when I wrote that.
I'd appreciate your feedback as to whether I'm totally off-base here.
>AvS
Bill
I'm just happy it meant something to you even though I don't know
what that something is, but you're welcome.
Bill
<karl.s...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>Bill <Robic...@nwnexus.net> wrote in message
>news:399ae69e...@news.blarg.net...
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:42:44 +0100, "Karl Senior"
>> <karl.s...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Your idea of what constitutes a precept is fairly literal I presume.
>It
>> >> is important to know, first of all, what "pure precepts" (or
>> >> single-minded precepts) mean from an esoteric pov. In fine they mean
>> >> that source of all precepts is fundamentally pure. In other words,
>pure
>> >> precepts are the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the fundamental
>> >> source of all bodhisattvas & the potential of the Buddha-nature (cf.
>> >> Brahmajāla-sūtra: Brahma's Net Sutra).
>> >>
>> >> As for the practical side, when you contemplate pure precepts, it's
>> >> pretty difficult to get caught up in killing, robbery,etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >Why is this?
>>
>> "We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly's "Pogo"
>
>*smiles*
>this reference is lost on me..........*shrugs*.........help?
>
<grin> Did this not answer your question "Why is this [difficult
to get caught up in killing, robbery, etc.]?
If I rob you, I rob myself. If I kill you, I kill myself.
Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be), I haven't
found any self other than the conventional designation "I".
Gleason Pace
> > "We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly's "Pogo"
>
> *smiles*
> this reference is lost on me..........*shrugs*.........help?
>
Pogo was a comic strip at one time. On earth day in the early 70's, Pogo
spoke these imortal words. Many people even remember where they were and
what they were doing when they read that cartoon. Like me.
Last time I searched, it was possible to find a copy of the very cartoon in
question on the web. A site with pogo memorabilia, etc.
Deck us all with boston charlie....
Noah Sombrero
Karl Senior
> to get caught up in killing, robbery, etc.]?
>
> If I rob you, I rob myself. If I kill you, I kill myself.
> Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be), I haven't
> found any self other than the conventional designation "I".
mmmmmm.....aaahhh
yes surely :o)
Karl Senior
Gleason Pace <somb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q_Dm5.3947$Ur3....@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Is this a USA thingy?
Cos I'm a UK thingy :o)