stirling

In Soto Zen the stick is used to "suddenly awaken" a student, but few American temples do so anymore. I suppose it could possibly be effective, but I don't use that technique with my students. The problem with some traditions is that their "skillful means" don't evolve with societal changes. What might have worked in feudal Japan might not be what is best for a student in todays day and age. There are plenty of other opportunities and techniques, and an experienced and intuitive teacher could choose something much more personal and effective in the moment. _/\_ - I haven't found that there is any issue with mixing techniques where the intention is awakening/enlightenment. I have no trouble mixing techniques where it is efficacious. I will do whatever I can to help precipitate awakening in truly committed student.

Hello Davey, and welcome to the Newcomer Corner, and Daobums in general!

An example, and your explanation of your position on it might be helpful. Vipassana practices can precipitate a "dark night", but not always. The "dark night", in this case, part of the process, not an accident, caused by the method in which emotional material gets churned up by the meditation modalities in play. The "dark night" isn't a feature of other types of Buddhism which have different practices and whose models do not include this progression. Still, meditation IS intended to bring up your emotional obscurations. They are material for great realization. This is the way out. Such things are in most of the world religions.

Again... I think you are conflating two things - Buddhism and Buddhists. Buddhism doesn't have any kind of built in system of abuse. Also, I want to point out that many Buddhist traditions allow monks and teachers to be married... no sexual suppression. I'm absolutely not putting anyone or anything on a pedestal here, merely hoping to bring some clarity to the discussion. Yes, Buddhists are humans, like humans everywhere, and in all traditions - flawed. Buddhism is just a conceptual framework of practices and teachings, like any other system, including those of author of the book you are excited about. You seem to have strong feelings about this. Are you coming from a situation where you were abused? If so, I am very sorry to hear that, if that is the case.

There are two layers here that you are conflating: 1. Working with the "self"/ego. You have to have a fairly healthy, developed sense of self before taking non-dual spiritual practice any further. For those with deep rooted trauma and clinging/aversion to their trauma the aid of a psychologist and/or psychiatrist can be pivotal 2. Seeing through the illusory nature of self and all seemingly separate phenomena. When the "self" is stable and trauma isn't so raw it is possible to do practices intended to point out the illusory nature of these structures. This is a gross misunderstanding of the intent and practices. Buddhism doesn't suppress or annihilate anything. Practices in Buddhism are pointers to a different way of seeing and understanding the same reality you already exist in, from a very different understanding. Nothing is ever forced... it would be counter productive. Spirituality and ego work can make our experience of the world and "ego" much smoother. Those who take their practice deeper will realize that the spaciousness of "silent mind" is actually much more than they ever realized.

So, the meditation I would recommend for this wouldn't be a particular technique, but rather just allowing the mind to come to a stop... stillness... brief periods where there are no thoughts and just experiencing, even if only for moments at a time. Is this something you have familiarity with? Speaking for myself, I was constantly seeking meaning and purpose, and better still some sort of tangible master plan that gave the "universe" order. I KNEW there was something to be understood. I collected theories from Eastern religion, Magick, Science and more, tied together the multiplicity of synchronicities I experienced, and tried to bridge them into something cohesive, but I was never satisfied with it fully. It never allowed me to completely relax. I never believed it... and this is the problem. A belief is never reality. We concoct beliefs when we don't truly KNOW. As it turns out, there IS something, but it is the opposite of what our time, space, "I" belief system convinces us is real. It is literally beyond belief. It is experiential knowledge can't be forgotten, and never leaves you, once seen. It obliterates all stories about how things are, always bringing us back to the moment we occupy... THIS moment. Ultimately nothing really incarnates, except as a concept of the mind. There is no underlying time-based plan for... anything. Once it is seen and understood, the world appears the same, but it is without an "I" at the center, is always happening NOW, and is without space, indivisible, and intimately contiguous. This last paragraph is really just a kludge, it could be expressed (and has) in many ways, all of which are compatible. How things are really just has to be seen experientially... cannot be conveyed in language.

Lairg, are you a meditator? I ask this because meditation is the optimal environment for seeing the underlying fabric of reality.

Purpose is a story the mind tells based on the delusion that there are separate things and people. When the mind is still and quiet, ask yourself where your separate "self" is.

This - all day, every day, every moment, endlessly.

The Dao is just reality, as it is. Flowing "with" the Dao is being in alignment and not causing resistant eddies and currents with our attachment or aversion to what we think should happen, to what is happening, or what might happen. To an enlightened person, these changes in functionality are just reality as it is, nothing to worry about or cause confusion. My late teacher's teacher, the abbess of a well-known Zen institution died of Alzheimers related causes, but went through the process without struggle, in good humor, and in gratefulness that others were so willing to help her. This obviously won't be the experience of most people. Having worked with my late wife's grandparents, and my own parents as they age, I can recommend just meeting them where they are. Is the reality they believe they live in any more real than yours? If they think you are someone other than who you are, roll with it. If they think they just came back from the pub, let them tell you their story. If they can't find something see if you can get them to laugh with you about it, and let them know that you are sure it will turn up soon. Don't pity them, or try to explain over and over how YOU see the reality of things, or who you believe them to be. This won't improve their condition, or their quality of life. If they worry, tell them everything has been taken care of for now, and things are OK. Find joy with them. For an example of how to work with those who are effected give this a listen. It is really wonderful. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/532/magic-words/act-two-0

This is what is being said here: To find the "place where you are" you need: "self", found "now", and "here" (wherever that might be). He is saying here that awakening in this moment to emptiness always happens where you are, in the moment you occupy. Every time you sit and mind becomes still you awaken again. There is a lot of present moment stuff, just in the Genjo Koan. https://www.sfzc.org/files/daily_sutras_Genjo_Koan It is worth rereading! Actually... I'm just going to post the whole brilliant thing:

I think a way to put this from my perspective is that there is ONLY process. No beginning or ending. If time is a delusion, and there can be even some limited experience of this (meditation AGAIN!) one can see this. Different teachings and practices are pointed at different levels of readiness. Even Buddhism has cosmologies, etc., but these are "relative" teachings. There is a difference in flavor between those teachings and something like the Heart Sutra, or DDJ.

I am actually attempting to say (clumsily) that ALL dualities are delusions. Awareness, the Absolute, HAS no attributes. I appreciate your clarifying your language-ing. I agree with Chapter 42. In Buddhism, "emptiness" is one way to look at seeing from enlightened mind - that all things lack an existence as separate things. Having said that, things are also "empty" of the CONCEPT of "emptiness". So, to parse that from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching: Things are "empty" begets the "One", or the "unity". The "emptiness" of "emptiness" is the Dao, looking at the primary, very deepest layer. They are both attempts at trying to discuss the same landscape. You can see this in meditation practice, like all of these things - stillness of mind is the Dao. Describing the Tao creates "unity" or "One". Once you have one, the mind kicks in. To contextualize "One" you have to contrast it with something. This is where language comes in. Once you are using language, everything you discuss needs a supporting character, just as a tree needs the earth, the sun, perhaps a man who planted it, and then another who cuts it down, the table it eventually becomes, etc.etc. - and therefore the "10,000 things" a term used in both Buddhism AND Daoism. I'm sure I have bored many people with this discussion, but it is near and dear to my heart. Glad to engage.

The later teachings take cessation and "no-self" to their logical (and implied, IMHO) conclusions. Have you read Nagarjuna? I would think, as a math fan, that you might love his water-tight logic. He is commonly thought of as the "Einstein of Buddhism". The Buddha applied "skillful means" in his teachings, so it is important to look at who his audience is for each, and at what level the topic is being pitched toward. "No-self" IS your notion of emptiness as an entity. "Self" is empty because it is comprised of impermanent phenomena arising and passing. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html Sure. No problem with that. These are not states, though. States are temporary. Everything has always already been unborn and deathless. The person in the article is K.R. Norman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._R._Norman Looks like he is some English scholar. Maybe you were thinking of Norman Fischer? Shikantaza is a formless practice. It is no practice at all, which ALL branches of Buddhism feature. It features in the Theravada practices (I don't know that it has a name there) and also in the Mahayana and Dzogchen/Tibetan traditions. There is a great article I read recently about this with a number of well-known and fairly well-known contemporary Buddhist characters. https://www.lionsroar.com/forum-formless-meditation/ This practice, whatever you might call it eventually becomes what the Tibetans call "non-meditation" or "post-meditation" where practice and complete insight mean that the mind is ALWAYS in meditation. Many might get a brief taste from this after being on retreat. The "steeps/fills/drenches" is a jhana instruction from the FIRST set of jhanas which are all firmly in the "form" realm. Shikantaza is very much a deeper "formless" practice, something like the last few jhanas EXCEPT that it is not a practice at all. It is simply "being", and therefore beyond any practice.

Keeping in mind what you just said about time/space in your previous post, what other experience would there be? It's is worth digging into that one. Right. But, they are always visible together, at least in "my" experience, as described so eloquently in the Heart Sutra.

It isn't surprising, but I am happy to hear you say this. Since you signed onto the board you have seemed like someone who is taking practice seriously. I generally find arguing about dharma repulsive, though I have been caught up in doing so in the past. This is also not an intellectual exercise for me, it is a moment to moment lived experience. Agree. The "present" is still terminology. Having said that my experience is that there is awareness of being, happing now. To me, "time" is the idea that there are other places in "time" to be than this one. I agree that those examples are fine proof to at least question or doubt the validity of the commonly shared model of time. Yes. Like all dualities, time, space and awareness are not separate things. _/\_

It takes BOTH for emptiness to be visible. You can only ever see the Relative world. If you are enlightened, you can see that emptiness is there as well. Where can you see the Absolute otherwise?

Purpose is a thought constructed in your mind, much like human rights, and free will are. You can! Meditate until your mind becomes still. In that stillness, do you notice "purpose" unless it arises as a thought?

Being able to rest in stillness is where you can see just what "reality" is... that is where your observations should be made. It requires a practice where the mind stops and there is stillness, AND you can notice that stillness and just observe it. Most people can begin arriving at this place within a month or so of meditation training. In that space ask yourself: Where is the "self"? What are the past and future? Is there any other moment or place except what arises in thought?

Count me in!

It's continuity is it's unity and lack of dualities. If the "self" as a separate construct is a delusion, then who is choosing? Even in the relative there is no free will. If we choose to believe science there was a big bang. The conditions for all interactions were laid out the moment that singularity collapsed. It has been proven that we begin to move long before we decide on an action... an order of almost a 3rd of a second if I remember correctly. There has already been plenty of cold water thrown on free will. In my experience? Everything... Unity. Causes and conditions that cover this moment. A billion tiny moving parts interacting at levels way below my ability to even see or understand or apprehend them. Pick whichever ones you like, not that it matters.

_/\_ Which is useful, but not as a belief. It can actually stand in the way of realization. Then the Buddha wasn't enlightened! There was a point early on after I had insight where I considered the very same thing. What is eventually realized is that it isn't a PERSON that becomes "enlightened" is in fact "enlightenment" itself. Enlightenment wakes up to it's own nature. It is a change in perspective, where there is no longer seeing "self" as a "person" or body. It is actually irrelevant how awareness sees the world, after what is commonly thought to be approximately 10 years the identification with a "self" entirely drops away. This doesn't mean that anything in experience changes. Stirling still drives a car and prefers one ice cream over another. This is why: There is the dying of a body (perhaps) but nothing to die since what the "I" is exists as simple awareness, no longer identified as a body. I'll leave you with this:

And if you pick up the gun on the table, point it at your temple and pull the trigger, will the results be a "real"? Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. They exist together. It isn't that the table or gun aren't real, it is that they don't truly exist as things that have a reality of their own. There IS time, after a fashion. There is this moment, evolving an changing constantly. It is the past and future that are illusory, ONCE YOU CAN SEE THEM. Without insight, this is just a thought experiment. Form IS real. It is where emptiness appears. The PROOF that form exists and has a reality is actually the emptiness that can be seen in it. It is the idea of things with a separate reality from each other that is the delusion.

It is worth pointing out that, while this is true, the reverse isn't. The early Buddhist Tripitaka teachings work fine in Mahayana teaching, but the later Emptiness teachings point at something wider in scope than the early Buddhist teachings do. Emptiness conceptually doesn't really feature in the early Buddhist works, EXCEPT possibly (depending on your opinion) in a few places by association, like the the Bahiya Sutta: The Buddha's instruction is similar to the instruction of shikantaza in Soto Zen. There is merely awareness resting in it's own nature. This is an instruction to point at emptiness of "self" and other. Most of the early Buddhist teachings only point to emptiness of self (or "no-self"). "Emptiness" teachings are a feature of Mahayana and Vajrayana trainings, which the Heart Sutra is a major fixture. Yes, I recall that you aren't a fan of the Bahiya Sutta. I am!

Anything that isn't present in this moment is a construction of the mind. Anything that isn't manifest in this moment is an just a thought, including here/there, past/future, "self"/other, and any mental designation or duality. Reality is what is happening in this moment. We can have intention around what we think we want to happen next, but that intention doesn't arise from a "self" it arises from the Absolute, like everything else. Free will is a delusion. Who is there to own it? Also, free will implies a timeline, a plan, an "intelligence" or something with continuity. While there is a "flow" of change, a moment before or after something happens is conceptual. This is the true value our meditation practice (depending on what it is) - making it possible to examine these things carefully. In my experience I'd say that the Relative has a provisional existence based on arising and passing causes and conditions. What is illusory about it is that any of it has it's own intrinsic reality (as a separate thing). Even this, though, is a language construct that doesn't really match the reality of what the Absolute is. Another attempt: Reality is the experience of this moment... existing even without the labels of Absolute or Relative, or any other label, concept, or structure in time or space, void of any objects that have their own existence, etc. etc. etc. It is exceptionally hard to discuss or point to except directly... wordlessly, as a teacher would to a student under the right conditions and with the student having a certain fairly easy to attain level of meditative practice with which to experientially examine this for themselves. Reincarnation and karma happen to a person. It is possible to step off of both of those with the completed realization of no-self. It isn't so much stepping out of time/space/form/"self" but seeing that they there were always just concocted intellectual designations/delusions. It is just a simple perspective shift. What is experienced after that shift is the same "universe" or whatever you want to call this moment, but without those designations/delusions being believed or seen as real in any way.