forestofemptiness

One could take a Buddhist view, and say there is no right answer, no fixed standard by which to measure which path is right or which is wrong. Or one could take a more Taoist view, and say there is no wrong answer, that whatever you choose is the right way for you, even if it turns to look like an error.

Another way to look at empty mind is not that empty means "nothing" in the Western sense, but that empty means "not fixed." In this line of thought, all minds are empty because they are not fixed. Consider this from Takuan Soho:

Some say the same thing about God.

Silence is only one half of the equation. The nature of the God/Tao is ultimately creative. That means the formless is constantly taking form, and form is constantly returning to formlessness. Without activity, there is no flow, no life. A tree cannot exist solely as a tangle of roots--- it needs the outward and upward expansion of its trunk, branches, and leaves.

But doesn't this: Also apply to this?

Actually, I think this is a bit reductionist. There is no monolithic Christianity just as there is monolithic Buddhism. Mystical Judeo-Christian teachings tend to present human beings as a mix of higher and lower natures. The animalistic nature tends to pull one down, while the spiritual nature leads one higher. Human beings are, after all, made in the image of God, so to say that the essence of a human being is sin is a bit simplistic. Humans stand between heaven and earth and can perform as a channel so that divine energy can manifest on earth. Actually, taking a closer look at this, the ancient Jews taught that the blood contained the animal soul, or nefesh. So a blood sacrifice can be seen in some ways to be a sacrifice of the lower or animal nature. It is this lower of animal nature that tends to pull people down. One difference that I see is that Christian mysticism is completely dependent on grace. There is something of a lack of historical methods because one cannot manipulate God, so to speak. Rather, many of the mystics speak of clearing away the old self, or kenosis (which actually reminds me a lot of Soto Zen). Once self-emptying is accomplished, the divine presence may manifest (i.e. theosis). So a Christian mystic doesn't practice in order to achieve anything. Rather, a Christian mystic practices in order to get rid of the obstacles between oneself and God. And once these obstacles are removed, it is only natural for God to manifest. As far as comparisons to Buddhism, I would take a look at Pureland teachings which are also other-power oriented.

Thinking back, I found that they were very similar. In fact, I personally believe that an aversion to self-consciousness is one of the things that keeps people asleep to themselves. Self consciousness, as noted, is often something bad. There are often reported studies that tell us people are more afraid of public speaking than death (public speaking can be an excellent practice). One difference is that self-awareness does not judge. For me, there is judgment or a fear of judgment in self-consciousness that is absent in self-awareness. When one is self-conscious, there is typically an imaginary standard that you measuring yourself by. "Am I doing this right? Do I sound foolish? There is no way I can do this!" However, with self-awareness, one is aware without judging, or at least not becoming involved in judging. This doesn't happen overnight, but if we practice sincerely it develops over time.

I had an acting teacher once give us a lesson on communication. He asked: "Who here is a liberal?" Some hands went up. "Who's a conservative?" Some other hands went up. "Who is a Christian?" Some hands went up. "Who is an atheist?" Some other hands went up. Then he said, "Who here has been in love?" Every hand went up. "Who has ever suffered pain?" Every hand went up. He said that we can talk along our differences, or we can talk along our similarities.

I don't know about Dzogchen, but from little I know about Brahman is that Brahman is said to be beyond name and form (nirguna, or beyond the gunas). So when you make comparisons and contrasts, you are already talking about name and form, and not about Nirguna Brahman. To put it another way, to make mind questions about the ultimate is not unlike forming body questions about the mind, asking about the color and shape of the mind.

According to many of the ancient worthies, East and West, the acid test of a master is freedom.

If we attempted to follow the words of the Buddha, that would be a start: "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five? "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will." — AN 5.198 The challenge to the Buddhist would be to ask oneself, before posting: 1. Is it true? 2. Am I speaking affectionately? 3. Is this for the benefit of others? 4. Do I have a mind of good will?

Today, I saw some male antelope resting in the sun. As I looked, I saw the sun above them. At first glance, the sun appeared to be one thing, a ball of bright light in the sky, and the antelope another. Yet there was no separation between the antelope and the sun. The light and warmth engulfed them, it ran inside their blood and bones as the grass they eat, and it shifts and stirs the air all around. Even more, it was the same sun that warmed my body and lit my senses. I would not point to the golden fire and say it is the antelope, and I would not point to the antelope and say it is the sun, but there is no separation between them, and no separation between them and I, and no separation between I and the source from which we spring.

Are you using an English translation? If so, which one?

There is Zen sickness, for example, that Zen Master Hakuin contracted from concentrating too hard on his koans. He sought the advice of a Taoist master who taught him a meditation technique to help.

This is where having a teacher can be useful. For example, if we cannot see beyond thoughts or judgments, a teacher can help create the conditions for us to do so.

I have found the Buddha's Five Lay Precepts to be valuable, and they take no time at all: 1. Refrain from killing 2. Refrain from taking what is not given 3. Refrain from harmful sex 4. Refrain from harmful speech 5. Refrain from intoxication One may also add positive components, which I've found helpful: 1. Practice kindness 2. Practice generosity 3. Practice responsibility 4. Practice helpful speech 5. Practice sobriety

You have to see it to believe it. Stepping away from thoughts, judgments, and the thinking mind reveals a new world of possibilities.

It strikes me as two different debates that occur in these whatever-Buddhist arguments. In this case, I will insert the word Dzogchen, but you could inset Zen or other traditions. Question 1: What is Dzogchen? Question 2: What is true? These may be separate questions. If all Dzogchen teachers say you need a guru, well, then you need a guru to do Dzogchen. To say otherwise strikes me as claiming to be married by yourself. However, for me, this is not the important question. The more important question is: what is true? Dzogchen may or may not lead to the truth, and finding the truth may or may not involve Dzogchen. The old Zen parable is to see the moon, rather than stuck on the finger.

For me, it isn't about refuge in an internal guru or elevating oneself to godlike status. It's not about power at all. It's about freedom. The problem isn't this or that authority, or this or that judgment. The problem is in creating authority and making judgments in the first place.

One issue I see with Zen in the West is the difficulty of dealing with ancient terms and concepts in addition to dealing with the warp of our own minds. However, what seems to happen is that we often spend so much time learning and debating about what these terms and concepts mean that we tend to entrench the thinking mind rather than become free of it.

For a slightly different view, my friend William Samuel would call it Tranquility: William Samuel, A Guide to Awareness and Tranquility, pages 217-218

The first step for most paths is adopting a simple system of morality. They vary from here to there, but the Buddhist one is easy. You begin training with the Five Precepts: 1. Refrain from killing. 2. Refrain from taking what is not given. 3. Refrain from sexual misconduct. 4. Refrain from false and divisive speech. 5. Refrain from intoxication leading to heedlessness. No matter where you go or end up, these training precepts can be very helpful.

So true. The question for me becomes, is practice for gaining or for losing? I am finding a far better return on losing than on gaining. But even this is saying too much.

This verse from the Tao Te Ching comes to mind: Chapter 48 Pursue knowledge, daily gain Pursue Tao, daily loss Loss and more loss Until one reaches unattached action With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do Take the world by constantly applying non-interference The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world

Which points to the emptiness of the eyes. For me, wherever there is change there is emptiness. Personally, I don't see emptiness is as rare or complicated as it is spoken of in Tibetan circles online. But I don't mean to interrupt a Dzogchen thread.