Yes-But-Mind vs. Don't-Know-Mind

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

Brilliant quotes but is there any evidence?

 

 

 

If you're referring to the quotations I cited above--evidence of what?

 

 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I'm lost, honestly, but I'm happy to leave it here.

 

The potential and or actual dangers of spiritual paths (including forms of Buddhism) gone wrong have  been spelled out here before.... (with many examples being shared  by many members over the years)  Btw. I don't see non-acknowledgement of that as being honest for anyone that has been at this site for awhile, etc.

[Forestgreen]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

Brilliant quotes but is there any evidence?

 

 

This is why I avoid zen/ chan texts. Too cognitive.

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

Suzuki Roshi's text on the top isn't his clearest work, though I think he is pointing to the fact that stlilness is a quality of all "things" because they are only separate where they are contrived as separate things by the mind.

 

Brings to mind good old Case 29:
 

  Quote

 

“Not the Wind; Not the Flag”

 

The Case:

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. 

One said, “The flag moves.” 

The other said, “The wind moves.” 

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, “Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves.” 

The two monks were struck with awe.

- Case 29,  Hui-neng

 

 

 

Even a mind in thought, a full concert venue, a rush hour freeway, or a hill of ants on a hot day can be seen to be still. To learn what to look for generally requires pointing by a realized teacher. 
 

 

 

"Case 29", from "The Gateless Gate", by Ekai (called Mu-mon). Yes.

 

I would say the mind is only really still when it is without will, intent, or deliberation, and the activity of the body can occur solely by virtue of the location of the mind.

 

Mumon's commentary, according to Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps:

 

The sixth patriarch said: “The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving. Mind is moving.” What did he mean? If you understand this intimately, you will see the two monks there trying to buy iron and gaining gold. The sixth patriarch could not bear to see those two dull heads, so he made such a bargain.
 

Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.

 

(tr. Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps [1934], at sacred-texts.com)

 

 

Wikipedia on  Senzaki:  "a Rinzai Zen monk who was one of the 20th century's leading proponents of Zen Buddhism in the United States." I trust this translation of the commentary, some are not so good! 

 

Makes me think of Gautama's declaration that speech ceases as "one-pointedness" is laid hold of--more correctly, "determinate thought" that gives rise to speech ceases. When the mouth opens, when "determinate thought" that gives rise to speech commences, no "one-pointedness.

 

I disagree, that the teachings of the sermons in the Pali Canon that form the basis of Theravadin practice are different from the teachings that form the basis of Zen practice, except as regards the transmission of the teaching. With regard to transmission, Gautama, refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107). I understand why the Zen tradition felt it necessary to claim otherwise, but honesty is a virtue, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Mark Foote

[Keith108]

2 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

This is why I avoid zen/ chan texts. Too cognitive.

I actually looked up cognitive to make sure I was reading this correctly. Usually, people complain about it being too obtuse. 

[stirling]

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I would say the mind is only really still when it is without will, intent, or deliberation, and the activity of the body can occur solely by virtue of the location of the mind.

 

In this case I am really pointing toward stillness or emptiness rather than a stillness of the mind. The mind is what moves and is therefore only ever temporarily still. Enlightened mind sees emptiness even as the mind has thoughts, or bodily activity. Like all things thoughts or bodily activity arise naturally and pass, and have never belonged to a "self". My original quote, for reference:

 

Quote

Even a mind in thought, a full concert venue, a rush hour freeway, or a hill of ants on a hot day can be seen to be still. To learn what to look for generally requires pointing by a realized teacher. - Stirling

 

Note - no traditional Theravada teacher would be pointing this out, only a Mahayana or Vajrayana teacher, and yet it is plain as day once you know what you are looking for. Learning to see it is the first major step to liberation.

 

-

 

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I disagree, that the teachings of the sermons in the Pali Canon that form the basis of Theravadin practice are different from the teachings that form the basis of Zen practice, except as regards the transmission of the teaching. With regard to transmission, Gautama, refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107).

 

The entire world view is different, Mark, and that colors what practices are done and emphasized.

 

Try a simple google search and do some reading:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=differences+between+mahayana+and+theravada+buddhism&oq=differences+between+mahayana+a&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Zen students do obviously read the suttas, and sometimes do SOME of the Theravada practices (jhanas for example), but that is the exception, and they aren't done from the same beginning perspective. Theravada students are intent on enlightening themselves, but not in this lifetime. A Zen student knows that they are already enlightened, as is everything else, and that almost anything could precipitate that realization. A Theravada student aims for liberation for himself, a Zen student intends to save all beings from suffering. Theravadins seek anatta, or "no-self". A Zen students seeks emptiness or the realization of the "no-self" of ALL seemingly separate appearances in consciousness. The practices reflect these differences. There is too much to capture here, but it takes more than a cursory examination of the two to understand. 

 

6 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I understand why the Zen tradition felt it necessary to claim otherwise, but honesty is a virtue, no?

 

Not that it really matters, but this is a perfect example of why you don't get the difference we are talking about here. Where there is enlightenment, there is truly no difference between Buddhas. The lineage is a recognition of that. The text of ordinations, lay entrustments, and transmission make this clear. 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, Keith108 said:

I actually looked up cognitive to make sure I was reading this correctly. Usually, people complain about it being too obtuse. 

 

Funny... I always think about it as simple and clean - unless we are enjoying the poetic presentation of Dogen.  

[Forestgreen]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 Theravadins seek anatta, or "no-self". A Zen students seeks emptiness or the realization of the "no-self" of ALL seemingly separate appearances in consciousness.  

This differentiation is most likely done by non- theravadins. 

I base my practice mostly on theravada texts, and no- self relates to reality, not to me as an isolated practitioner, since the idea of an isolated practitioner is conventional truth, not absolute truth. 

 

If the practice doesn't reflect that, it is inheritantly flawed. 

 

I still feel that mahayana rethoric is based on an hair-splitting attempt to prove spiritual superiority, while causing a split in the sangha.

 

And intending to save all beings before one has realized reality and cleared the storehouse mind, isn't that just a bit arrogant? 

[Forestgreen]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Theravada students are intent on enlightening themselves, but not in this lifetime. A Zen student knows that they are already enlightened,

What is the difference between trying to get enlightened and being enlightened and trying to realize that enlightenment? 

[Lairg]

 There are technical preconditions before Light flows easily through the human format. That easy flow is the essence of enlightenment.   

 

And after those preconditions are met, the candidate needs to be accepted by the community of enlightened beings

 

A cluster of preconditions concerns bringing the human persona/mask under direct control

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Lairg

[SodaChanh]

From Namkhai Norbu, dzogchen master

 

Quote

Any Dzogchen practice should always be done in a state of 
maximum relaxation, observing whether there is any tension or 
effort. If there is any effort you need to relax. This is very im-
portant. In Buddhist Sutra, for instance, knowledge of energy is 
somewhat lacking. We discover this when we learn about Tantra. 
If sensations are blocked, the energy explodes, and then a vari-
ety of things can happen. To avoid blocking it, Tantra emphasizes the knowledge of energy. But when we come to the Dzogchen 
teaching, we discover that Tantra is a bit lacking in the area of 
relaxation. Tregchö is a teaching that specifically addresses this 
point. In fact, sometimes when we are doing visualization we get so charged up that we become tense. In Dzogchen teaching you can have any kind of experience, but in a relaxed manner.

 

There are the turnings of the wheel in Buddhism. 

 

As for any split, I don't see any, it is a matter of Destiny / affinity.