Cafeteria Zen
herbzet
Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
your consciousness, something else will take its place?
By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
to take its place.
(Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
What's down at the bottom of the stack? _Is_ there a bottom?
Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
What's at the bottom?
--
hz
Takuji
First, how do you exclude one thing from
your consciousness?
herbzet
Takuji wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
Do you not do that all the time?
Example: play a game of chess -- watch the world drop away!
--
hz
herbzet
To dilate on this:
I think you may have got hung up on the word "one". I mean,
exclude any content of conciousness.
Instead of chess, I should stick with the title theme: It's
time for lunch, stop thinking about what the boss wants!
Is it not a common thing to turn our mind away from this or
that? "I'm not going to think about that right now" -- Scarlett
O'hara.
To be sure, some things are easier to drop than others -- "I can't
stop thinking about it" -- we've all been there. When lunch is
over, however, it's time to get serious again, right?
To willfully exclude things from conscousness is a bit
muscular, not the peaceful "letting go" that is so often
talked about. I imagine some people are better at "letting
go" than "throwing out", for others the reverse may be true.
I know that at a certain point in late infancy, children are
better at grasping then letting go. They'll wave their hand
around with an object in it, a little frustrated: they haven't
mastered releasing yet.
Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put their
mind in a certain place. Ordinary consciousness must be excluded,
they have to be someone else.
We have a certain ability to turn our conscousness this way
and that. Some people more than other, perhaps, some times
easier than other times, some things easier than other things.
I used to think of concentration as a focusing, like using
a magnifying glass to concentrate the sunlight on a small
point. I have found it better to think of concentration
as: excluding everything from consciousness except what
you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
up your mind.
The point is, one can, to a greater or lesser degree,
exclude things from consciousness, and this is very
ordinary. Watch how the mind will throw something up
to replace what is thrown out!
What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
--
hz
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> herbzet:
>
> > Takuji:
>
> > > herbzet:
>
> > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
> > > >
> > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
> > > >
> > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > to take its place.
> > > >
> > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
> > > >
> > > > What's down at the bottom of the stack? _Is_ there a bottom?
> > > >
> > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
> > > >
> > > > What's at the bottom?
>
I know that it can look corny and artificial, but
the mind has a certain structure, like in the
development stages of Piaget or the nine
successive meditational stages of Buddhism,
of which the ninth and last is the attainment
of cessation, which is awakening, if awakening
has not been attained before. At some stage of
calming, the entire structure of thought stops
and drops out, though consciousness is intact,
and if anything blooms forth all the better
because there is no thought to occupy its space.
Then some natural processes take over that
have been occluded by thought, like serenity
and grace, and they are automatic, default
states that are always there unless thought
is there to block them out. That default state
of serenity and grace is the bottom, at least so
far as I have known, and I do not claim to have
scratched it down all the way to the bottom and
past the bottom.
By they way, the above process does not occur
by excluding things from consciousness, but by
being clear (aware) and by calming. One winds
down instead of up, that's all. By letting
everything pass (and not rejecting them,
repressing them, excluding them, or hanging on
to them, dwelling on them, drilling down into
them), one clears out the space for freedom.
To use the cafeteria simile, but in reverse: one
drops one thing from one's tray, then another,
and then the whole cafeteria drops out. The
bottom falls off, there is no stand, and that
standlessness is freedom. Corny, eh?
Tang Huyen
Monkey Mind
Careful, Tang, your fluff is showing substance! :)
Seriously, that was a good post, not corny at all - maybe my taste is
too crude, but then maybe yours is too jaded?
Cheers,
Florian
--
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
-- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
herbzet
Well, maybe you should just sink
like a stone in the water ...
> By they way, the above process does not occur
> by excluding things from consciousness, but by
> being clear (aware) and by calming. One winds
> down instead of up, that's all. By letting
> everything pass (and not rejecting them,
> repressing them, excluding them, or hanging on
> to them, dwelling on them, drilling down into
> them), one clears out the space for freedom.
> To use the cafeteria simile, but in reverse: one
> drops one thing from one's tray, then another,
> and then the whole cafeteria drops out. The
> bottom falls off, there is no stand, and that
> standlessness is freedom. Corny, eh?
>
> Tang Huyen
What I wouldn't give to see some re-runs of "Hee-Haw"!
--
hz
Takuji
No
Takuji
In your practice, the bottom is the first thing excluded.
If you return to the first thing, in that place is the bottom.
herbzet
Takuji wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Takuji wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
> >
> > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
> >
> > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > to take its place.
> >
> > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
> >
> > > > What's down at the bottom of the stack? _Is_ there a bottom?
> >
> > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
> >
> > > > What's at the bottom?
> >
> > > > --
> > > > hz
> >
> > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > your consciousness?
> >
> > Do you not do that all the time?
>
> No
A rather abrupt reply,
Still, it makes me imagine that you are rather tranquil.
You spook me a bit! That wasn't so hard, was it? :-/
--
hz
herbzet
Takuji wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > Takuji wrote:
> > > > herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
> >
> > > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
> >
> > > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > > to take its place.
> >
> > > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
> >
> > > > > What's down at the bottom of the stack? 嚙稻Is_ there a bottom?
> >
> > > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
> >
> > > > > What's at the bottom?
> >
> > > > > --
> > > > > hz
> >
> > > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > > your consciousness?
> >
> > > Do you not do that all the time?
> >
> > > Example: play a game of chess -- watch the world drop away!
> >
> > To dilate on this:
> >
> > I think you may have got hung up on the word "one". 嚙瘢 mean,
> > exclude any content of conciousness.
> >
> > Instead of chess, I should stick with the title theme: 嚙瘢t's
> > time for lunch, stop thinking about what the boss wants!
> >
> > Is it not a common thing to turn our mind away from this or
> > that? 嚙�I'm not going to think about that right now" -- Scarlett
> > O'hara.
> >
> > To be sure, some things are easier to drop than others -- "I can't
> > stop thinking about it" -- we've all been there. 嚙磕hen lunch is
> > over, however, it's time to get serious again, right?
> >
> > To willfully exclude things from conscousness is a bit
> > muscular, not the peaceful "letting go" that is so often
> > talked about. 嚙瘢 imagine some people are better at "letting
> > go" than "throwing out", for others the reverse may be true.
> >
> > I know that at a certain point in late infancy, children are
> > better at grasping then letting go. 嚙確hey'll wave their hand
> > around with an object in it, a little frustrated: they haven't
> > mastered releasing yet.
> >
> > Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put their
> > mind in a certain place. 嚙瞌rdinary consciousness must be excluded,
> > they have to be someone else.
> >
> > We have a certain ability to turn our conscousness this way
> > and that. 嚙磅ome people more than other, perhaps, some times
> > easier than other times, some things easier than other things.
> >
> > I used to think of concentration as a focusing, like using
> > a magnifying glass to concentrate the sunlight on a small
> > point. I have found it better to think of concentration
> > as: excluding everything from consciousness except what
> > you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
> > up your mind.
> >
> > The point is, one can, to a greater or lesser degree,
> > exclude things from consciousness, and this is very
> > ordinary. 嚙磕atch how the mind will throw something up
> > to replace what is thrown out!
> >
> > What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
>
> In your practice, the bottom is the first thing excluded.
> If you return to the first thing, in that place is the bottom.
Thank you. Not getting it, really.
--
hz
Takuji
...was it?
Takuji
> Takuji wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > Takuji wrote:
> > > > > herbzet wrote:
>
> > > > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
>
> > > > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
>
> > > > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > > > to take its place.
>
> > > > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
>
>
> > > > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
>
> > > > > > What's at the bottom?
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > hz
>
> > > > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > > > your consciousness?
>
> > > > Do you not do that all the time?
>
> > > > Example: play a game of chess -- watch the world drop away!
>
> > > To dilate on this:
>
> > > exclude any content of conciousness.
>
> > > time for lunch, stop thinking about what the boss wants!
>
> > > Is it not a common thing to turn our mind away from this or
> > > O'hara.
>
> > > To be sure, some things are easier to drop than others -- "I can't
> > > over, however, it's time to get serious again, right?
>
> > > To willfully exclude things from conscousness is a bit
> > > muscular, not the peaceful "letting go" that is so often
> > > go" than "throwing out", for others the reverse may be true.
>
> > > I know that at a certain point in late infancy, children are
> > > around with an object in it, a little frustrated: they haven't
> > > mastered releasing yet.
>
> > > Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put their
> > > they have to be someone else.
>
> > > We have a certain ability to turn our conscousness this way
> > > easier than other times, some things easier than other things.
>
> > > I used to think of concentration as a focusing, like using
> > > a magnifying glass to concentrate the sunlight on a small
> > > point. I have found it better to think of concentration
> > > as: excluding everything from consciousness except what
> > > you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
> > > up your mind.
>
> > > The point is, one can, to a greater or lesser degree,
> > > exclude things from consciousness, and this is very
> > > to replace what is thrown out!
>
> > > What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
>
> > In your practice, the bottom is the first thing excluded.
> > If you return to the first thing, in that place is the bottom.
>
> Thank you. Not getting it, really.
>
> --
> hz
There is someone that gets it.
herbzet
How would I know?
--
hz
herbzet
Takuji wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Takuji wrote:
> > > herbzet ﾂ wrote:
> > > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > > Takuji wrote:
> > > > > > herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
> >
> > > > > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
> >
> > > > > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > > > > to take its place.
> >
> > > > > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
> >
> > > > > > > What's down at the bottom of the stack? �ｿｽ_Is_ there a bottom?
> >
> > > > > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
> >
> > > > > > > What's at the bottom?
> >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > hz
> >
> > > > > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > > > > your consciousness?
> >
> > > > > Do you not do that all the time?
> >
> > > > > Example: play a game of chess -- watch the world drop away!
> >
> > > > To dilate on this:
> >
> > > > I think you may have got hung up on the word "one". �ｿｽI mean,
> > > > exclude any content of conciousness.
> >
> > > > Instead of chess, I should stick with the title theme: �ｿｽIt's
> > > > time for lunch, stop thinking about what the boss wants!
> >
> > > > Is it not a common thing to turn our mind away from this or
> > > > that? �ｿｽ"I'm not going to think about that right now" -- Scarlett
> > > > O'hara.
> >
> > > > To be sure, some things are easier to drop than others -- "I can't
> > > > stop thinking about it" -- we've all been there. �ｿｽWhen lunch is
> > > > over, however, it's time to get serious again, right?
> >
> > > > To willfully exclude things from conscousness is a bit
> > > > muscular, not the peaceful "letting go" that is so often
> > > > talked about. �ｿｽI imagine some people are better at "letting
> > > > go" than "throwing out", for others the reverse may be true.
> >
> > > > I know that at a certain point in late infancy, children are
> > > > better at grasping then letting go. �ｿｽThey'll wave their hand
> > > > around with an object in it, a little frustrated: they haven't
> > > > mastered releasing yet.
> >
> > > > Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put their
> > > > mind in a certain place. �ｿｽOrdinary consciousness must be excluded,
> > > > they have to be someone else.
> >
> > > > We have a certain ability to turn our conscousness this way
> > > > and that. �ｿｽSome people more than other, perhaps, some times
> > > > easier than other times, some things easier than other things.
> >
> > > > I used to think of concentration as a focusing, like using
> > > > a magnifying glass to concentrate the sunlight on a small
> > > > point. ﾂ I have found it better to think of concentration
> > > > as: excluding everything from consciousness except what
> > > > you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
> > > > up your mind.
> >
> > > > The point is, one can, to a greater or lesser degree,
> > > > exclude things from consciousness, and this is very
> > > > ordinary. �ｿｽWatch how the mind will throw something up
> > > > to replace what is thrown out!
> >
> > > > What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
> >
> > > In your practice, the bottom is the first thing excluded.
> > > If you return to the first thing, in that place is the bottom.
> >
> > Thank you. Not getting it, really.
> >
> > --
> > hz
>
> There is someone that gets it.
Who would that be?
--
hz
Takuji
Step back!
Takuji
> > > > herbzet � wrote:
> > > > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > > > Takuji wrote:
> > > > > > > herbzet wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Have you ever noticed that when you exclude one thing from
> > > > > > > > your consciousness, something else will take its place?
>
> > > > > > > > By "thing" I mean any content of consciousness -- thought,
> > > > > > > > mood, feeling, percept, whatever.
>
> > > > > > > > It's like the push-down stack of trays at the cafeteria:
> > > > > > > > when the top tray is removed, another tray is pushed up
> > > > > > > > to take its place.
>
> > > > > > > > (Computer geeks will of course immediately recognize the
> > > > > > > > hardware and/or software data structure "push-down stack",
> > > > > > > > also known as a LIFO buffer (last in, first out).)
>
>
> > > > > > > > Watch how your mind will replace one thing with another!
>
> > > > > > > > What's at the bottom?
>
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > hz
>
> > > > > > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > > > > > your consciousness?
>
> > > > > > Do you not do that all the time?
>
> > > > > > Example: play a game of chess -- watch the world drop away!
>
> > > > > To dilate on this:
>
> > > > > exclude any content of conciousness.
>
> > > > > time for lunch, stop thinking about what the boss wants!
>
> > > > > Is it not a common thing to turn our mind away from this or
> > > > > O'hara.
>
> > > > > To be sure, some things are easier to drop than others -- "I can't
> > > > > over, however, it's time to get serious again, right?
>
> > > > > To willfully exclude things from conscousness is a bit
> > > > > muscular, not the peaceful "letting go" that is so often
> > > > > go" than "throwing out", for others the reverse may be true.
>
> > > > > I know that at a certain point in late infancy, children are
> > > > > around with an object in it, a little frustrated: they haven't
> > > > > mastered releasing yet.
>
> > > > > Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put their
> > > > > they have to be someone else.
>
> > > > > We have a certain ability to turn our conscousness this way
> > > > > easier than other times, some things easier than other things.
>
> > > > > I used to think of concentration as a focusing, like using
> > > > > a magnifying glass to concentrate the sunlight on a small
> > > > > as: excluding everything from consciousness except what
> > > > > you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
> > > > > up your mind.
>
> > > > > The point is, one can, to a greater or lesser degree,
> > > > > exclude things from consciousness, and this is very
> > > > > to replace what is thrown out!
>
> > > > > What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
>
> > > > In your practice, the bottom is the first thing excluded.
> > > > If you return to the first thing, in that place is the bottom.
>
> > > Thank you. �Not getting it, really.
>
> > > --
> > > hz
>
> > There is someone that gets it.
>
> Who would that be?
>
> --
> hz
Step back and see!
herbzet
<Chuckle out loud!>
Good one!
--
hz
herbzet
Thanks! :-)
--
hz
herbzet
I just want to say, before this gets lost in all the noise,
that I have definitely found the following practice
to be useful.
It costs nothing to try, and can be somewhat more
engaging than, say, staring at a wall.
Although, of course, many people here would be more
interested in practicing disengagement!
It's just another technique. You can pick it up
or put it down, as you like.
Give it a try!
OK, I'm done now.
====================
herbzet wrote:
> Have you ever noticed that when you exclude [some]thing from
Colin Hankin
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com.invalid> writes
>
>
>>
>> What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
>
Once everything (all conscious mental activity) has 'dropped off the
tray' our awareness is dominated by our mood. And the mood of a quiet
mind is one of bliss. That's the mechanism of happiness in creatures
with our kind of central nervous system.
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin: www.zenprime.demon.co.uk
zendan-at-zenprime-dot-demon-dot-co-dot-uk
None of the personal addresses on my web page work
herbzet
Colin Hankin wrote:
>
> In message <13st2jv...@news.supernews.com>, Tang Huyen
> <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com.invalid> writes
[Actually, I, hz, wrote the following, not Tang:]
> >> What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
> >
> I have found that awareness is always aware of something.
> Once everything (all conscious mental activity) has 'dropped off the
> tray' our awareness is dominated by our mood.
Excellent. What happens if you then drop (or exclude) your
mood from your awareness?
> And the mood of a quiet
> mind is one of bliss. That's the mechanism of happiness in creatures
> with our kind of central nervous system.
> TTFN
> --
> Colin Hankin: www.zenprime.demon.co.uk
> zendan-at-zenprime-dot-demon-dot-co-dot-uk
> None of the personal addresses on my web page work
Don't know what "TTFN" means.
--
hz
^@%>---*=#
"Colin Hankin" <zen...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LP9JoLBq...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
> In message <13st2jv...@news.supernews.com>, Tang Huyen
> <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com.invalid> writes
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
> I have found that awareness is always aware of something.
especially of itself
> Once everything (all conscious mental activity) has 'dropped off the
> tray'
not quite all. some conscious mental activity
would still need to be there to know
that something has dropped
> our awareness is dominated by our mood.
mood is just more mental activity
> And the mood of a quiet
> mind is one of bliss.
there's no such thing as a mind.
thoughts arise in consciousness
discontinually and a memory principle
stores the warm and fuzzy ones
and the traumatic ones in different
dents in the void.
> That's the mechanism of happiness in creatures
> with our kind of central nervous system.
warm blooded creatures are
happy when they're warm
Sevenhundred Elves
It just means: "Ta-ta, for now!", a polite phrase uttered when parting.
S.
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> Colin Hankin:
>
> [Actually, I, hz, wrote the following, not Tang:]
>
> > >> What's at the bottom of the stack? Is there a bottom?
>
> > I have found that awareness is always aware of something.
> > Once everything (all conscious mental activity) has 'dropped
> > off the tray' our awareness is dominated by our mood.
>
> Excellent. What happens if you then drop (or exclude) your
> mood from your awareness?
>
> > And the mood of a quiet mind is one of bliss. That's
> > the mechanism of happiness in creatures with our
> > kind of central nervous system.
Some people, especially Hinduists, talk of
pure awareness, free of content, but I have
never experienced it or anything close to it.
That doesn't mean that it is impossible, but
that in my experience I agree with Colin,
in that awareness is always aware of
something, and that once everything has
dropped off the tray, our awareness is
filled with mood, a positive mood, harmony,
serenity, grace, felicity or whatever. The
weird thing is that once there, if you let the
mood pass, instead of fading, it becomes
more of the same, in that it grows in
intensity and saturation. It suffuses the
universe. The whole universe comes to life
and glows. It seems like a block universe,
frozen in perfection for all eternity. I know
that I am seriously babbling. Just let me fall
off the conveyor belt, into the bit bucket.
Tang Huyen
herbzet
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Don't know what "TTFN" means.
>
> It just means: "Ta-ta, for now!", a polite phrase uttered when parting.
Thanks. TTFN.
--
hz
herbzet
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Some people, especially Hinduists, talk of
> pure awareness, free of content, but I have
> never experienced it or anything close to it.
> That doesn't mean that it is impossible, but
> that in my experience I agree with Colin,
> in that awareness is always aware of
> something, and that once everything has
> dropped off the tray, our awareness is
> filled with mood, a positive mood, harmony,
> serenity, grace, felicity or whatever.
Throw it away.
> The
> weird thing is that once there, if you let the
> mood pass, instead of fading, it becomes
> more of the same, in that it grows in
> intensity and saturation. It suffuses the
> universe. The whole universe comes to life
> and glows. It seems like a block universe,
> frozen in perfection for all eternity. I know
> that I am seriously babbling. Just let me fall
> off the conveyor belt, into the bit bucket.
Alternatively, just fall off the conveyor belt.
--
hz
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> herbzet:
>
> > Takuji:
herbzet has described the concentration as used in
Bushido.
<<Think of an actor: at eight o'clock, he or she must put
their mind in a certain place. Ordinary consciousness
must be excluded, they have to be someone else.>>
<<I have found it better to think of concentration as:
excluding everything from consciousness except what
you are trying to concentrate on, letting that thing fill
up your mind.>>
Tang Huyen
small tortoiseshell
wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > herbzet:
>
> > > Takuji:
>
> > > > First, how do you exclude one thing from
> > > > your consciousness?
>
"
Wolfgang Laib likes to retreat from worldly affairs, limiting his
dealings solely to nature. Nature is the point of departure for his
work. He seeks the motifs for his art from the natural world, creating
beautiful installations using pollen, milk, beeswax, marble, rice, and
sealing wax. He lives and works embedded in the seasons: gathering
materials outdoors when the dandelions, hazelnut, and pines are
blooming and in winter working in his studio where he polishes marble
for his milk stones."
http://www.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/press/images/laib1.jpg
>
> Tang Huyen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
norbu....@gmail.com
wrote:
There were endless disagreements in what was the right practice of
Bushido.
And these disagreements didn't just come from the various schools of
Buddhism,
differing traditions of Shinto, and eventually Christianity entered
into the fray.
i studied Kyodo with On-yumishi Kanjuro Shibata XX a decade or so
ago...
there were elements of Zen in the practice, but also the Shinto sense
of Inari
in the way if time...the future causing the past. Shibata Sensei,
twentieth
generation bow maker and Kyudo instructor to the Royal Family had no
problem in
breaking with tradition where he saw a flaw :
"In Japan, Shibata became concerned that his students were too fixated
on merely hitting the target, and were treating kyūdō as a sport
rather than a meditative art. He felt they were becoming too
competitive. Shibata thus represents a view of kyūdō different from
the All Japanese Kyūdō Federation (ZNKR) and Japanese Budō
Association. Rather than as a meditative art, ZNKR promotes kyūdō as a
traditional budō art combining equally both physical and mental
development. These differences have led Shibata to exclude his
tradition from the official Japanese budō associations.
"Since 1980, Shibata has founded over 25 kyūdōjō in the United States,
Canada and Europe.
"Shibata does not rank his students (i.e. there is no belt or dan
system), and there is no testing or
contests within the school."
( - from the Wiki article on him)
That's the trend that was emerging in some Samurai traditions, and why
some Daimyo Lords thought it best to exterminate them and replace them
with newly elevated peasant and bourgeois soldiers - new
folks who would have no self-respect and would feel totally dependent
on their new patrons for
their sudden social prestige. The Samurai had began to value their own
intelligence and
judgment and found many Daimyo a bit lacking in both as well as
ethics...
- n.