So many words being used to describe zen... where's that 'turning a flower' emoticon?
where were we?
So many words being used to describe zen... where's that 'turning a flower' emoticon?
Registered User
which words used described zen?Originally Posted by monkey mind
where were we?
This part is pretty good.
The rest of the debate on mind & reality sounds an awful lot like "thinking answers". But then what do I know - I'm one of those deluded Theravada (the dreaded Hinayana) guys.
Registered User
well, the rest was basically an elaboration on the point as found in such schools as chinese weishi (yogacara). the chan/zen schools just point to that without reliance on speech.This part is pretty good.
The rest of the debate on mind & reality sounds an awful lot like "thinking answers". But then what do I know - I'm one of those deluded Theravada (the dreaded Hinayana) guys.
as the heart sutra starts, avalokiteshvara bodhisattva was "practicing profound prajna paramita".
thats "practicing" "profound" prajna paramita, transcendental wisdom.
speaking about it is shallow, yet wisdom nonetheless.
you must start somewhere. the heart sutra, being a mahayana sutra, assumes one is already familiar with classical buddhist terms and systems.
the flower sermon you eluded to, being "zen style", was not given until late in shakyamuni buddha's teaching career. much like all the mahayana teachings which are based on classical teachings.
one first must gradually become disenchanted with the ego and the material world by understanding the 5 aggregates, dependent origination, and so on. because a hinayanist is concerned with the issue of ending suffering and is looking for practices to help to that end. speaking of mahayana emptiness would be of no use or meaning to them, much less some smart alec zen talk, or flower.
Registered User
Seeing one's buddha nature is like a person who is in a dream state knowing he is dreaming.
However,
There are still issue.
until one attain the eight ground boddhistava level one cant dissolve that dream state as one likes it.
Thus, one still stuck in the dream state. So, at that time, one needs mantra of the power of Buddha to guard one. Otherwise, one get back to the dream state on and off depend on the level of one's samadhi.
In Chinese Zen History of a thousand year period of time , most Zen patriach have not yet attain the eight ground level, thus it is said one have seen the buddha nature however cannot end reicarnation. They still deluded like a person who sometimes awake and sometime doze off. Thus, all of the Zen patriach recite mantra to guard them from doze off or get them out of doze off.
Only a few Zen patriach such has Han San of Ming Dynasty attain the eight ground level. and Who is Han San in his previous life? The fifth patriach or the master of the Six patriach. Since the fifth patriach is not up to the level of ending his reicanation, he got to get back a few time until Ming Dynasty.
Some might said, one doesnt have to do anything or even sees one's buddha nature, buddha nature is every where. One doesnt have to cultivate. reading a book and have some understanding is good enough, everything is Zen, it is simple. one dont need a teacher , every one is buddha. Well, mostly those are the result of deluded by ego but un aware of the situation.
It is like in a dream, one can said dream and awake is alike.
However, as soon as one doesnt know what is awaken and has no way to dissolve the dream state one stuck. thus, those are dead trap by one's own mind.
Zen is capable for some to see the buddha nature, however, most wont get to the level of be able to dissolve the "dream".
Even worse, some read some Zen books, sit in some meditation, have some peace and ease state, or some kind of mental realization of understanding what the zen patriach said,
and then start thinking that is it. I am the buddha. I got it....etc.
instead of recognize this is still within the "dream" one has not yet see the original face. not to mention capable of dissolve "dream state at will."
How dangerous of mistaken the delusion as path to liberation.
Thus, one needs a teacher who has come across to guide one. Thus, one needs to cultivate in different path after seeing one's buddha nature so that one could dissolve one's one's stuckness or dream layer by layer. It is not as simple as qouting some books or some clever arguement.
Believe what ever you like. I said the above because that is my duty to tell those who is serious to not get trap.
Last edited by Hendrik; 05-11-2010 at 09:42 PM.
meteor
thanks scott. to save time, i'm a disciple in a ch'an lineage. the hui neng story is one of my favorites. but you are conflating some meanings. at the heart, it's not spoken it's intuitive, so it's okay. in your construction there is a part of the equation that's missing.
i'm just saying that a lot of what you are writing is the kind of gobbledeegook that hot ball of lead ch'an is supposed to smash through.
you can tell me a stick doesn't exist while i whack you in the head with it.
you tell me. lfj can't be the only slapper around here.
of course, there is only one right answer. it's a female dog of a thing, but there it is.
then again, i'm not buddhist so you may be right.
maybe change the stick into an earthquake.
meteor
that my friend is some grade A horse crap. would love to get some of that for my fig trees.
Registered User
horse crap or not see it for yourself.
Since you are from a Chan lineage, just make sure you dont fall into the Api hell by bad mouthing the proper dharma.
BTW who is your teacher?
Registered User
Hi monkey mind,
While words are not the thing spoken about, they are just another finger pointing the way!
I expect you have never read the voluminous treatises on Ch'an then? They use even more words than we have!
Hi richard,
Words are used to describe experiences to others in an indirect manner. The words are never the experience.
Whacking someone with a stick is used to demonstrate experience directly. Both are forms of communication that mean something, that is, something specific is being demonstrated/taught! Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other. Whacking may be just as much of an affectation as teaching using words and is just as easily abused.
It might be best not to get too excited or attached to the whacking thing!
Hui-neng did not whack anyone, that started much latter than his time. Bodhidharma did not whack people and neither did his Dharma Master. Hui-ko and Master Yuan and none of the earliest Ch'an teachers whacked anyone! All these men taught using words, metaphorical stories and references to earlier Buddhist teachings!
It is best to avoid attachment to whacking, words, philosophizing, dreaming, etc. But that does not mean they must be avoided!
Which meaning am I conflating please and in what way? I have said nothing that is not in the teachings. I simply put the information in my own words and use my own metaphors! I also have direct experience of most of it!
Which Ch'an writings have you read that did not use words?
If you like Hui-neng, I recommend you try the Teachings of Huang-po.
Of course it does! Whenever a direct experience is communicated to someone who has no similar context of experience, the information comes across as incomprehensible.
What Ch'an is attempting to smash through is attachment to conceptualization, not conceptualization in and of itself! Life is to be lived, NOT avoided. If one is hungry, eat; if one is sleepy, sleep; if one is philosophizing, philosophize. Do not attach to any of it, but do not avoid it either or you have just attached yourself to its avoidance!
Try describing the taste of an orange to a person who has never tasted anything close to a citrus fruit. They will come away with a description that is essentially meaningless to them. On the other hand, describe the taste of an orange to someone who has eaten a lemon, or a tangerine and they will understand to a closer extent than the person who has not! This is because there is a common context between the direct experiences of the two individuals discussing the taste of an orange!
To the person without the common contextual experience the description of the taste of an orange is gobbledeegook, that is, essentially useless information!
When I play a first person computer game, if my character gets shot he suffers consequences as dictated by the programmer. This is also the way with life. Yes getting whacked hurts, as does getting hit by a car, struck by lightening, etc. These are all events that are subject to the laws of the game. However, the pain I experience is amplified or reduced according to my level of attachment to the event.
When I was in high school I was a water polo player. In water polo there is a lot of whacking going on! I broke my nose playing water polo, have been kicked in the nuts too many times to count, and have been kicked in the teeth so hard I thought I lost my two top front ones.
I ignored most of it all as part of the game. Sure in many cases I paused for the moment, but then continued with the game. The game does not stop for you! If you move on from the experience, that is, do not attach or preoccupy yourself with the experience, the experience is diminished in emotional impact and in the severity and duration of the pain. Why is this? Because a good deal of what we consider pain is due to emotional amplification caused by attachment to the experience!
When I am done playing my first person computer game, I turn it off and I am not harmed. When I get kicked in the teeth, I feel the pain and then move on!
When life is over, the only pain you take with you is the pain you have allowed yourself to become attached to.
Within Buddhism, all things that are mutually arising are illusory, all things that are transient are illusory. The only constant is Mind. Thus mind is the only thing that is real, existent, except that even mind is NOT real, because the concept of real is also mutually arising, therefore it is inadequate to describe what is essentially beyond mutually arising phenomena! Therefore Mind is referred to, inadequately as well, as "neither existent, nor non-existent"!
I hope this has been as much gobbledeegook for you as before!
Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 05-12-2010 at 01:15 AM.
where were we?
I appreciate your response, lfj. And just to clarify - the fact that I practice in a Theravada lineage doesn't mean I have no awareness of or appreciation for Madhyamika & Yogacara thought. On this last point, though - if I grant that you're correct in succinctly identifying the concerns of a hinayanist, what then, in a nutshell, is the concern of a mahayanist?
where were we?
Sure, I've read my share of treatises. And I even enjoy it sometimes. But I do find it ironic that a tradition whose teachings are supposedly transmitted outside the scriptures ends up having so many scriptures itself. And I think that often we gain real insight despite, not because of, the voluminous weight of the various philosophical schools. The zen way of cutting straight to the non-conceptual heart of the matter is something I've always appreciated. Believe it or not, I have found something similar in Theravada as well.
I expect you have never read the voluminous treatises on Ch'an then? They use even more words than we have!
Registered User
how may i help you?
Registered User
A rich man and a poor man just finshed eating. They both went to the wc. Which one's excrement smelled better? The poor man or the rich man!
Registered User
Well said!
Words are not to be avoided, just not relied upon!
All religions tend to, eventually, over do it and it commonly takes a few eccentric individuals to scold some back into their right minds, while others will remain trapped regardless!
To each........his own!!!!
meteor
My god Scott that is indeed something impressive...wish you had had a cam corder for it all...
Next thing you'll tell me you picked up Huike's arm from the snow and have it in your closet!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote