What the buddha taught
Shakushinnen
I've had people tell me that they know what the buddha taught; I
presume they're suggesting that the sutras are the words of the
buddha. However, it's my impression that nothing of the buddhas
teachings were recorded until some 300(?) years after his death. From
this I would glean, that at best, the sutras are someone's
interpretation of what the buddha meant. These people also say that at
that time people had extrordinary memories, compared to ours, implying
that the buddhas words would have been faithfully reproduced from
generation to generation over this period. (Hmmmmmm?) Frankly, I'm not
sure I would recognize the buddha's teachings if he delivered them to
me himself; so the whole issue may be moot. Any thoughts?
John
Julian Love God
Yes, quite a few.
shriven leper
wrote:
Similar things are said for the Christian "sutras". It is claimed
that oral tradition - the "apostolic kerygma" - preserved Jesus' words
until they were written in texts that eventually became canonical.
This claim includes the notion that oral preaching faithfully
transmitted Jesus' teachings.
Unlike the Buddha's case, Jesus' words were put into writing
relatively early - about 45-to-75 years after his death. Paul's
authentic letters are much earlier, but they mention virtually nothing
about the historical Jesus.
It took another three hundred years for (some of) the books that
contained Jesus' putative words to be officially declared scriptural.
Critical scholarship shows that the first three Gospels have a similar
foundational base, although they paint three different portraits of
Jesus. Each Gospel is a highly theologically developed interpretation
of Jesus. Christianity as a system is an invention of the Fourth
Century, but its scriptures do contain in their primal strata some
data that probably goes back to Jesus himself.
You've raised an interesting question. In the case of Christian
scriptures, much is said to depend on their basic historicity - Jesus
"the Word became flesh" in time and space and his work is claimed to
have been directed to the historical redemption first of Israel and
then of the larger world. But in the case of Buddhist scriptures, it
seems that historicity plays a less prominent role.
Whereas the Christian scriptures depend on belief in Jesus as he
acted in history - and therefore belief in the historical probity of
the texts themselves - the Buddhist scriptures seem to depend on their
messages' _viability in transforming_ the reader. That is,
Christian scriptures generally aim toward faith (pistis), while
Buddhist scriptures aim at knowing (gnosis).
This difference causes one to suspect that historical concerns may
be less important for Buddhist scriptures than is the "key" to
self-knowledge and enlightenment that they putatively contain - and
seek to convey. Thus, regardless of whether or not the historical
Sakyamuni's words are actually conveyed, the crucial issue for
Buddhist scriptures is that his _means_ of liberation be transmitted.
If a scripture, though non-historical, conveys a true sense of the
Buddha's enlightenment, and transmits methods toward achieving a
liberated condition, then that text has performed its task.
- sl -
Tang Huyen
Shakushinnen wrote:
I spent years studying what remains of what is
presented traditionally as the Buddha's teaching,
namely the early canon in Chinese, Pali and some
Sanskrit fragments, and came to the conclusion that
much of it has the look and feel of being delivered
by one person and not a committee of monks
scattered in time, space and Indo-Aryan dialects.
I don't mean that the early canon is fully consistent,
for I can identify at least two sides to the Buddha,
the sober, direct, raw side and the dramatic,
theatrical, exaggerating side. Or, in other words,
the side that delivers what he really intends to teach
for awakening (for duplicating his awakening) pure
and simple, regardless of how the unwashed masses
take it, and the side that wants to leave an
establishment behind, which obviously is an affair
that has to deal with the unwashed masses and stoop
to their standards.
The former says things like:
"In the seen there will be just the seen."
"What and what they think it, it is otherwise."
"Do not mentate anything".
“It has been heard by a certain monk: ‘All things
should not be settled into [sabbe dhamma, plural,
nalam abhinivesayati].’ If he has heard: ‘All things
should not be settled into,’ he fully understands the
whole Law [sabbam dhammam, singular, abhijanati].”
If you understand those, all the rest is dispensible.
His teaching can also be roughly divided into two
parts, the technique (which includes technique of
meditation) and the philosophy. If he could get
away with it, he would only teach technique and
let his disciples figure out the philosophy, and if they
awaken they get beyond thought and language and
don't need philosophy, which is bound to thought and
language anyway, but he has to teach philosophy to
prepare the groundwork for his technique and make
his vision accessible to the unwashed masses (we are
talking of mass appeal here and mass support for the
few who go for broke attempting to awaken). Besides
some people who practice the technique may go astray,
so the philosophy serves as a foolproof guideline as to
what the results of cultivation of the technique should
be like.
For example, the philosophy teaches absence of self,
but some practitioners use the technique to develop a
self to cosmic size, and the philosophy of the absence
of self is there to remind them that they have strayed.
Or the philosophy teaches calm and repose, but some
people who practice the technique get jumpy, edgy,
frenetic, and the philosophy of calm and repose is
there to remind them that they have strayed.
If you want a brief summary of the philosophy, our
resident Hinduist, Jen, a granny from Detroit, delivers
it in divine form and in English:
<<it's all just a play of ideas, no need to
take it seriously. it's a passing fancy, a
caprice, a felicity.
trying to box it in with concepts is never
ending and never satisfying.>>
That summary needs no barbaric Indo-Aryan anything.
Or you can consider everything to be fluff, and again
that summary needs no barbaric Indo-Aryan anything.
Many people on these boards who have spent years
and decades studying with teachers from exotic lands
who look funny, talk funny and dress funny and who
practice assorted pretzel-like practice have yet to attain
to anything near there.
Tang Huyen
Anraku
Shakushinnen
Thanks for the perspective.
John
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message news:<1119hfa...@news.supernews.com>...
> ?It has been heard by a certain monk: ?All things
> should not be settled into [sabbe dhamma, plural,
> nalam abhinivesayati].? If he has heard: ?All things
> should not be settled into,? he fully understands the
> whole Law [sabbam dhammam, singular, abhijanati].?
Shakushinnen
Thanks for the analysis. Yes, it would seem that buddhism is
less belief oriented than Christianity. Of course, the theravadins are
very mind oriented in their approach. Jodo Shinshu, the sect I
practiced for several years, is quite heavy on faith. When people ask
me what all buddhist believe or practice, I am always hard pressed to
come up with anything universal. I suppose, buddha, dharma, and
sangha, but these don't seem to distinguish buddhism from other ways.
Anyone have any thoughts?
John
shriven leper <bast...@peak.org> wrote in message news:<hme911hbqkii0sbbo...@4ax.com>...
Shakushinnen
Supposedly, the buddha's last words admonished his monks not to
accept anyone's words as true without first determining their voracity
for oneself. I think this is absolutely core to his teachings. When I
first read this, I thought, what a magnificent gesture - he's sure he
knows the path to enligtenment, yet he's allowing for other ways; but
the longer I live the more I realize that there is no other way. If
someone basis their way of living on the teachings of someone else,
without first satifying themselves of their truth, they're building a
house on sand. This is one of the problems I have with Christianity.
John
shriven leper <bast...@peak.org> wrote in message news:<hme911hbqkii0sbbo...@4ax.com>...
Ch'an Fu
> Supposedly, the buddha's last words admonished his monks not to
> accept anyone's words as true without first determining their voracity
> for oneself.
I'm sure that you ment "veracity", but this was
so funny that I just had to say thanks.
Words are indeed "voracious".
Tang Huyen
Shakushinnen wrote:
> Hi Shriven,
> Supposedly, the buddha's last words admonished
> his monks not to accept anyone's words as true
> without first determining their voracity for oneself.
> I think this is absolutely core to his teachings. When
> I first read this, I thought, what a magnificent
> gesture - he's sure he knows the path to enligtenment,
> yet he's allowing for other ways; but the longer I live
> the more I realize that there is no other way. If
> someone basis their way of living on the teachings of
> someone else, without first satifying themselves of
> their truth, they're building a house on sand. This is
> one of the problems I have with Christianity.
> John
To me, if one cultivates the spirit of detachment, of
equanimity, of impermanence, of suffering, of absence
of self, etc., one practices the Buddha-Dharma. That
spirit is the core of Buddhism, it makes Buddhism
Buddhism. If it exists, Buddhism exists, and if it doesn't
exist, Buddhism doesn't exist, regardless of externalities.
In so cultivating, one personally verifies the Buddha's
teaching, and one knows that he teaches the truth -- the
same truth that one verifies personally, whether in part
or in whole. More specifically, if one verifies that by
practicing according to the Buddha's teaching, one
alleviates one's suffering or even ends it, then one
knows that he teaches the truth -- suffering and the
ending of suffering. That's the only truth that he claims
to teach. (For example, he doesn't teach the beginning
or ending of the universe, and says that they are not
knowable).
Even more briefly, if one cultivates non-resistance, one
practices the Buddha-Dharma. Ultimately, even a
concept is resistance, so one gives up all concepts, and
the biggest concept to give up is that of the self. One
also gives up the concepts of Buddha, dharma, and
sangha, one gives up one's mentation to be free. All that
is in the early canon and endlessly repeated and
developed in the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures.
Tang Huyen
gypsy
Ultimately, even a concept is resistance, so one gives up all concepts, and
> the biggest concept to give up is that of the self.
then you take up the no-concept concept
and you're still stagnated at concepts
Julian Love God
> Hi Shriven,
> Thanks for the analysis. Yes, it would seem that buddhism is
> less belief oriented than Christianity. Of course, the theravadins are
> very mind oriented in their approach. Jodo Shinshu, the sect I
> practiced for several years, is quite heavy on faith. When people ask
> me what all buddhist believe or practice, I am always hard pressed to
> come up with anything universal.
That would be difficult sinnce belief plays little or no part in Buddhism
and at the same time practice varies wildly
> I suppose, buddha, dharma, and
> sangha, but these don't seem to distinguish buddhism from other ways.
> Anyone have any thoughts?
The Gohonzon and the doctrine of Ichinen Sanzen
are unique to Buddhism. Try introducing them to your debates.
Awaken21
In the Buddha's case there were entire groups of people who dedicated
their whole lives to memorizing his words, word for word, and passing
that particular sutra to the next generation word for word. The
question is, how accurate could that be? People who have done research
on the subject of passing information through generations say it's
considerably more accurate than written transcripts, which is to say
it's a reasonably decent method.
On the other hand, neither Christ nor Socrates ever wrote anything down
either, so they suffer from the same issue. Worse because an oral
tradition wasn't created during their lives, so what was written much
later, really was just a memory. But that never stopped me from being
inspired and helped by their teachings, or perhaps more accurately, the
interpretations of their teachings.
The important question to me has always been, how much does it matter?
I'd say since the understanding and practice of Buddhism is about
attention to the here and now, without reliance anyone's words to reach
understanding, even the Buddha's, it doesn't matter at all. If you are
sincere in the correct direction, you'll get it. If not, you won't, and
which translation and how accurate in every detail that writing is,
won't make any difference at all.
Shakushinnen
John
Ch'an Fu <Ambas...@Large.org> wrote in message news:<1108693156.c96a1ea4bcf68c447553a19f174050a9@teranews>...
Anand Juda
"gypsy" <bite...@email.com> wrote in message
news:37ll8fF...@individual.net...
Yes indeed Gypsy, this is the old conundrum of no-self being a concept of
the self.
I suppose my understanding of this is that "concepts" are not really the
problem, but rather the attachment to concepts. The way in which a person
construes their reality is simply the way reality is perceived based on
culture, experience, learning, relationships, etc. After nearly 30 years of
meditation practice, I have not learned too much, but have opened more
channels of reality to my mind, have harnessed more compassion in my
personal life, have harnessed more wisdom as I reflect on mistakes and
successes with an open heart, and have developed the ability not to reject
concepts per se, but to let go of them with more ease and inner balance.
I suppose this is the core message in the Dhammapada as I read it. We are
suppose to be content and walk our path of bliss through wisdom and acts of
kindness, and if we are carry around a heavy load of "self" it is rather
difficult to accomplish this. Probably also why the monastic life has been
historically seen as the "correct" (or pershaps ultimate) expression of
living the dharma path. The stressors of work life, home life, school life,
etc. make a total Bodhisattva/Arhat "crossing of the stream" a tough thing
to accomplish. Some of us just wade in the baby pool, LOL. I suppose there
is also another way to look at this too. If one sacrifices their own
spiritual pursuit for the sake of caring for their family, this can be (in
its own way) letting go of "self." Again I consider the Dhammapada, where
it states that a single act of sacrifice for another is more powerful then a
lifetime of spiritual practice or ritual.
Thanks for listening, and please do tell me what you think. Cheers.
Ch'an Fu
How can you strain so much for so little?
Go fly a kite in the park and forget all this stuff.
Go play with the kids, letting them be what they are.
Go be what you are. There's nothing to 'forgive' in that.
Why feel guilty about being human, about being 'you'?
"Channels of reality"? "Harnessing compassion and wisdom"?
What kind of nonsense is that?
Throw it all out, every bit of it, and just be what's left!
Anand Juda
"Ch'an Fu" <Ambas...@Large.org> wrote in message
Strain? I have strained so little to have so much! I am a very fortunate man
to be joyful, alive, breathing, and typing to you.
> Go fly a kite in the park and forget all this stuff.
Good idea!!
> Go play with the kids, letting them be what they are.
Unless they reach for the knife drawer!
> Go be what you are. There's nothing to 'forgive' in that.
Agreed!
> Why feel guilty about being human, about being 'you'?
Agreed!
> "Channels of reality"? "Harnessing compassion and wisdom"?
> What kind of nonsense is that?
Its my nonsense! : P
> Throw it all out, every bit of it, and just be what's left!
That is precisely what meditation has helped me do over the years. Certainly
you are correct, as with any concept (e.g. compassion, reality, etc.) they
are not to be held on to.As far merely being "whats left," well, this is the
experience I have had not only through meditation, but also through mundane
activities like kneading bread or playing chess or actually, just about
anything where I have mindful focus. I think my ability to be Buddha mind
is best with a cup of coffee in the morning. I am perfect in that moment!
As far as the "nonsense" you mention, as Willy Wonka once said: "A little
nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men!" Yes, you are right
that "channels of reality' is an admittedly obtuse statement, and if I were
reading it I would probably think "ahh bullshit," so please allow me to
clarify it as follows: It is my experience that meditation practice has
increased my level of awareness, the joy of being alive, gratitude, and the
ability to serve others with loving kindness.
and then my brain kicks in and its a train wreck. LOL. Hey, I forgot to
mention that I have a fantastic laugh! Its my second favorite thing to do
next to drinking coffee.
gypsy
"Anand Juda" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:P7edne06KNm...@comcast.com...
>
> "gypsy" <bite...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:37ll8fF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> > news:111akbo...@news.supernews.com...
> > Ultimately, even a concept is resistance, so one gives up all concepts,
> > and
> >> the biggest concept to give up is that of the self.
> >
> > then you take up the no-concept concept
> > and you're still stagnated at concepts
>
> Yes indeed Gypsy, this is the old conundrum of no-self being a concept of
> the self.
umm...no capital letters in my name. if you got that
word conundrum on loan you'd better return it cuz
i hear the conundrum gods are havin' a co-nip-shun
fit looking for it
> I suppose my understanding of this is that "concepts" are not really the
> problem, but rather the attachment to concepts.
you suppose? so from conceptual platforming
you jump right into supposition? i'll bet the remainder of
this post will tell me about all the concepts that
you have indeed identified with and thus saddled yourself
with a conundrum co-nip-shun-like problem agenda
The way in which a person
> construes their reality is simply the way reality is perceived based on
> culture, experience, learning, relationships, etc.
construes? careful in these buddhist groups with unusual
wordings cuz they'll start yelling verbal diarrhea on ya'
lickety split
After nearly 30 years of
> meditation practice, I have not learned too much, but have opened more
> channels of reality to my mind, have harnessed more compassion in my
> personal life, have harnessed more wisdom as I reflect on mistakes and
> successes with an open heart, and have developed the ability not to reject
> concepts per se, but to let go of them with more ease and inner balance.
sounds to me that you haven't let go of concepts but
have actually taken on a whole slew of them which will
have you defending them, clarifying them, wedging the
round ones into square holes, etc.,
> I suppose this is the core message in the Dhammapada as I read it. We are
> suppose to be content and walk our path of bliss through wisdom and acts
of
> kindness, and if we are carry around a heavy load of "self" it is rather
> difficult to accomplish this.
more supposition? ya' know, if you have been indeed
meditating for 30 years and all you've gathered so far
are conceptual suppostions, i'd ask for my money back
if i were you.
Probably also why the monastic life has been
> historically seen as the "correct" (or pershaps ultimate) expression of
> living the dharma path.
consider the level of awareness of those who claim
this and maybe you'll see beyond it, but then again,
maybe not
The stressors of work life, home life, school life,
> etc. make a total Bodhisattva/Arhat "crossing of the stream" a tough thing
> to accomplish.
is this what you wish to accomplish?
> Some of us just wade in the baby pool, LOL.
maybe it's not really all that safe to even
go back into the water
I suppose there
> is also another way to look at this too.
if were on suppositions again, i suppose we could
suppose ad infinitum ad naseum too
If one sacrifices their own
> spiritual pursuit for the sake of caring for their family, this can be (in
> its own way) letting go of "self." Again I consider the Dhammapada, where
> it states that a single act of sacrifice for another is more powerful then
a
> lifetime of spiritual practice or ritual.
i guess you'll need to weigh your priorities.
> Thanks for listening,
huh?
> and please do tell me what you think. Cheers.
the flightshot deprecational behoovements of
egocentric addictionalities renders vague and
ballyhooish despicableisms by hairybait like
dubitableness when resusitating ghost memory
shadow dogs by unlaudableness and mealybug
oilstone styled referrenced caterwallings until
perinephritical rhinoencephalitical semicabalistic
unprimigenial unreincreasable noumenonistical
bathyscopings saponify wordstorming delights
for your dining and dancing pleasures
gypsy
"Ch'an Fu" <Ambas...@Large.org> wrote in message
news:1109379881.061a23098a2a0e1b07645b654d693484@teranews...
how can you strain so much for his straining?
> Go fly a kite in the park and forget all this stuff.
with a metal string and a key attached?
> Go play with the kids, letting them be what they are.
if we indeed would let kids be what they are there
wouldn't be so many insane adults around everywhere.
> Go be what you are.
you have to go somewhere to be what you are?
> There's nothing to 'forgive' in that.
nothin says lovin like somethin from the oven
> Why feel guilty about being human, about being 'you'?
you say that as if guilt should be seen as a bad thing somehow
> "Channels of reality"? "Harnessing compassion and wisdom"?
> What kind of nonsense is that?
same old human agenda nonsense that most
embodiments espouse. have you been napping
in class again foofey?
> Throw it all out, every bit of it, and just be what's left!
what happens if when i throw everything out there is
not only what's left but what's right too? huh? what then foofey?
Evelyn Ruut
Gypsy plays the (apparent) lighthearted word games that Foofie does, but
from Gypsy it is real and free, whereas from Foofie it is contrivance
fraught with agenda.
--
Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
gypsy
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TXZTd.14903$qn2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
no no ev, just recently foofie signed one of
his posts thusly; chan "no agenda" fu
i almost split a gut laffing
dkots...@yahoo.com
Have you ever lost a game of "Scrabble?"
-DaveK
gypsy
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109428263....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
i do crossword puzzles with an ink pen
Evelyn Ruut
The best I have read of foofie recently, was in his conversations with
Jonathan, speaking about cows. He was more real and honest than I have
ever seen him before. In fact I had to check the headers several times
because he was speaking real and freely, like a real person! Foofie,
master of cow dharma! :-) I actually enjoyed reading it because it was so
uncontrived.
May he one day be as real with every post.
Evelyn Ruut
LOL! I was always super good at scrabble, but I would NEVER even think
about playing against gypsy! It would probably turn into a spelling
massacre, with everybody laughing so hard, falling on the floor and knocking
all the little letters all over the place! Come to think of it, it might
be a real hoot if you get past the idea you might want to win.
Evelyn Ruut
gypsy
i noticed that about him and tang when i first came
here 3 years ago and i wondered why neither one
of them could talk real
i suppose its those old totem pole-ish one-up-man-ship
struggles that their spiritual egos nail to their foreheads
now and again.
jonathan can't *even* have his spiritual funny bone
tickled a little bit without getting his consciousness'
panties all in a bunch.
Evelyn Ruut
>
> "Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:eC0Ud.16274$534....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> >> Gypsy plays the (apparent) lighthearted word games that Foofie does,
> but
>> >> from Gypsy it is real and free, whereas from Foofie it is contrivance
>> >> fraught with agenda.
>> >
>> > no no ev, just recently foofie signed one of
>> > his posts thusly; chan "no agenda" fu
>> >
>> > i almost split a gut laffing
>>
>>
>>
>> The best I have read of foofie recently, was in his conversations with
>> Jonathan, speaking about cows. He was more real and honest than I have
>> ever seen him before. In fact I had to check the headers several times
>> because he was speaking real and freely, like a real person! Foofie,
>> master of cow dharma! :-) I actually enjoyed reading it because it was
> so
>> uncontrived.
>>
>> May he one day be as real with every post.
>
> i noticed that about him and tang when i first came
> here 3 years ago and i wondered why neither one
> of them could talk real
>
> i suppose its those old totem pole-ish one-up-man-ship
> struggles that their spiritual egos nail to their foreheads
> now and again.
>
> jonathan can't *even* have his spiritual funny bone
> tickled a little bit without getting his consciousness'
> panties all in a bunch.
Well, at least Jonathan is completely honest about where he is at
spiritually. I find him to be fussy and touchy in that brit sort of way,
(the panties in a bunch part) and too hung up on lots of details and
self-ness (by which I mean he is highly attached to the process of defining
himself and equally attached to his own cooked up definition of himself),
but basically he is a decent dude. I highly admire the way he (as a non
buddhist) has applied himself to studying buddhist scripture. Most who
call themselves buddhist don't dig that deeply. If he ever discovers
"don't know mind" ..... or how to throw away the labels........wow!
The part that drives me nuts is the contrived, fortune-cookie,
cryptic-sounding, fakey-zen sounding stuff that foofie is inclined towards.
It reminds me of that TV show a couple of years ago with David Carradine
playing the Kung-Fu Shao-Lin kickass-karate former monk wandering through
the old West, spouting the exact same kind of cryptic fakey-zen wisdom. I
enjoyed the show, but I knew it was a TV show. Foofie thinks he is "it"
for real. His cow posts with Jonathan had none of that.
Tang is... well he is just Tang. He is showing signs of finally getting
somewhere good though......especially when he avowed publicly to finally
give up "some people." Even though he fell right back in the slops only a
few days later, you have to admire the light bulb of wisdom that gave rise
to that.
I even found some of his recent posts to be so good and so informative and
well done, that they were worthy of praise, even saving a few for reference
purposes. But the MINUTE he starts with the negative definitions and
finger pointing at some people, I know he is back in the mess again.
Ooops! I just made a "some people" post! So solly.
gypsy
don't get me wrong, i like and admire everyone i have
met in these groups as it seems that everyone has
something to offer, but some of the agendas are
waxing on a subtle guilt trip and begging for some
type of derogatory response as an infliction of their
self sabotage or self punishments and when you
comply thusly, they seem to get upset. i would suppose
this comes from them not really fully conscious of their
own agenda in the first place.
dkots...@yahoo.com
Is there some kind of championchip we could sign him up for and place
bets on?
-DaveK
gypsy
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109434185.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
sometimes when i am at my parent's house
and they are watching jeopardy i'm giving answers
and they say they're gonna get me on that show
to win a buncha money
Evelyn Ruut
news:1109434185.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Now that's a thought.... but do you think he would take it seriously enough
to play by somebody else's rules?
Evelyn Ruut
>
> don't get me wrong, i like and admire everyone i have
> met in these groups as it seems that everyone has
> something to offer, but some of the agendas are
> waxing on a subtle guilt trip and begging for some
> type of derogatory response as an infliction of their
> self sabotage or self punishments and when you
> comply thusly, they seem to get upset. i would suppose
> this comes from them not really fully conscious of their
> own agenda in the first place.
Exactly.
I do believe all here are seekers in some way, and that these groups (for
all their faults) help us to sort it all out. Though some are here as
salesmen, pushing twards one thing and away from another, that kind of thing
is obvious.
As you say, some agendas are subtle enough that people are unaware of them
even though they carry them. I am probably just as guilty of that as
anyone else.
There is no such thing among us deludeds as a true and pure altruistic
motive (that is working all the time) though we all have our moments. Maybe
among the enlightened there is, but fully enlightened beings are probably
scarce on usenet. One thing I like about my tibetan practice.... it
reminds me of altruistic motive when I might otherwise forget.
We all have our altruistic moments, but among us deludeds, those moments are
flashes of static electricity, dependent on causes and conditions and we
might just as easily feel altruistic one moment, as feel mean spirited and
selfish the next.
As Tang often suggests, when we call one another on our "shit" we do help
each other to pull off the mask of that contrived definition of our selves.
The way we like to see ourselves and wish others would see us, is seldom
what or who we really are. The truth is that is ALL we really are! A
collection of contrivances. Take away the contrivances and there is no one
there anymore.
The problem (with calling one another on our shit on usenet) is that we so
often don't know where to stop, and don't know when the other guy has caught
on or had some "little enlightenment" along the way, so we often overdo it
or underdo it. Not seeing the other person face to face, not being in a
formal teacher/student relationship, we judge too often (me too) from mere
words on the screen.
We cannot see irony, or the smile, or the kindly intent.... and so it
becomes the mirror of our own fears or nightmares or approval and self
satisfaction, that we see in the posts.... whichever it is.
Human agendas are everywhere. Sucking up for pats on the back from others
is just as bad as criticizing others unkindly with mean intent. All those
little gangs and cliques and alliances and enmities are not helpers towards
spiritual enlightenment, but cages that prevent us from relating to others
honestly without contrivance.
The difference (on a usenet screen) between being uncontrived (dancing,
honest, natural) is difficult to tell from simply being an articulate
speaker or a good typist or writer.
Given these thoughts, I sometimes wonder why I post here.... but something
draws me back, and I think it is that basically, like you, I do like almost
everyone here on some level...... I like the human contact and the
interchange of ideas. I like the different personalities and relate to all
of them on one level or another. Even if it is the mirror of my own
foolishness I see.
Hugs to you all, and hope you are having a great Saturday!
Love,
Tad Perry
Sometimes, when my focus is good, I can fill them out as quickly as I can
write. If my focus is elsewhere and doesn't wish to go to a crossword
puzzle, I only get four or five words.
tvp
Tad Perry
Scrabble, at world championship levels, requires the player to "see" all of
the most commonly occuring words and know the list of highest scoring words
per letter count by rote memory. A champion player WILL lay down the
absolute maximum possible score based on the letters dealt. Second place
goes to the guy who misses something or gets luckier tiles despite less rote
knowledge. Many poker players come from this game.
tvp
dkots...@yahoo.com
Wow, they must be old! Since as, according to Tang, you yourself are
an old hindu granny. :)
gypsy
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109509023.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
as far as tang's information about me goes,
he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
back out into its original position
Evelyn Ruut
news:1109509023.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Who can possibly explain Tangs delusions? He insisted a former poster had
a "breakdown" and went on about it for years. I knew the guy personally
and it absolutely wasn't so. In fact the guy was a successful executive
with a demanding career and kids in college. In real life, successful
people don't always find usenet wars to be as high on their priority list as
Tang does.
Evelyn Ruut
news:2005022709...@meniscus.d0nuts.org...>> news:1109509023.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> gypsy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> sometimes when i am at my parent's house
>>>> and they are watching jeopardy i'm giving answers
>>>> and they say they're gonna get me on that show
>>>> to win a buncha money
>>>
>>> Wow, they must be old! Since as, according to Tang, you yourself are
>>> an old hindu granny. :)
>>
>>
>> Who can possibly explain Tangs delusions? He insisted a former poster
>> had
>> a "breakdown" and went on about it for years. I knew the guy personally
>> and it absolutely wasn't so. In fact the guy was a successful executive
>> with a demanding career and kids in college. In real life, successful
>> people don't always find usenet wars to be as high on their priority list
>> as
>> Tang does.
> He probably just does it to see whether or not people react and then he
> comments on those reactions.
That could be.....:-)
gypsy
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, gypsy wrote:
>
> >
> > "Julian Love God" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:38e634F...@individual.net...
> >> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> gypsy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> <dkots...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Wow, they must be old! Since as, according
> >>>>> to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> as far as tang's information about me goes,
> >>>> he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
> >>>> back out into its original position
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> By the way, what you say is a good description of
> >>> much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
> >>> and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
> >>> that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
> >>> many years and decades, and can then in good
> >>> and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
> >>>
> >>> Tang Huyen
> >>>
> >> In meditations Su Tung-po experienced the three stages
> >> described by Ch'an Master Ch'ing-yuan Hsing-ssu:
> >> "When one sees a mountain of river before practicing Ch'an,
> >> it is simply a mountain or a river.
> >> When one sees a mountain or a river during Ch'an practice,
> >> it neither looks like a mountain nor a river.
> >> When one sees a mountain or a river after practicing
> >> Ch'an, it is again a mountain or a river."
> >
> > it seems to progress until even when you are out of
> > meditation the mountain and the river are no
> > longer what they first appeared to be, at least
> > that is my perspective. everything has taken
> > on a type of surrealistic quality which i can see
> > might prompt one to take up the positionality
> > that it is all a dream or maya as it is sometimes
> > called.
>
> Yeah, there is a sort of magic to things which I guesse we impose upon
> them, becuase after we have practiced zazen or whatever, there is less
> mental chatter to distract us from where we are presently. So things
> appear to take on a vibrance they previously didn't have. Yet at this
> point we are seeing ourselves as separate from those things. Once we are
> no longer separate there is no magic, and there never was. Just a theory.
>
> Either way it is an ok place to be and some of us might as well get used
> to it.
>
> -DaveK
my perspective of a surrealistic quality to
this reality doesn't appear to seperate me
but indeed does solidify what the sages call
unity consciousness.
it's not that since i see everything as unreal
that i am then real, it's since everything is
unreal, i also am unreal
the magic is still there, but it is all magic
and it is just one magic, not many,
at least that is the view from my perspective
Julian Love God
> "Julian Love God" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38e634F...@individual.net...
>
>>Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>>gypsy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dkots...@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>>to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
>>>>
>>>>as far as tang's information about me goes,
>>>>he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
>>>>back out into its original position
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>By the way, what you say is a good description of
>>>much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
>>>and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
>>>that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
>>>many years and decades, and can then in good
>>>and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
>>>
>>>Tang Huyen
>>>
>>
>>In meditations Su Tung-po experienced the three stages
>>described by Ch'an Master Ch'ing-yuan Hsing-ssu:
>>"When one sees a mountain of river before practicing Ch'an,
>>it is simply a mountain or a river.
>>When one sees a mountain or a river during Ch'an practice,
>>it neither looks like a mountain nor a river.
>>When one sees a mountain or a river after practicing
>>Ch'an, it is again a mountain or a river."
>
>
> it seems to progress until even when you are out of
> meditation the mountain and the river are no
> longer what they first appeared to be, at least
> that is my perspective.
Things cannot be what they first appeared to be
no matter how identical. Recognising puts paid to that for good.
>everything has taken
> on a type of surrealistic quality which i can see
> might prompt one to take up the positionality
> that it is all a dream or maya as it is sometimes
> called.
I'll take the positionality that it is all a reality,
just to make a game out of it, an amusement.
Tang Huyen
gypsy wrote:
> my perspective of a surrealistic quality to
> this reality doesn't appear to seperate me
> but indeed does solidify what the sages call
> unity consciousness.
>
> it's not that since i see everything as unreal
> that i am then real, it's since everything is
> unreal, i also am unreal
>
> the magic is still there, but it is all magic
> and it is just one magic, not many,
> at least that is the view from my perspective
It's all fluff fluffing fluff, Jen mon amour.
Tang Huyen
gypsy
"Julian Love God" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38e634F...@individual.net...
> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >
> > gypsy wrote:
> >
> >
> >><dkots...@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >>>to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
> >>
> >>as far as tang's information about me goes,
> >>he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
> >>back out into its original position
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, what you say is a good description of
> > much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
> > and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
> > that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
> > many years and decades, and can then in good
> > and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
> >
> > Tang Huyen
> >
> In meditations Su Tung-po experienced the three stages
> described by Ch'an Master Ch'ing-yuan Hsing-ssu:
> "When one sees a mountain of river before practicing Ch'an,
> it is simply a mountain or a river.
> When one sees a mountain or a river during Ch'an practice,
> it neither looks like a mountain nor a river.
> When one sees a mountain or a river after practicing
> Ch'an, it is again a mountain or a river."
it seems to progress until even when you are out of
meditation the mountain and the river are no
longer what they first appeared to be, at least
that is my perspective. everything has taken
Julian Love God
>
>>
>>gypsy wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dkots...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>>Wow, they must be old! Since as, according
>>>>to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
>>>
>>>as far as tang's information about me goes,
>>>he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
>>>back out into its original position
>>
>>
>>By the way, what you say is a good description of
>>much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
>>and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
>>that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
>>many years and decades, and can then in good
>>and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
>>
>>Tang Huyen
>
>
> is akin to advaita vedanta in that there is no
> self which is doing these things anyway and
> all this physical manifestation is simply a play
> of the elements, a magnificent and complex
> quantum hologram in processing function
> and that divine spark of pure awareness is
> witnessing this play of consciousness from the perspective
> of a multiplicity of different embodiments so that
> there really in the end is no need whatsoever
> for any type of disciplines, practices or religions
> since everything is already perfect as it is in
> this creation at this point in what is considered
> to be *time*, but even a practice of disciplines
> can also be said to be completely perfect too
> but alas, quite unnecessary.
>
>
Art is quite unnecessary and all the more worthwhile for it.
Julian Love God
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Julian Love God wrote:
>
>> You two haven't a clue.
>
>
> Roit then I suppose yool clue us in old Jules won't you?
>
Can't be bothered.
cupcake
> The roundabout way (was Re: What the buddha taughtologied)
>
> From: Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]>
> Reply to: [1]Tang Huyen
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:28:57 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<3d7c6003.05021...@posting.google.com>
> [7]<hme911hbqkii0sbbo...@4ax.com>
> [8]<3d7c6003.05021...@posting.google.com>
> [9]<111akbo...@news.supernews.com>
> [10]<37ll8fF...@individual.net>
> [11]<P7edne06KNm...@comcast.com>
> [12]<38afo7F...@individual.net>
> [13]<1109428263....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> [14]<VF0Ud.16298$534....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
> [15]<1109434185.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> [16]<38blkdF...@individual.net>
> [17]<1109509
>
>
>gypsy wrote:
>
>> <dkots...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> > Wow, they must be old! Since as, according
>> > to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
>>
>> as far as tang's information about me goes,
>> he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
>> back out into its original position
>
>All is well that ends well, Jen mon amour.
>
>By the way, what you say is a good description of
>much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
>and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
>that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
>many years and decades, and can then in good
>and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
>
cupcake recommended sitting in a chair or laying down
to meditate many many years ago
> Tang Huyen
>
cupcake
> Re: The roundabout way (was Re: What the buddha taughtologied)
>
> From: "gypsy" <bite...@email.com>
> Reply to: [1]"gypsy"
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:48:22 -0500
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<3d7c6003.05021...@posting.google.com>
> [7]<hme911hbqkii0sbbo...@4ax.com>
> [8]<3d7c6003.05021...@posting.google.com>
> [9]<111akbo...@news.supernews.com>
> [10]<37ll8fF...@individual.net>
> [11]<P7edne06KNm...@comcast.com>
> [12]<38afo7F...@individual.net>
> [13]<1109428263....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> [14]<VF0Ud.16298$534....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
> [15]<1109434185.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> [16]<38blkdF...@individual.net>
> [17]<1109509
>
>> gypsy wrote:
>> > "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>> > [19]news:1123m9f...@news.supernews.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>gypsy wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>><dkots...@yahoo.com>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Wow, they must be old! Since as, according
>> >>>>to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
>> >>>
>> >>>as far as tang's information about me goes,
>> >>>he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
>> >>>back out into its original position
>> >>
>> >>All is well that ends well, Jen mon amour.
>> >>
>> >>By the way, what you say is a good description of
>> >>much of Buddhist cultivation. One turns contortionist
>> >>and bends oneseelf into an unlikely pretzel just so
>> >>that one realises how stupid one is to do so for so
>> >>many years and decades, and can then in good
>> >>and clean conscience stop doing it, for heaven's sake.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > but consider the buddha's positionality which
>> > is akin to advaita vedanta in that there is no
>> > self which is doing these things anyway and
>> > all this physical manifestation is simply a play
>> > of the elements, a magnificent and complex
>> > quantum hologram in processing function
>> > and that divine spark of pure awareness is
>> > witnessing this play of consciousness from the perspective
>> > of a multiplicity of different embodiments so that
>> > there really in the end is no need whatsoever
>> > for any type of disciplines, practices or religions
>> > since everything is already perfect as it is in
>> > this creation at this point in what is considered
>> > to be *time*, but even a practice of disciplines
>> > can also be said to be completely perfect too
>> > but alas, quite unnecessary.
>> >
>> >
>> Art is quite unnecessary and all the more worthwhile for it.
>
>oil paintings that in 50,000 years they will all
>be dust anyway but it doesn't stop me from
>continuing to paint, in fact it seems to spur me
>on to more creative expressions
>
well, in your case, those paintings will be dead meat
juzt about the time they throw them in the dempsey
dumpster
Julian Love God
> comments on those reactions.
cupcake
> Re: The roundabout way (was Re: What the buddha taughtologied)
>
> From: "gypsy" <bite...@email.com>
> Reply to: [1]"gypsy"
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:05:50 -0500
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<MTkUd.956$J5.1...@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[8]news:MTkUd.956$J5.1...@news.more.net...
>>
>>
>> cupcake recommended sitting in a chair or laying down
>> to meditate many many years ago
>
>
no, i got laid last night :)
gypsy
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
> cupcake recommended sitting in a chair or laying down
> to meditate many many years ago
so are you still sitting there?
gypsy
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
does anal sex stream entry come with coupons?
David Kotschessa
Yeah, there is a sort of magic to things which I guesse we impose upon
Tang Huyen
gypsy wrote:
>
> > Wow, they must be old! Since as, according
> > to Tang, you yourself are an old hindu granny. :)
>
> as far as tang's information about me goes,
> he's got his head so far up his ass that it popped
> back out into its original position
All is well that ends well, Jen mon amour.
gypsy
and i have the perspective when i am painting
Julian Love God
gypsy
you do know what a fluffer is in
the entertainment industry, don't you?
it's an excellent analogy for what you
are mentioning here
David Kotschessa
ha!
Tang Huyen
Julian Love God wrote:
> In meditations Su Tung-po experienced the three stages
> described by Ch'an Master Ch'ing-yuan Hsing-ssu:
> "When one sees a mountain of river before practicing Ch'an,
> it is simply a mountain or a river.
> When one sees a mountain or a river during Ch'an practice,
> it neither looks like a mountain nor a river.
> When one sees a mountain or a river after practicing
> Ch'an, it is again a mountain or a river."
Julian, The verse that you quote actually comes from
Ch'ing-yüan Wei-Hsin "Only Faith" (not Hsing-ssu). The three
poems of Su Tung-p'o are quoted below.
Tang Huyen
*****************************************************
From: Tang Huyen (tang_...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Mountain and river (was Re: On-again, off-again)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
alt.zen
Date: 2003-05-02 14:09:01 PST
In honour of David Yeung's return to these boards, I make a single
appearance to
announce that the verse ("Before enlightenment, seeing mountains as
mountains
... ") can be found in D. T. Suzuki's Essays in Zen Buddhism, First
Series, p.
12, and the author is given as Ch'ing-yüan Wei-Hsin "Only Faith" (not
Hsing-ssu). The Chinese is in the back, p. 370.
Earlier on the same page (actually the identification is on the previous
page,
but the verse is on the same page), the famous verse that Ned Ludd
quoted as
"ancient anonymous Chinese poem" is identified as from the famous poet
Su
Tung-p'o (the Chinese is also in the back, p. 370):
Mount Lu in misty rain.
The River Che at high tide.
When I had not been there,
a pain of longing.
I went and returned.
Nothing special.
Mount Lu in misty rain.
The River Che at high tide.
Suzuki gives a different translation:
Misty rain on Mount Lu,
And waves surging in Chê-chiang;
When you have not yet been there,
Many a regret surely you have;.
But once there and homeward you wend,
And how matter-of-fact things look!
Misty rain on Mount Lu,
And waves surging in Chê-chiang.
Tang Huyen
Amitabh Bachchan Buddha wrote:
> bhiksuni lt drolma wrote:
> >>> what is that other ch'an one? i think master Hui-Neng's,
> >>>
> >>> when i started it was just a mountain
> >>> then it was more than a mountain
> >>> and now it is just a mountain again
>
> David Yeung wrote:
> >> Yeah, I know the one, but I know it in Chinese. It goes something
like,
> >>
> >> "Before enlightenment,
> >> seeing mountains as mountains,
> >> seeing oceans (lit. water) as oceans;
> >>
> >> Searching for enlightenment,
> >> not seeing mountains as mountains,
> >> not seeing oceans as oceans;
> >>
> >> After enlightenment,
> >> seeing mountains as mountains,
> >> seeing oceans as oceans."
>
> bhiksuni lt drolma wrote:
> > now maybe we'll get lucky like last week (thanks to your efforts)
> > and find a reliable source for it???
>
> I found that verse on a CD that I have, spoken in Cantonese.
> Unfortunately it merely cites it as a "famous verse" and doesn't
> give the source. It does however give the author of the verse,
> whose name in Chinese (encoded in Big5) is:
>
> «C ì ¦æ «ä
> (Pinyin: "qing1 yuan2 xing2 si1" or
> WG: "Ch'ing-yu:an Hsing-ssu")
>
> [Shoot! I'm posting from Google and it doesn't like the
> Big5 non-ASCII characters. I don't think the name will show
> up properly. You'll have to go by the pinyin... or by the
> text on the portrait, below.]
>
> He's Hui Neng's disciple, so you were close. Unfortunately
> my books are packed away (I'm in the middle of moving!), and
> my copy of "Transmission of the Lamp" is lost somewhere, along
> with my other Ch'an/Zen books which might shed some light on
> the origin of the verse.
>
> I tried looking up AC Muller's on-line dictionary, from which I
> got that the Japanese name is "Seigen Gyoshi", if that helps any
> (since many Zen books are translated into English from Japanese).
>
>
http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?97.xml+id('b9751-539f-884c-601d')
>
> I also found a portrait of the culprit, just for kicks
> (handsome fella, eh?):
>
http://www.goldsummitmonastery.org/images/patriarchs/chan_thirty-fourth.gif
>
> Well, it's not exactly a source for it, but it's a start. Maybe
> Tang with his Chinese references can find the source from the
> name.
>
> --
> David Yeung
*****************************************************
From: Tang Huyen (tang_...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Some bullshit made you cross the river! (was Re: Three poems by
Su Tung-p'o)
Newsgroups: alt.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Date: 2003-05-23 03:52:46 PST
Ned Ludd wrote:
> from http://www.blia.org/english/publications/booklet/pages/20.htm
>
> The first poem here is about the very picturesque mountain range
> of Lu-shan and was written before Su Tung-p'o studied Ch'an.
>
> Viewed across, a range; at an angle, peaks.
> Far and near, high and low, not the same.
> Not able to see real face of Lu-shan;
> Precisely because one is within the hills of Lu-shan.
>
> After Su Tung-p'o began to gain some understanding of Ch'an, he
> wrote another poem:
>
> Misty rain of Lu-shan, tide of Che-chiang;
> Not there, many regrets.
> Once there, turns out to be empty of anything.
> Misty rain of Lu-shan, tide of Che-chiang.
>
> When his understanding of Ch'an matured, he wrote yet another
> poem:
>
> All sounds of rippling creeks are broad, long tongues.
> Mountains, nothing but pure bodies.
> Night falls, contemplating eighty-four thousand poems.
> Next day, how to explain to anyone?
There are two main ways of transliteration of Chinese into English, the
old Wades-Giles (for example, Che, Su Tung-p'o) and the new Pin-Yin (for
example, Zhe, Su Dongpo).
I did a simple search for "lu mountain zhe river" (notice that it is
"zhe" and not "che") and found one link,
http://weekly.china-forum.org/CCF95/ccf9551-1.html which gives the
following article "After Buddhist Enlightenment" from the present-day
Chan Master Xing Yun:
<<The great Song Dynasty poet, Su Dongpo, had also achieved great
heights in Buddhist meditation. He composed three poems to illustrate
the three stages of his learning. The first poem is written prior to
medication.
Rolling hills when horizontal but towering peaks when vertical, I
couldn't tell you anything about Mount Lu, simply because I am in the
mountains.
This poem clearly indicates how a mind is confused by all kinds of
lights and their mirages thus loses its ability to recognize his self.
It is just like one standing among the mist-covered mountains has all
kinds of problems in telling what Mount Lu really is. The second stage
is the beginning of the actual meditation but not yet reaching the heart
of Buddhism.
The mist and rains of Mount Lu mix with the tide of River Zhe, The thick
passion of hatred does not leave until it all comes in; Once there,
there is nothing there, but the mist and rains of Mount Lu and the tide
of River Zhe.
Even after looking for them again and again, his vision is still blocked
out by the mountain mist and clouds over head. His eyebrows start to
twist as he is determined to look again. "I will not stop looking until
I find Buddha." Then he looks back, and discovers that Mount Lu is still
there, amidst smoky mist and river surges. Only when calm and collected,
one suddenly realizes that meals are still meals and sleep is still
sleep; and yet inner feelings can tell the real difference. Thus comes
the third stage, i.e. after enlightenment.
Sounds of the creeks are like tongues hanging, the color of the
mountains are bodies purified; After reading eighty thousand doctrines a
night, how will I go back to be that ordinary person?
Sweet little creeks, blue mountains, all bear the truth of Buddha.
Before meditation, everything looks listless, as if your eyes have a
cornea problem that blurs the vision. Looking at the flowers in the fog,
you can't see the true face of anything. After meditation, you look at
the same things, you see there is new light shed on them; gone are all
the smoke and mist and fog, you see the true faces of mountains, rivers
and the earth. The views before and after meditation are as different as
the earth from the heaven.
(Translated from Chinese by Newton X. Liu)>>
The middle poem is the best, to me, and the three characters that count
on the third line are: wu "no" bie "special, stand out" shi "affair,
event", which means roughly: "there is nothing special", "nothing stands
out".
D. T. Suzuki's Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series, p. 12, (actually
the identification is on the previous page, but the verse is on the same
page) identified the famous verse that Ned Ludd previously quoted as
"ancient anonymous Chinese poem" as from the famous poet Su Tung-p'o
(the Chinese is in the back, p. 370):
Mount Lu in misty rain.
The River Che at high tide.
When I had not been there,
a pain of longing.
I went and returned.
Nothing special.
Mount Lu in misty rain.
The River Che at high tide.
Suzuki gives a different translation:
Misty rain on Mount Lu,
And waves surging in Chê-chiang;
When you have not yet been there,
Many a regret surely you have;.
But once there and homeward you wend,
And how matter-of-fact things look!
Misty rain on Mount Lu,
And waves surging in Chê-chiang.
There are slightly different versions of the Chinese original, and the
one given by Suzuki doesn't look and sound the best, to me. A search on
"Su Dongpo" should be rewarding.
Another link http://weekly.china-forum.org/CCF95/ccf9551-4.html gives a
commentary "More ABout SU Dongpo, Master XingYun etc" by Ming Chengon on
the above article by Xing Yun.
<<Su had a good friend, a Zen master lived on the other side of river
across from where Su lived. They used to get together and discuss Zen
and poetry. After Su practiced Zen for a while, he felt he had made some
progress and so he wrote some poetry to elaborate on his understanding
of Zen (see Newton X. Liu's translations along with Master Xing Yun's
speech).
One day Su Dongpo wrote a poem about Zen and became very fond of his
work; so he posted it on the wall and went out for something. It
happened that the his Zen Master came over for a visit, without
phone/E-mail notice of course. The Master did not see Su but the poem on
the wall. So he wrote "bull shit" (Fang Pi) on top of the poem and
returned to his side of river.
Later when Su Dongpo came back and saw his Master's bold commentary on
his masterpiece, he really felt the Master insulted him by belittling
his understanding of Zen. It made So Dongpo upset so he went over the
river to debate the Master.
When he got there, he was greeted by a poem hung up on the door, the
last line is "some bullshit made you cross the river!" (Yi Pi Da Guo
Jiang).
Su blushed and suddenly understood the deeper meaning of Zen. After that
he stopped showing off his knowledge about Zen as he did in some of his
poems.>>
Back then, with famous poets, as now, with us plain folks, it just takes
mere words to get some people going.
Tang Huyen
Julian Love God
gypsy
but consider the buddha's positionality which
David Kotschessa
He probably just does it to see whether or not people react and then he
comments on those reactions.
David Kotschessa
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Julian Love God wrote:
> You two haven't a clue.
Roit then I suppose yool clue us in old Jules won't you?
-Henry Torthleby
Yvonne
<Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
That depends on where you're posting from :-)
--
Yvonne
Julian Love God
In t,w & d.
David Kotschessa
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Julian Love God wrote:
> David Kotschessa wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Julian Love God wrote:
>>
>>> You two haven't a clue.
>>
>>
>> Roit then I suppose yool clue us in old Jules won't you?
>>
> Can't be bothered.
Good day suh!
-Charles Pinklefeet
Julian Love God
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:35:48 , Julian Love God
> <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>
>
> That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>
Julian Love God
>
> Julian Love God wrote:
>
>
>>In meditations Su Tung-po experienced the three stages
>>described by Ch'an Master Ch'ing-yuan Hsing-ssu:
>>"When one sees a mountain of river before practicing Ch'an,
>>it is simply a mountain or a river.
>>When one sees a mountain or a river during Ch'an practice,
>>it neither looks like a mountain nor a river.
>>When one sees a mountain or a river after practicing
>>Ch'an, it is again a mountain or a river."
>
>
> Julian, The verse that you quote actually comes from
> Ch'ing-yüan Wei-Hsin "Only Faith" (not Hsing-ssu). The three
> poems of Su Tung-p'o are quoted below.
>
> Tang Huyen
I stole it from a Magazine, new to me,
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/bdoor/0410/sources/zen33.htm
that I encountered this morning.
Since that mag also contains....
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/resources/sutras/lotus/sources/contents.htm
I deem it WorthWhileWeb..
Yvonne
<Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yvonne wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:35:48 , Julian Love God
>> <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>>
>>
>> That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>>
>+0000 CoU.
GMT +01:00
--
Yvonne
Julian Love God
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:03:57 +0000, Julian Love God
> <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yvonne wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>+0000 CoU.
>>>
>>>
>>>GMT +01:00
>>
>
>
> Still have, but what about all these people from the US?
>
Between lunch and breakfast.
Besides, they could always emigrate.... 2nd. nature isn't it?
Evelyn Ruut
Petie... where the heck have you been? We were talking about you
yesterday......
(hee hee)
Honestly, hope all is well.
Yvonne
<Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, of course, depending on where in the US.
What (if any) do you mean by 2nd nature?
--
Yvonne
Julian Love God
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:50:51 +0000, Julian Love God
> <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yvonne wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:35:48 , Julian Love God
>>><Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>>>
>>>
>>>That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>>>
>>
>>+0000 CoU.
>
>
> GMT +01:00
Julian Love God
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:27:28 +0000, Julian Love God
> <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yvonne wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:03:57 +0000, Julian Love God
>>><Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yvonne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+0000 CoU.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>GMT +01:00
>>>>
>>>>You must have had a few minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Still have, but what about all these people from the US?
>>>
>>
>>Between lunch and breakfast.
>>Besides, they could always emigrate.... 2nd. nature isn't it?
>
>
> Yes, of course, depending on where in the US.
> What (if any) do you mean by 2nd nature?
Yvonne
<Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yvonne wrote:
>>>>>Now, out you go to play while it is still light.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That depends on where you're posting from :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>+0000 CoU.
>>
>>
>> GMT +01:00
>You must have had a few minutes.
Still have, but what about all these people from the US?
--
Yvonne
Stumper
So, you think you know,
but you don't understand?
~Stumper.
Stumper
> "Julian Love God" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38e634F...@individual.net...
> meditation the mountain and the river are no
> longer what they first appeared to be, at least
> that is my perspective. everything has taken
> on a type of surrealistic quality which i can see
> might prompt one to take up the positionality
> that it is all a dream or maya as it is sometimes
> called.
>
>
It's properly called lying.
~Stumper.
gypsy
"Stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:dRqdnbWFkqR...@ptd.net...
so you think you understand
but you don't know?
gypsy
Stumper
Only fools try to understand gibberish.
Who is your teacher?
The one who was never born?
gypsy
lots of concepts here slumper
fools,try,gibberish. it's bad enough
when one concept alone like *fool*
attempts to stand on its own but
when subsequently adding more
and more concepts to the mix
on top of it, an exponentially
slippery agenda ensues
> Who is your teacher?
i don't understand the concept.
all possible knowledge is there
in your sense of conscious presence.
all that is needed is specific pointed
focusing strategies. i am my teacher.
> The one who was never born?
the egg man? the yet to hatch guy?
Stumper
Q1: Is Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj your teacher?
Q2: Are you a Buddha?
Q3: Are you here to teach?
gypsy
no
> Q2: Are you a Buddha?
no
> Q3: Are you here to teach?
no
Yvonne
<Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yvonne wrote:
Young and fresh.
--
Yvonne
Tad Perry
news:38ee7dF...@individual.net...
You know. Truth is I've been wanting to get out of the US and emigrate to
Great Britain, land of my forefathers, with mea culpas to the Native
Americans they slaughtered just so I could be sick enough to vomit over how
much I have.
tvp