Zen and the Art of ..... ?
Clint
>
> Putting up with begrudgingly
> is not the same
> as having fun.
>
> Btw, the problem isn't Buddhism - it's Buddhists.
>
> tu
Perhaps; i've noticed this to be true in many realms, pursuits,
disciplines, religions, etc.... And as with anything else, the internet
merely exacerbates many problems due to the accessibility it gives more
people; the more baskets of apples you have, the more rotten ones you'll
find.
I've noticed this in golf newsgroups, game newsgroups, ham radio
newsgroups, many of them; they should be purely an information bulliten
board where you can ask or answer questions, to help spread knowledge
about whatever field you're interested in.. but along comes a snobby,
self-grandizing person who wants to bitch-slap you with a "you're too
stupid to be on the same ng as me" attitude.... nothing is done to
propegate information or clarify murkiness. I just try to overlook these
fellows.
--
The more things change,
The more they stay the same...
Clint
> zen is not separate from buddha-mind.
> perhaps you need to learn more about zen.
>
> read Hui Neng.
>
> robert
>
Ah, but I have read to the contrary... from my understanding, there are just a
great many buddhists (of whatever level of commitment to that religion the practice
or profess) that claim that zen and buddhism are indivisible. It would seem to me
that if zen and buddhism were one and the same, then there would be no need for the
extra prefix "zen" at all; it would be the same as saying "red red light" or "up in
an upward direction" etc.
My understanding is that zen is merely a discipline that can be applied to other
ends or goals... whether it be simple self-improvement of the mind and body, or
pursuit of something else.. or other religion. After all, couldn't you follow the
zen (and zazen meditative) practice in order to focus your mind and concentration
for OTHER ends, such as athletic ability, or academic excellence, etc.? Here seems
to be the dividing point between those taking part in purely zen and those who are
buddhists; the buddhists take part in zazen meditation due to the fact that they
follow the buddhists doctrines and simply are purists in that form, and feel that
is the one and only goal of zen.
It could even be that zen developed or evolved in parrallel to buddhism.... OR,
maybe zen was first applied to buddism before other pursuits, who really knows more
than what recorded history tells us?
RATIONALE: I have heard of such terms as "zen hinduism", "zen nihlism", "zen
christianity", "zen glass blowing", "zen underwater basket weaving", so on and so
forth.
Just another $.02 worth.
Clint
> if you find it appealing, hang out.
> but don't expect folks here to make much sense.
>
I couldn't agree more. It's merely another resource for me... another amongst many. I
just hate the overwhelming feeling I have that many things expounded (read: spewed)
here are done so more for the impact value and sounding profound when, in fact, many
times (though maybe not all) for no real, practical or other purpose.
Dirk Bruere
"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> wrote in message
news:3CE7F05F...@computron.net...
Zen Asatru?
IMO the core of 'Zen' in this sense is the cultivation of 'no self'.
Success comes when 'I' get out of the way and 'let it happen'.
FFF
Dirk
Ch'an Fu
Dirk Bruere wrote:
that's basic buddhism.
zen (ch'an) is getting to the same
station by the express train.
Clint
>
>
> that's basic buddhism.
> zen (ch'an) is getting to the same
> station by the express train.
Hm, but couldn't you then use zen to get to ANOTHER station by the same express
train? Even though the "zen train" (to use your analogy) just so frequently heads
down the same track as the buddha one..... albiet even most frequently?
Anyway, that's just my view.
I still say that if zen was synonomous with buddhism, you'd have very frequent
cross posts, wouldn't you, between the two? I haven't seen any in the few months
i've been visiting these two zen newsgroups.
Clint
> Zen Asatru?
Okay, I'm about to sound really stupid, I know.. what is "asatru"?
>
> IMO the core of 'Zen' in this sense is the cultivation of 'no self'.
> Success comes when 'I' get out of the way and 'let it happen'.
I'll buy that.
Ch'an Fu
Clint wrote:
ok - look at your understanding of buddhism.
then look at your understanding of zen (ch'an)
without any "buddhism" (if that's possible)
what's left of any of it?
it may be that the "buddhism" part
is the problem.
Dirk Bruere
> >
> > Zen Asatru?
>
> Okay, I'm about to sound really stupid, I know.. what is "asatru"?
I follow the path of the old N European Gods eg Odin Thor Freya Frigga etc
> > IMO the core of 'Zen' in this sense is the cultivation of 'no self'.
> > Success comes when 'I' get out of the way and 'let it happen'.
>
> I'll buy that.
I think there was some pop book a while back called 'the inner game' that
about wrapped it up from a practical POV.
Anyway, as I see it Buddhism is explicitly about ending suffering and
provides a docrinal framework for doing so. Zen OTOH is basically a
technique (or set of techniques) to cultivate no-self.
Buddhism can encompass Zen, but Zen need not be Buddhist.
The fact that Zen has been harnessed to enable warriors to be better killers
illustrates that point IMO.
FFF
Dirk
Dr Ben Lau
>Success comes when 'I' get out of the way and 'let it happen'.
>
>FFF
>Dirk
Ben responds
And who then can say these words.?
If it happens then you have created a concept of now this is it .Your simply
using your senses in this statement You havent seen DIRECTLY , this is what
your meaning here implies.
Begin anew
Ben
Anders Honore
"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3CE86A8C...@computron.net...
Crossposts between alt.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan and alt.buddha.short.fat.guy have always been
fairly common.
As for whether Zen and Buddhism is the same... Well, all the famous Zen
masters of the past have professed to Buddhism, and it draws its teachings
from the Mahayana Sutras, so I guess you could say that Zen is a Buddhist
branch. But all of this is just speaking in terms of categorisations. I
think Hui Hai put things in the right perspective:
Student: "Do Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism really amount to one
doctrine, or to three?"
Hui Hai: "Employed by those of great capacity, they are the same. As
understood by those of limited intellect, they differ. All of them spring
forth from the functioning of the one self-nature. It is views involving
differentiation which make them three. Whether a person remains deluded or
gains illumination depends upon that person, not upon differences or
similarity of doctrine."
grail...@ntsource.comnojunk
"...as I see it Buddhism is explicity about ending suffering and
provides a doctrinal framework for doing so. Zen OTOH is basically
a technique (or set of techniques) to cultivate no-self.
Buddhism can encompass Zen, but Zen need not be Buddhist."
Hello Dirk,
Your post brought to mind something I read recently that
Swami Ramdas (known as 'Beloved Papa', the one who had attained
spiritual liberation and God-vision; he wandered as a mendicant
Sadhu in India and the Himalayas, with the all-powerful Ram Mantra
"ever on his tongue and with God as his only refuge and guide").
The following is from the book, _WORLD IS GOD_ by Swami Ramdas:
"PROF. D.T. SUZUKI: ZEN BUDDHISM
Next day we arranged for an apointment with Prof. D. T. Suzuki,
of whom we had heard much in the U.S.A. He is a well-known exponent of
what is called Zen Buddhism. This is understood to be a particular
Buddhist sect, the followers of which claimed to practise the pure
teachings of Buddha. The founder of Zen Buddhism was Bodhidharma. He
has a large following in Japan and other parts of the world. Some
prominent disciples of the founder have started in different parts of
Japan monasteries for training and guiding seekers to the supreme goal
of _Nirvana_.
The methods of spiritual practice followed in these monasteries are in
many respects similar to those observed in old hermitages in India. It
seems the rigorous discipline and self-mortification which the aspir-
ants have to pass through are very rigid, hard and exacting. The mode
of training, it is said, is by a process of shocks which are expected to
still the aspirant's mind and grant him the awareness of the immortal
Spirit within. Ramdas was eager to know something about Zen Buddhism
which was spoken of in high terms by its votaries in Switzerland and
the United States. Hence the appointment with Prof. Suzuki.
The Professor told us over the phone that we could meet with him at
a certain hotel on a morning. Accordingly, we went there and met him.
He was a short-statured elderly person dressed in immaculate
European dress. A young American lady, who was his secretary, was
also with him. We sat together round a table and talked for about
half an hour. Prof. Suzuki told us he was only a lay man and not
a _Bhikku_ or a _Monk_, who has dedicated his life for the attain-
ment of _Nirvana_. Some questions which Ramdas put to him and
his answers are given below:
_Zen existed before Buddha_
Ramdas: Would you kindly tell us what Zen Buddhism stands for?
Suzuki: Zen was developed in China, but according to Buddhist
tradition the teaching or practice of Zen is based on the historical fact
that Buddha obtained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree through the
practice of Zen some 2,500 years ago. How we obtain that enlight-
enment is what Zen teaches.
Ramdas: Had Zen existed before Buddha?
Suzuki: Zen exited even before Buddha came and will exist even after
the world comes to an end. Buddha was but an instrument to tell us
what Zen is.
In the course of the conversation Prof. Suzuki remarked that mainly
four religions prevail in Japan. These are Shintoism, Confucianism,
Taoism and Buddhism. The first stands for harmony, the second for
reverence, the third for purity, and the fourth for tranquility. Prof.
Suzuki was kind and affable. He talked to us in a most friendly
manner.
Mention may also be made here of the visit to our hotel of a French
lady who had lived for some time in a Buddhist monastery. She came
especially to see Ramdas on hearing about him. She told Ramdas
about the mode of life in a monastery--the strict disciplines which
the seekers or aspirants are enjoined upon to observe. It cannot be
denied that the great Truth, call it by any name you like, can be
experienced or realised only through hard and continuous self-discipline.
Nothing can be gained in the spiritual field unless we put forth all
the power, physical and mental, we possess, for self-control and self-
purification with the sole object of attaining supreme inner freedom
and peace." (229-231)
Kathy
Note: to email me, remove the '3' and the 'nojunk'
--
Dirk Bruere
"Dr Ben Lau" <drbe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020520104512...@mb-df.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Bruere"
>
> >Success comes when 'I' get out of the way and 'let it happen'.
> >
> Ben responds
> And who then can say these words.?
I do. I have returned to enjoy the success.
> If it happens then you have created a concept of now this is it .Your
simply
> using your senses in this statement You havent seen DIRECTLY , this is
what
> your meaning here implies.
Well, my experience of 'no self' is that it is transitory not permanent.
Perhaps your goal is to make it permanent, but that has never been high on
my list. As I've said in the past, 'I' do not consider suffering much of a
problem.
FFF
Dirk
Dr Ben Lau
>Well, my experience of 'no self' is that it is transitory not permanent.
Ben replies;
It is neither permanent or non permanent .But you have side stepped your
own assumption.
>Perhaps your goal is to make it permanent,
Lol
I never said this or implied it. Your tactic doesnt work . Those old Jedi Mind
Tricks ghet easier to spot all the time.
>As I've said in the past, 'I' do not consider suffering much of a
>problem.
>
>FFF
WE all suffer friend , if you cant except that you are , your not being honest
with yourself." For even the Arahat shall no pain"
Ben
Dirk Bruere
> >From: "Dirk Bruere"
>
> >Well, my experience of 'no self' is that it is transitory not permanent.
> Ben replies;
> It is neither permanent or non permanent .But you have side stepped
your
> own assumption.
Not at all.
For best results in an endeavour one puts aside that which stands in the way
eg the 'self' with its incessant chatter and desires.
> >Perhaps your goal is to make it permanent,
> Lol
> I never said this or implied it. Your tactic doesnt work . Those old Jedi
Mind
> Tricks ghet easier to spot all the time.
Not a trick.
I don't see why it cannot be made permanent. It's just another mode of
thought and all modes can be made habitual.
> >As I've said in the past, 'I' do not consider suffering much of a
> >problem.
> WE all suffer friend , if you cant except that you are , your not being
honest
> with yourself." For even the Arahat shall no pain"
I didn't say I do not suffer, just that I don't see it as a major problem.
My view is - 'so what?'.
FFF
Dirk
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> > zen is not separate from buddha-mind.
> > perhaps you need to learn more about zen.
> >
> > read Hui Neng.
> >
> > robert
> >
>
> Ah, but I have read to the contrary... from my understanding, there are just a
> great many buddhists (of whatever level of commitment to that religion the practice
> or profess) that claim that zen and buddhism are indivisible.
I said read Hui Neng.
damn, can't you just take the suggestion and read Hui Neng?
read Hui Neng - Platform Sutra, then we'll talk.
meanwhile, zen and Buddhism are neither different or the same.
zen is one branch of buddhism, which includes all disciplines and philosophies
based on and dedicated to the buddha's teachings, which zen is.
Zen is a particular way of practicing Buddhism.
It is disinct from many other forms of Buddhism,
but has in common the same underlying understandings and philosophy.
the basic tenets of buddhism is that all things have no self, they just exist
provisionally;
all things are impermanent; and all things are lacking in the ability to give
satisfacdtion
because of the other two properties.
zen has a particular way of dealing with these truths,
which is to promote direct realization of the nature of the mind and phenomena
particularly through sitting meditation.
zen is a japanese transliteration of ch'an which is a chinese transliteration of
sanskrit dhyana,
or pali jhana,
which means deep meditation to realize the deeper mental states, or samadhi states,
which lead to direct insight into the nature of mind.
Hui Neng is the grandaddy of all modern zen schools.
he taught that direct realization could also be sudden realization
without gradual cultivation and without prior steps,
if one was advanced enough to be able to discern the nature of the process of mind
directly.
that is zen.
it is part of buddhism.
now go read.
and go sit.
thanks,
robert
===========================
Clint
>
> Anyway, as I see it Buddhism is explicitly about ending suffering and
> provides a docrinal framework for doing so. Zen OTOH is basically a
> technique (or set of techniques) to cultivate no-self.
Exactly... you would seem to agree to me that zen doesn't necissarily HAVE to
pertain to buddhism.. I AM aware of all the posts in here saying "most zen is
used for buddhism"... and one that said "all the best zen masters professed
buddhism".. but this does NOT NECISSARILY MEAN ALL ZEN IS USED FOR IS BUDDHISM!
Anyway.....
>
>
> Buddhism can encompass Zen, but Zen need not be Buddhist.
My thoughts exactly!!!!!
>
> The fact that Zen has been harnessed to enable warriors to be better killers
> illustrates that point IMO.
Exactly again!!!! I'd say that zen is a discipline while buddhism is a
religion... and there is of course a difference between the two so wide you
could drive a truck through it.
>
>
> FFF
> Dirk
Clint
> ok - look at your understanding of buddhism.
> then look at your understanding of zen (ch'an)
> without any "buddhism" (if that's possible)
> what's left of any of it?
> it may be that the "buddhism" part
> is the problem.
I like to demonstrate via analogies, because it helps to facilitate meanings that can
break through cultural barries as well as others, so here goes....
without traveling on the road, what's left for automobiles?
(1) Collector's values
(2) Investment values for purposes of making a profit later
(3) Historical interest
so on and so forth....
and yes, while automobiles are MOST OFTEN used to drive on the road, they do not
necissarily have to be used for that.. they can be used for other reasons or other
ends.... and yes, while MOST OFTEN automobiles are associated with roads, you can
easily find other things to associate them with.
Another $.02 worth.
Clint
> I said read Hui Neng.
> damn, can't you just take the suggestion and read Hui Neng?
>
Hm, getting angry, short tempered and confrontational, huh? Not exactly the way of the
buddha, is it?
>
>
> meanwhile, zen and Buddhism are neither different or the same.
> zen is one branch of buddhism, which includes all disciplines and philosophies
> based on and dedicated to the buddha's teachings, which zen is.
>
> Zen is a particular way of practicing Buddhism.
> It is disinct from many other forms of Buddhism,
> but has in common the same underlying understandings and philosophy.
> the basic tenets of buddhism is that all things have no self, they just exist
> provisionally;
> all things are impermanent; and all things are lacking in the ability to give
> satisfacdtion
> because of the other two properties.
The matter of zen's relation to buddhism has already been satisfied to me, but thanks for
your input anyway.
>
>
>
> now go read.
> and go sit.
>
I do both frequently.... and i'll be more than happy to read the book that you suggested.
I can't promise it will be the all eye-opening apocolyptic tome that you act as though it
will be, for I read a lot of stuff about many things, but I love reading if nothing else
than for it's own sake. Sometimes buddhists remind me of wiccans in that thier own
theories and axioms are self-contradictory. (I can see an explanation of this being
requested of me soon).
>
> thanks,
> robert
======
"all sitting is meditation, all meditation is sitting.... they are niether same nor
different."
Shit, maybe that's why I slammed into an oak tree driving 70 miles an hour last time I
drove down the road, SITTING in my car. (reductio ad adsurdum)
Dirk Bruere
Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
FFF
Dirk
Anders Honore
> I do both frequently.... and i'll be more than happy to read the book that
you suggested.
> I can't promise it will be the all eye-opening apocolyptic tome that you
act as though it
> will be, for I read a lot of stuff about many things, but I love reading
if nothing else
> than for it's own sake. Sometimes buddhists remind me of wiccans in that
thier own
> theories and axioms are self-contradictory. (I can see an explanation of
this being
> requested of me soon).
To smooth things a little bit, maybe you should try and visit my website.
You'll find Huineng's Platform Sutra there.
--
Anders Honore
*************************************************
Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/
*************************************************
Anders Honore
> >
> >
> > Anyway, as I see it Buddhism is explicitly about ending suffering and
> > provides a docrinal framework for doing so. Zen OTOH is basically a
> > technique (or set of techniques) to cultivate no-self.
>
> Exactly... you would seem to agree to me that zen doesn't necissarily HAVE
to
> pertain to buddhism.. I AM aware of all the posts in here saying "most zen
is
> used for buddhism"... and one that said "all the best zen masters
professed
> buddhism".. but this does NOT NECISSARILY MEAN ALL ZEN IS USED FOR IS
BUDDHISM!
Well, what is Buddhism a techbique for? I say technique because originally
that was all it was. Somewhere along the way, Buddhism became a philosophy
rather than a practise for many people, but returning to the question:
Ending suffering.
What the Buddha taught was that suffering has a cause, desire which has a
cause and so forth, tracing back to one fundamental link: Ignorance. Thus he
taught that in order to fully end suffering, you have to end ignorance,
which is of course done through realisation of the true state of reality
(emptiness). Thus, Buddhism teaches on reality as signposts on the path to
indicate when ignorance has been ended and where we are deluding ourselves
into thinking we are enlightened, all in the context of ending suffering.
However, the Buddha also recognised that not all living beings have the
capacity to directly train for the cessation of ignorance and so what we
call 'Buddhism' contains many more expedients to end suffering in varying
degrees, most of them aimed at totally ending suffering (trhough
enlightenment) at some point in the future.
As I see it, Zen is a more or less direct way of practising for the
cessation of ignorance and coming to realisation. To me, this is not
separate to the aim of Buddhism.
Clint
> Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
>
> FFF
> Dirk
well, that's a good suggestion but I can't buy into it because you already have
a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
Dirk Bruere
> >
> > Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
>
have
> a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
Or does Zen simply become an explanation of what happens/is supposed to
happen when one practices zazen?
Chicken and egg?
FFF
Dirk
Clint
>
> Well, what is Buddhism a techbique for?
I always felt it was more of a religion than a technique... or, I guess PERHAPS
a philosophy
>
> As I see it, Zen is a more or less direct way of practising for the
> cessation of ignorance and coming to realisation. To me, this is not
> separate to the aim of Buddhism.
No, I don't think it is either. My hypothesis isn't that zen has a different aim
than buddhism; mine is that they aren't necissarily the same
discipline/religion/philosophy/whatever; otherwise, there wouldn't be a name for
the different name, really.
Clint
>
> To smooth things a little bit, maybe you should try and visit my website.
> You'll find Huineng's Platform Sutra there.
That'l work!
>
>
> --
> Anders Honore
> *************************************************
> Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/
> *************************************************
Jazz
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acempg$p7aav$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
Zen is doing -- NOW!
Buddhism is becoming.
Which hatches the egg?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Clint
> > > Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
> >
> > well, that's a good suggestion but I can't buy into it because you already
> have
> > a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
>
> Or does Zen simply become an explanation of what happens/is supposed to
> happen when one practices zazen?
>
> Chicken and egg?
>
> FFF
> Dirk
Hey, i'll have to hand you the victory baton on that one.... you're basically
saying zazen is the means and zen is the end, right?
That one I CAN buy.
Messer Xin
(in message <acempg$p7aav$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>):
There's still Zen as a religion and a form of Buddhism,
whether it need be that or no.
We have what my teacher calls a "ragtag sangha," but
there's no mistaking the religious nature of our weekly
get-togethers. The practice would nowhere be so profound if
it were not so.
Yeah, you can have a Zen apart from Buddhism or any
religion, but personally I can't really see why one would
want that rather than the whole deal.
Clint, if you are interested in comparisons, Toni Packer is
a Zen teacher who has dropped all religious associations
from her practice, including the word "Zen." She is
nonetheless respected as a teacher by other, more
traditional teachers. Check her out, and check out a more
traditional group.
Though it's not my preference, I am glad that there is
available in America such a wide range of styles to choose
from, from folks like Toni to the strict observance of
Japanese Soto by Shasta Abbey.
--
  |Xin|
Mike Fischer, August 2, 1995:
My young son walked up to me with an onion in his hand.
"Why is this an onion?" he asked.
I'm still not sure what I should say to him.
============================================================
====
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for
power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
====
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > > > Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
> > >
> > > well, that's a good suggestion but I can't buy into it because you already
> > have
> > > a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
> >
> > Or does Zen simply become an explanation of what happens/is supposed to
> > happen when one practices zazen?
> >
> > Chicken and egg?
> >
> > FFF
> > Dirk
>
> Hey, i'll have to hand you the victory baton on that one.... you're basically
> saying zazen is the means and zen is the end, right?
no, zazen is the end
sitting or standing
facing a wall
or going shopping for chickens or eggs
robert
Robert Epstein
i don't see this as being very complicated.
it's not any different from broccoli being a vegetable.
to ask if broccoli is the same or different than a vegetable is a nonsense
question.
one contains the other.
robert
================
Robert Epstein
could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen, theravada,
tibetan practice,
and all other forms of buddhism.
zen is one of them.
it stems from the entire history of buddhism
and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
could you just accept that they are not two,
and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
what is the problem with that?
robert
==============
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > I said read Hui Neng.
> > damn, can't you just take the suggestion and read Hui Neng?
> >
>
> Hm, getting angry, short tempered and confrontational, huh? Not exactly the way of the
> buddha, is it?
>
did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or something?
no such luck.
whoooo, I got angry.
big deal.
>
> > meanwhile, zen and Buddhism are neither different or the same.
> > zen is one branch of buddhism, which includes all disciplines and philosophies
> > based on and dedicated to the buddha's teachings, which zen is.
> >
> > Zen is a particular way of practicing Buddhism.
> > It is disinct from many other forms of Buddhism,
> > but has in common the same underlying understandings and philosophy.
> > the basic tenets of buddhism is that all things have no self, they just exist
> > provisionally;
> > all things are impermanent; and all things are lacking in the ability to give
> > satisfacdtion
> > because of the other two properties.
>
> The matter of zen's relation to buddhism has already been satisfied to me, but thanks for
> your input anyway.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > now go read.
> > and go sit.
> >
>
> I do both frequently.... and i'll be more than happy to read the book that you suggested.
> I can't promise it will be the all eye-opening apocolyptic tome that you act as though it
> will be, for I read a lot of stuff about many things, but I love reading if nothing else
> than for it's own sake. Sometimes buddhists remind me of wiccans in that thier own
> theories and axioms are self-contradictory. (I can see an explanation of this being
> requested of me soon).
>
nah, that's okay.
>
> >
> > thanks,
> > robert
>
> ======
>
> "all sitting is meditation, all meditation is sitting.... they are niether same nor
> different."
>
> Shit, maybe that's why I slammed into an oak tree driving 70 miles an hour last time I
> drove down the road, SITTING in my car. (reductio ad adsurdum)
silly. that's obviously not what's meant by 'sitting' in the quote, whoever said it.
robert
Raan
"Jazz" <jazz...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uelt3k5...@corp.supernews.com...
Best as defnishun I'se bin come up wiff my own seff even?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan (Chicken plucker)
Dirk Bruere
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CEB2EE1...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Clint wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > > Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
> > > >
> > > > well, that's a good suggestion but I can't buy into it because you
already
> > > have
> > > > a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
> > >
> > > Or does Zen simply become an explanation of what happens/is supposed
to
> > > happen when one practices zazen?
> > >
> > > Chicken and egg?
> > >
> > > FFF
> > > Dirk
> >
> > Hey, i'll have to hand you the victory baton on that one.... you're
basically
> > saying zazen is the means and zen is the end, right?
>
> no, zazen is the end
> sitting or standing
> facing a wall
> or going shopping for chickens or eggs
So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of zen
and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> one is a subset of the other, zen is a particular approach to Buddhism.
> i don't see this as being very complicated.
The argument, though, is that zen is a particular approach to *anything* -
even motorcycle maintainance.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> clint,
> could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
> buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen,
theravada,
> tibetan practice,
> and all other forms of buddhism.
> zen is one of them.
> it stems from the entire history of buddhism
> and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
> could you just accept that they are not two,
> and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
> what is the problem with that?
>
Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
FFF
Dirk
Messer Xin
(in message <acfqal$pa7ep$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>):
>> no, zazen is the end
>> sitting or standing
>> facing a wall
>> or going shopping for chickens or eggs
>
> So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of zen
> and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
Not absolutely. But it sure is helpful conditioning, and
discarding it unthoughtfully is unwise.
--
  |Xin|
The past is a memory, the future a dream, and there isn't
any now at all.
What we see as "now" is a smear of past and future.
Nothing more than the memory of a dream. -- Sphere
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
==
Messer Xin
(in message <acg38s$5jolb$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>):
Dirk:
> Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
Waste it on Buddhism and it's available for whatever you
want.
--
  |Xin|
"Surely you have read enough posts
by different Buddhas online to know
they war with words only because they are
not close enough to throw their own shit!"
---<IamSpncycl> 01/10/04
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Anders Honore
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3CEB3702...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Clint wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I said read Hui Neng.
> > > damn, can't you just take the suggestion and read Hui Neng?
> > >
> >
> > Hm, getting angry, short tempered and confrontational, huh? Not exactly
the way of the
> > buddha, is it?
> >
>
> did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or
something?
> no such luck.
> whoooo, I got angry.
> big deal.
It should be a big deal actually.....
Anders Honore
"Clint" <rattl...@computron.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3CEACABD...@computron.net...
From my own experience, all the practises/techniques found in Zen, with the
possible exception of the koan, though the principles behind it can be
found, are already included in the Mahayana Canon.
The different name for Zen, is really just a consequence of Buddhism moving
into new cultures and adapting to them. Appearances may vary, but the
principles don't.
Anders Honore
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:acg37j$pep83$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
And Buddhism isn't? Both are approaches to life. Simple really.
Raan
"Messer Xin" <x...@woc.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B91119CB0...@news.earthlink.net...
Good dodge! That turd is on target though.
Raan
"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:3cebcb3f$0$97295$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Zen isn't!
Jazz
Why tarry with such a heavy burden?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Jazz
> clint,
> could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
> buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen,
theravada,
> tibetan practice,
> and all other forms of buddhism.
> zen is one of them.
> it stems from the entire history of buddhism
> and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
> could you just accept that they are not two,
> and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
> what is the problem with that?
>
> robert
Where is the need for
So much attachment?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Clint
> no, zazen is the end
> sitting or standing
> facing a wall
> or going shopping for chickens or eggs
I know many feel that way... despite the overwhelming evidence that nearly all the
masters, roshis, monks and one-legged portugese fisherman will agree on that zazen
is the practice of zen, so, therefore, the means..... unless you don't understand
what I mean by "the end" and "the means"... it sounds as though your saying that the
goal of zen is to sit and stare at a wall; not enlightenment, not the concentration
of mental powers towards some objective, not peace of mind, shedding of ego, etc...
but just sitting and mindlessly staring at a wall. I don't think many will agree
that is the "end". it's the "means to an end".
Clint
> >
> > no, zazen is the end
> > sitting or standing
> > facing a wall
> > or going shopping for chickens or eggs
>
> So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of zen
> and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
>
> FFF
> Dirk
I don't think that Robert understands what we're talking about when we use
terms such as "means" and "ends"... surely he doesn't really think that the
goal of a practice thousands of years old is to sit and stare at a wall.
Clint
> did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or something?
> no such luck.
> whoooo, I got angry.
> big deal.
Oh, no, I didn't make that assumption, but I did assume that most people who are buddhists
either would like to be or at least strive for the same goals and accomplishments that masters
do. I was simply trying to give you a little constructive critizism, not just on a religious
note but one for the future when it comes to having discussions and exchanges of ideas; it's
not good to lose your cool because, regardless of whether your totally right or totally wrong,
when you blow your stack or just simply start getting a little emotional or upset, it tends to
detract from your credibility in the argument, and people will start to tune you out. I have
noticed in other posts on the zen newsgroups you do that frequently with others, too; recently
against Cosm. You may not care, but it isn't doing you any good "for your home team" to go to
the field with such a
handicap already playing against you.
> >
> > "all sitting is meditation, all meditation is sitting.... they are niether same nor
> > different."
>
> >
> > Shit, maybe that's why I slammed into an oak tree driving 70 miles an hour last time I
> > drove down the road, SITTING in my car. (reductio ad adsurdum)
>
> silly. that's obviously not what's meant by 'sitting' in the quote, whoever said it.
>
> robert
Exactly, it WAS silly. That's what reductio ad adsurdum is. I was merely making a point, not
about sitting per se, but another topic. (demonstrating absurdity by being absurd) You'll have
to go back and read the origional ng message to find out what it was.
Clint
> one is a subset of the other,
Or, as I see it, they are both a subset of another greater set.
> zen is a particular approach to Buddhism.
... or other ends as well.
>
> i don't see this as being very complicated.
It isn't, i'll agree... we just don't agree on a fundamental concept so you and I will
have to agree to disagree.
>
>
> it's not any different from broccoli being a vegetable.
> to ask if broccoli is the same or different than a vegetable is a nonsense
> question.
> one contains the other.
>
> robert
...or, it's not any different from saying both broccoli and carrots are both
vegetables.
========
"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Clint
>
> The argument, though, is that zen is a particular approach to *anything* -
> even motorcycle maintainance.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
That's my point, dirk, I don't know if you agree with it... and as somebody
else in this newsgroup once said, buddhists tend to act as though they have a
monopoly on it.
Clint
>
> Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
AH! well said! THANK YOU!
Clint
> >
> > did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or
> something?
> > no such luck.
> > whoooo, I got angry.
> > big deal.
>
> It should be a big deal actually.....
That's what i'm saying.
Clint
>
> And Buddhism isn't? Both are approaches to life. Simple really.
Nobody claimed that.... what some of us are claiming is that buddhism and zen
aren't the exact same approach.
Clint
> Where is the need for
> So much attachment?
> *Gassho*
> - Jazz
Exactly..... EXACTLY...... Why is there all this pressure from so many in
here to do that? Well, one thing I snapped to today.. i've strayed in my
original purpose for coming in here, which was to learn more about ZEN and,
mostly, zazen meditation practices.... so I better get back on course with
that. If the buddhists out there want to continue engaging in this same old
argument, i'll just try to avoid it because it's sidetracking me from my
goals anyway.
Clint
> clint,
> could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
> buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen, theravada,
> tibetan practice,
> and all other forms of buddhism.
> zen is one of them.
> it stems from the entire history of buddhism
> and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
> could you just accept that they are not two,
> and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
> what is the problem with that?
>
> robert
>
That's just what I believe.... and from doing some reading and doing a lot of q &
a with various people, that is simply the hypothesis I have come to. I guess the
red flags also go up when I hear buddhists get emotional over the charge, because
as in many other aspects of life (regarding discussions and topics), when you get
such a fomented oppinion, there's just cause to look further and find out why. I
guess I'm not really interested in the "why" though.
That's what's good about a socratic debate, though, we can have different
oppinions.
Dirk Bruere
> >
> > So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of
zen
> > and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
>
Why write any analysis at all?
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> >
> >
> > The argument, though, is that zen is a particular approach to
*anything* -
> > even motorcycle maintainance.
>
somebody
> else in this newsgroup once said, buddhists tend to act as though they
have a
> monopoly on it.
My view also.
FFF
Dirk
Robert Epstein
robert
==========
Robert Epstein
to me it just looks like a lot of traditions.,
ways of approaching freedom
if one is attached, there's attachment
if one is not attached, it's a toolkit
robert
===================
Robert Epstein
Jazz wrote:
just a matter of balance
how much you need to learn in order to practice
and clarifications along the way if you get confused
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> >
> > Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
> >
> > FFF
> > Dirk
>
> AH! well said! THANK YOU!
why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
i still don't understand your need to remove zen from its roots
it makes no sense
how does it affect zen practice one way or the other?
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> >
> > And Buddhism isn't? Both are approaches to life. Simple really.
>
> Nobody claimed that.... what some of us are claiming is that buddhism and zen
> aren't the exact same approach.
what?
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of
zen
> > > and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
> >
>
> how much you need to learn in order to practice
> and clarifications along the way if you get confused
I think you can dump the latter as well. If confused - practice.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> > > Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
> >
>
> why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
It doesn't, but that is not what this is about.
IMO Zen is *not* explicitly part of Buddhism, except in the same sense that
sitting is.
> i still don't understand your need to remove zen from its roots
That's a rather ironic statement from a Zen POV.
> it makes no sense
> how does it affect zen practice one way or the other?
The difference between the monk and the samurai?
FFF
Dirk
Anders Honore
How not so?
Anders Honore
> >
> >
> > And Buddhism isn't? Both are approaches to life. Simple really.
>
> Nobody claimed that.... what some of us are claiming is that buddhism and zen
> aren't the exact same approach.
I shall then claim that all the techniques aof Zen are already found
in the Mahayana canon.
If you are trying to establish that the techniques can function
without the trappings of Buddhism, I agree to a certain extent. But
one should bear in mind that the sutras were written for a purpose
Anders Honore
> >
> > >
> > > did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or
> something?
> > > no such luck.
> > > whoooo, I got angry.
> > > big deal.
> >
> > It should be a big deal actually.....
>
> That's what i'm saying.
;-)
tu
As long as you realise that emoticons are a public
admission of having no sensible answer nor of having a
thought that could be given a possible written expression.
If you are happy with that then.
:-{o}{""=+=++""î—ƒ
tu
Clint
>
> My view also.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
If you've been following the "discussions" i've had with Robert Epstein and
others of his ilk, you know what kind of pointless spider web I got myself
tangled up in. However, it's my fault, I have nobody but myself to blame; I
came into these two newsgroups to learn more about zen (and zazen
meditation, mostly). I have no right to complain about getting a little mud
on me if I, and I alone, allowed myself to get pulled into a pointless
dialogue.
In short, it's my fault for saddling a dead horse in the first place,
wondering why he isn't going anywhere.
Clint
> Clint wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > And Buddhism isn't? Both are approaches to life. Simple really.
> >
> > Nobody claimed that.... what some of us are claiming is that buddhism and zen
> > aren't the exact same approach.
>
> what?
>
> >
> >
>
Right at THIS point you have made the discussion circular and there's really no
point in going on. The reason I joined these two newsgroups was to learn more about
zazen, anyway, not argue whether or not buddhism has- if I can quote another poster
in here- a "monopoly" on zen.
Clint
> Clint wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
> > >
> > > FFF
> > > Dirk
> >
> > AH! well said! THANK YOU!
>
> why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
because to acknowlege that means to acknowledge- or, more accurately,
accept and agree with- buddhism in it's totality which I cannot.
No, i'm not going any further than this. I'm pulling my saddle of this
dead horse and moving on.
Clint
Again, thank you for another moment of reason. You echo my thoughts exactly.
Sometimes I feel as though the pure buddhists (if I can coin that phrase) know
that there is something really good in Zen practice, so much so, that they want
to claim that it's thier own.
Kinda like a politician lucky enough to be elected during times of great
economic growth, and working toward re-election by claiming he was the reason
for the boom in the first place.... when perhaps the founding reasons lie
elsewhere entirely.
Sprung from Fire
How have you been? :-)
Robert Epstein wrote:
>
>
> why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
Good question.
Maybe we should look at how Zen affects Buddhism instead.
Good or Bad, anybody?
> i still don't understand your need to remove zen from its roots
> it makes no sense
It doesn't make sense if you believe that Zen has its roots in Buddhism
only!!
> how does it affect zen practice one way or the other?
I believe it's a matter of principles.
Too many, that is.
>
> robert
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > The more things change,
> > The more they stay the same...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Jazz
In sitting, one may,
On occasion find the seat
To become quite hard!
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Jazz
> what do you want to know about zazen and meditation in general?
>
> robert
Everything!
Where can it be found?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Jazz
When sitting,
Look at another wall.
*Gassho*
- Jazz
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CED0172...@verizon.net...
Jazz
How is one to learn to write,
If not by writing?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Jazz
If not with practice
Whence comes the learning? Suffice...
From the teacher's stamp?
*Gassho*
- Jazz
Robert Epstein
Sprung from Fire wrote:
> Hey Robert,
>
> How have you been? :-)
okay. things are up and down most of the time,
usually up/then down.
> Robert Epstein wrote:
> >
> >
> > why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
>
> Good question.
> Maybe we should look at how Zen affects Buddhism instead.
>
> Good or Bad, anybody?
>
good.
zen is immediate and is interested in concrete awakening.
much of buddhism like any religion gets lost in scriptural analysis
and ritual and is removed from the original point of Buddha's teaching,
which is awakening, awakening and awakening
to reach an understanding that destroys the suffering of separation and egoity
> > i still don't understand your need to remove zen from its roots
> > it makes no sense
>
> It doesn't make sense if you believe that Zen has its roots in Buddhism
> only!!
>
well, I would never say that zen doesn't have commonalities with the esoteric
direct teachings of other traditions,
in fact in many ways they talk the same language:
sufism, contemplative christianity [a la Meister Eckhardt, St. John of the
Cross, etc.], ecstatic kabbalism,
advaita vedanta in hinduism,
every religion has its wing that has rediscovered the living reality of
enlightenment and has turned it into a direct teaching
for those who are attuned to the possibility of direct awakening.
so in some ways zen has more in common with these than it does with other
branches of Buddhism that are not as direct.
I have no problem with that.
what I do have a problem with is talking ignorantly about Buddhism and Zen as if
they are two different things.
There is no question that zen developed out of the history of buddhist practice,
and that every zen master studies, cites and refers his awakening back to
Buddha's and Buddhist teachings.
that is its historical and religious context.
The masters did not always cite scripture, and they often derided those who were
fallen into scriptural intellecutality,
but there is no question that they studied the sutras and understood Buddhist
teachings.
this is an important part of zen.
Those who think they can just sit zazen with absolutely no understanding of what
the Buddha taught
are sadly mistaken.
some, like Hui Neng, may be so ripe that a word or two will awaken them.
but that has nothing to do with what zen involves, which is a balance of
understanding, learning and direct meditation.
it is a buddhist practice, though as I said, it has a lot in common with all
direct teachings, all enlightenment teachings.
> > how does it affect zen practice one way or the other?
>
> I believe it's a matter of principles.
> Too many, that is.
>
well, I'm more interested in what fosters awakening than anything else.
the principles of awakening are that awakening is direct,
and the context of understanding is important.
because it's so easy to be misled by one partial insight or another,
it's pretty helpful to have an understanding of the lineage of awakening,
and how the community of practitioners have taught and supported and tested each
other.
I am somewhat lax in this myself,
but to me, to remove zen from its context in Buddhist principles
is to cripple practitioners.
on the other hand, if one were to be attached to Buddhist scriptures as concepts
and adop them as fixed views,
it would be better to burn them and just sit.
but hopefully they will be seen as a guide,
not as the word of god.
robert
Clint
> In sitting, one may,
> On occasion find the seat
> To become quite hard!
> *Gassho*
> - Jazz
That's why I haven't made up my mind as to whether I want to do zazen in the
traditional lotus posture, or half posture, or kneeling, or using a zazen bench.
I'm leaning toward building my own zazen bench. Perhaps if I do, i'll post a
picture of it somewhere on the web.
Robert Epstein
zen is the direct expression of the buddha's enlightenment
it is true buddhism, not dependent on scripture
but on the experience of what the buddha awakened to
you're right though, if you mean that it is not part of buddhism
as ritual and religion
if that's what you're getting at,
i would agree with that
and end this madness
robert
==================
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> > Clint wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
> > > >
> > > > FFF
> > > > Dirk
> > >
> > > AH! well said! THANK YOU!
> >
> > why? how does being part of buddhism hurt zen?
>
> because to acknowlege that means to acknowledge- or, more accurately,
> accept and agree with- buddhism in it's totality which I cannot.
>
> No, i'm not going any further than this. I'm pulling my saddle of this
> dead horse and moving on.
<standing and staring at dead horse>
<slowly sitting down>
<looking at dead horse>
<breathing slowly>
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > In sitting, one may,
> > On occasion find the seat
> > To become quite hard!
> > *Gassho*
> > - Jazz
>
> That's why I haven't made up my mind as to whether I want to do zazen in the
> traditional lotus posture, or half posture, or kneeling, or using a zazen bench.
> I'm leaning toward building my own zazen bench. Perhaps if I do, i'll post a
> picture of it somewhere on the web.
well when i do sit
I just sit in a relaxed partial half lotus
with my hips raised up on a folded mexican blanket or two.
just one idea, very easy.
zafus can be nice too.
robert
Robert Epstein
Jazz wrote:
well, I think everything has its place.
some reading, a lot of practice,
the advice of a teacher is also valuable
if one is practicing.
robert
Robert Epstein
Jazz wrote:
> If the attachment is not seen,
> When sitting,
> Look at another wall.
> *Gassho*
> - Jazz
i guess there's attachment to work with
all the way down the line
for myself, I can feel attachment
although I'm sure there's more unfelt under that feeling
robert
Robert Epstein
Jazz wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED011B...@verizon.net...
> > what do you want to know about zazen and meditation in general?
> >
> > robert
>
> Everything!
> Where can it be found?
> *Gassho*
> - Jazz
: - )
lots of places
sitting
talking
looking at bird
looking at mind to see what's not there
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
so talk about zazen.
that's okay with me.
the reason I said 'what' is that buddhism is not an approach,
it's buddha's teaching and a collection of ways of approaching Buddha's teaching
one of those ways is zen.
i just don't get your terminological distinctions between things that are directly
interrelated,
but that's okay, I'm willing to drop it.
let's talk about zazen.
robert
Robert Epstein
of course zen is independent in a sense
and has its own tradition of direct experience and action,
but it is still somehow taking something valuable away
to say it is not a part of Buddhism.
how can you understand zen without its referents?
many times the masters make disparaging remarks about the Buddhist tradition
but if you don't know what they're referring to, what good does that do?
robert
===============
Robert Epstein
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED01AC...@verizon.net...
> >
> > > > So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of
> zen
> > > > and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
> > >
> > > Why tarry with such a heavy burden?
> >
> > just a matter of balance
> > how much you need to learn in order to practice
> > and clarifications along the way if you get confused
>
> I think you can dump the latter as well. If confused - practice.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
well, a number of masters have warned against practice that isn't directed
properly
it can lead to severe consequences, such as mental imbalance and furthe
delusion
do you dismiss these possibilities?
do you think no instruction or teacher is necessary?
for instance, Hui Neng once remarked that there was a particular group or sect
who were trying to transcend thought by suppressing all mental arisings
and that 'these people are now so deluded that we can no longer speak to them'.
There are many possibilities for misunderstanding zazen
and using it to feed mind and ego.
so what would you advise for fruitful practice and understanding?
robert
Robert Epstein
and we'll all talk to you about it.
so far you haven't,
just keep saying zen isn't buddhism.
come on, I'm willing to change the subject
what do you want to discuss about zazen?
robert
==================
Robert Epstein
Anders Honore wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3CEB3702...@verizon.net...
> >
> >
> > Clint wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I said read Hui Neng.
> > > > damn, can't you just take the suggestion and read Hui Neng?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hm, getting angry, short tempered and confrontational, huh? Not exactly
> the way of the
> > > buddha, is it?
> > >
> >
> > did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or
> something?
> > no such luck.
> > whoooo, I got angry.
> > big deal.
>
> It should be a big deal actually.....
well, it is what it is,
another moment,
a ripple in the pond,
does that change the nature of what is?
certainly it's not perfected,
but better to be honest than pious.
robert
Robert Epstein
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CEB3542...@verizon.net...
> > clint,
> > could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
> > buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen,
> theravada,
> > tibetan practice,
> > and all other forms of buddhism.
> > zen is one of them.
> > it stems from the entire history of buddhism
> > and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
> > could you just accept that they are not two,
> > and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
> > what is the problem with that?
> >
>
> Zen's too good to be wasted solely on Buddhism.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
neither zen nor the larger body of buddhism
are there for their own benefit
they are only there to help sentient beings
who want to awaken to their true nature
and untangle the knot of suffering
it's really not a contest between zen and buddhism
or zen and something else
or buddhism and the world
there are teachings
and there are people
the people are free to take what they want from them
buddhism only has restrictions for those who turn it into a ritual
robert
Robert Epstein
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CEB325A...@verizon.net...
> > one is a subset of the other, zen is a particular approach to Buddhism.
> > i don't see this as being very complicated.
>
> The argument, though, is that zen is a particular approach to *anything* -
> even motorcycle maintainance.
that's fine, but it's a strange argument to say that applying zen to
swordmanship
or motorcycles makes it more or less buddhist.
it is still a particular application of buddhist philosophy,
even if you apply it to making sandwhiches.
sheesh!
what do you have against buddhism anyway?
without it there would be no zen as such.
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > did I give you the impression I was supposed to be a perfect master or something?
> > no such luck.
> > whoooo, I got angry.
> > big deal.
>
> Oh, no, I didn't make that assumption, but I did assume that most people who are buddhists
> either would like to be or at least strive for the same goals and accomplishments that masters
> do. I was simply trying to give you a little constructive critizism, not just on a religious
> note but one for the future when it comes to having discussions and exchanges of ideas; it's
> not good to lose your cool because, regardless of whether your totally right or totally wrong,
> when you blow your stack or just simply start getting a little emotional or upset, it tends to
> detract from your credibility in the argument, and people will start to tune you out. I have
> noticed in other posts on the zen newsgroups you do that frequently with others, too; recently
> against Cosm. You may not care, but it isn't doing you any good "for your home team" to go to
> the field with such a
> handicap already playing against you.
>
that's not a bad point. thanks, that's worth thinking about.
>
> > >
> > > "all sitting is meditation, all meditation is sitting.... they are niether same nor
> > > different."
> >
> > >
> > > Shit, maybe that's why I slammed into an oak tree driving 70 miles an hour last time I
> > > drove down the road, SITTING in my car. (reductio ad adsurdum)
> >
> > silly. that's obviously not what's meant by 'sitting' in the quote, whoever said it.
> >
> > robert
>
> Exactly, it WAS silly. That's what reductio ad adsurdum is. I was merely making a point, not
> about sitting per se, but another topic. (demonstrating absurdity by being absurd) You'll have
> to go back and read the origional ng message to find out what it was.
sorry don't have time to hunt and search for a point in a haystack.
feel free to repeat it and I'll be listening.
robert
Robert Epstein
I'd probably get equally upset if you made the statement:
'broccoli is not a vegetable, and it shouldn't be confined to being a vegetable.'
that doesn't mean I'm a member of a weird vegetable cult that is trying to take
possession of fruits and call them vegetables too.
of course it just shows my own reactivity that I care whether you have your
definitions straight or not.
in some ways it's an exercise in me seeing how much I want to control certain things
and set them right.
a good lesson for me.
robert
=======================
Clint wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> > clint,
> > could I ask you why you are so intent on separating zen from buddhism?
> > buddhism is the body of knowledge and practice that includes, zen, theravada,
> > tibetan practice,
> > and all other forms of buddhism.
> > zen is one of them.
> > it stems from the entire history of buddhism
> > and yet has its own unique way of practicing.
> > could you just accept that they are not two,
> > and that zen is a branch of the buddhist tree?
> > what is the problem with that?
> >
> > robert
> >
>
> That's just what I believe.... and from doing some reading and doing a lot of q &
> a with various people, that is simply the hypothesis I have come to. I guess the
> red flags also go up when I hear buddhists get emotional over the charge, because
> as in many other aspects of life (regarding discussions and topics), when you get
> such a fomented oppinion, there's just cause to look further and find out why. I
> guess I'm not really interested in the "why" though.
>
> That's what's good about a socratic debate, though, we can have different
> oppinions.
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> > one is a subset of the other,
>
> Or, as I see it, they are both a subset of another greater set.
>
> > zen is a particular approach to Buddhism.
>
> ... or other ends as well.
>
> >
> > i don't see this as being very complicated.
>
> It isn't, i'll agree... we just don't agree on a fundamental concept so you and I will
> have to agree to disagree.
>
> >
> >
> > it's not any different from broccoli being a vegetable.
> > to ask if broccoli is the same or different than a vegetable is a nonsense
> > question.
> > one contains the other.
> >
> > robert
>
> ...or, it's not any different from saying both broccoli and carrots are both
> vegetables.
oh gee, buddhism = vegetable; zen = broccoli; tibetan buddhism = carrots; theravadan
buddhism = lettuce.
zen doesn't taste like tibetan or theravada, but they are all vegetables, eg, buddhist
schools.
buddhism and zen both being alternative vegetables is like saying that broccoli and
vegetables are two different vegetables.
vegetables is the larger category.
buddhism is not a different school than zen. zen is a school of buddhism.
I know i shouldn't go on about it, but I can't help it.
okay, this is the last attempt, I'll let it go after this.
phew.
shows my attachment to logic.
thanks again for the opportunity to look at that.
robert
>
>
> ========
>
> "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"
> -Napoleon Bonaparte
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > no, zazen is the end
> > > sitting or standing
> > > facing a wall
> > > or going shopping for chickens or eggs
> >
> > So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of zen
> > and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
> >
> > FFF
> > Dirk
>
> I don't think that Robert understands what we're talking about when we use
> terms such as "means" and "ends"... surely he doesn't really think that the
> goal of a practice thousands of years old is to sit and stare at a wall.
no but there's no 'end' separate from the means.
it's not staring at the wall that's the goal,
that's a funny way to interpret what I said.
but the goal is realized as sitting, not as something you take out of it.
robert
Robert Epstein
Clint wrote:
> >
> > no, zazen is the end
> > sitting or standing
> > facing a wall
> > or going shopping for chickens or eggs
>
> I know many feel that way... despite the overwhelming evidence that nearly all the
> masters, roshis, monks and one-legged portugese fisherman will agree on that zazen
> is the practice of zen, so, therefore, the means..... unless you don't understand
> what I mean by "the end" and "the means"...
unless you don't understand a discipline whose end is not separate from
its means
because it's about a process that is the result, not a separate result
that is not the
process
> it sounds as though your saying that the
> goal of zen is to sit and stare at a wall; not enlightenment, not the concentration
> of mental powers towards some objective, not peace of mind, shedding of ego, etc...
> but just sitting and mindlessly staring at a wall.
of course that's not what I mean. but it's funny that that's what you
get out of it.
> I don't think many will agree
> that is the "end". it's the "means to an end".
sitting staring at a wall,
the end justifies the means.
in this wall is nothing
which is the end of all means
nothing being the goal
i have expended my efforts to no end
the end has become the means
i sit and stare
and after a while
i get up no wiser than before
when I reach my goal I will have reached nothing
the accomplishment of enlightenment turns out to be a farce
so many years I have sat staring at this self
only to find that it was never there to begin with
so what have I been doing in my practice?
robert
Robert Epstein
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CEB2EE1...@verizon.net...
> >
> >
> > Clint wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Or Buddhism the philosophy and Zen the practice?
> > > > >
> > > > > well, that's a good suggestion but I can't buy into it because you
> already
> > > > have
> > > > > a practice/philosophy pairing with zazen & zen.
> > > >
> > > > Or does Zen simply become an explanation of what happens/is supposed
> to
> > > > happen when one practices zazen?
> > > >
> > > > Chicken and egg?
> > > >
> > > > FFF
> > > > Dirk
> > >
> > > Hey, i'll have to hand you the victory baton on that one.... you're
> basically
> > > saying zazen is the means and zen is the end, right?
> >
> > no, zazen is the end
> > sitting or standing
> > facing a wall
> > or going shopping for chickens or eggs
>
> So, if you do zazen do you need the rest of the explanatory baggage of zen
> and buddhism eg noble truths, eightfold way, anatta etc?
well I think it's a nice idea to understand what the heck you're doing.
just sitting with random ideas about it won't really go very far will it?
robert