BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 18

[galen]

My mind isn't a mirror--it's an abusive critic!

That critical abuser, might be the mirror, Matt.

Gassho

[galen]

Bodhi and I both say, "Ruff".

Gassho
Michael

So Michael, you know `the Bodhi on an intimate level .

Gassho

[Omoi Otoshi]

For me, when asked if I believe in God, my usual reply is, not the Christian god.

I know what you mean, but that paints the Christian God with too broad a brush in my opinion. Could it be that you have misunderstood the Christian God? Who is this Christian God?

I sometimes wonder if the direct experience of God, Dharmakaya and Atman is not the experience of the same undescribable underlying reality, what is there when you give up all ideas of self, other, God, Atman, Buddha. The problem is, when the self returns, it instantly changes the memory of the experience, so that it fits in better in the system of beliefs and ideas that we all carry around. And it's not true anymore.

Here's a passage from the Wikipedia article on Christian mysticism. Is it impossible that what the mysticist calls the presence of God, is what a Buddhist would call dhyana or blissful samadhi?

As described by scholar Bernard McGinn, Christian mysticism would be "that part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of [the Christian] God".[1] The idea of mystical realities has been widely held in Christianity since the second century AD, referring not simply to spiritual practices, but also to the belief that their rituals and even their scriptures have hidden ("mystical") meanings.[1]

McGinn raises several points about his choice of words: He argues that "presence" is more accurate than "union", since not all mystics spoke of union with God, and since many visions, miracles, etc., were not necessarily related to union. He also argues that we should speak of "consciousness" of God's presence, rather than of "experience", since mystical activity is not simply about the sensation of God as an external object, but more broadly about "new ways of knowing and loving based on states of awareness in which God becomes present in our inner acts". Related to this idea is his emphasis on the transformation that occurs through mystical activity: "This is why the only test that Christianity has known for determining the authenticity of a mystic and her or his message has been that of personal transformation, both on the mystic's part and—especially—on the part of those whom the mystic has affected."[1]

It seems you make a very valid point to just answer with Mu. Why not, instead of just the temptation?

They wouldn't understand, and I couldn't explain. It just doesn't seem skillful to me as it would only be confusing. Better to embody it, actualize it, be it, live it. And let the answer be determined by the moment.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Omoi Otoshi]

Thank you Galen,
I love that you are not too self-conscious about throwing your understanding out there! You don't seem afraid of making a fool out of your self and I admire that. (Not that I think you're making a fool out of yourself, not at all! )

The Preface seems to say... if you puncture a floating gourd it loses its balance, or way. The same could be said for a balloon, or ones ego.

I would say that when poked, the gourd is unaffected. It can never lose it's balance. The secret of its stability is its ability to turn freely, even when poked hard. When it's turned around, it doesn't see this as a defeat, loss of prestige or failure, it just continues on its path, always going straight, never caring which way, never losing its way.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Omoi Otoshi]

My deep personal issue, which seemingly dissolves most all issues, not only for myself but my fellow Zen brothers and sisters, is delusion, letting our/my ego run all over me and thus other. While, for the most part I seem to grasp most of Zen intellectually, but to embody other as my self, to meet them in that tiny tiny gap between the rubber and the highway, is still only in small doses and sometimes even a widening gap. But this realization of this issue, only makes me more steadfast to sit, reflect and breathing through my hara, all the while knowing this hara is a shared commodity, that just as well belongs to other, the hara of the Whole.

Thank you for sharing Galen,
Well said. I enjoyed reading that.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Omoi Otoshi]

The same with the sun exposing no 'fixed' shade of color in a diamond. Once again, this seems to point to exposing the ego for what it really is, nothing but delusion, a false small little self once brought out into full light, exposing it for what it really is... a sham!

In my opinion, when we have no fixed idea, no truth to cling to, we are the diamond that has no fixed shade of color. The color changes according to the circumstances. It doesn't need to make an effort to be brilliant. It just reflects everything differently, perfectly according to each given situation.

It would seem from your post that you don't like your ego, your small self, much! You would like to cut it off and then you would be free. But I'm not sure you can. You may have to accept it. It may be the only way to be free from it. It is you. Not all of you, but you. And in my view, it's Buddha nature.

'No-mindedness cannot understand'.... is that not a good thing !? That seems to leave it to the 'great question'... ie, 'the great answer'-no answer, by intellectualizing from the ego of our insecure little self.

The way I read it, what is meant is that no or yes kills the question. When you keep the question, live the question, you can explore more deeply.

The last sentence in the Preface seems to sum up all the above probing... 'is there any way to escape that?' That answer is seemingly is Hell NO. We can hide but we cannot run from our true selves; this is the Way of the masters, by using these beautiful paradoxical dialogs in these Koans.

Why resist being turned?

Gassho,
Pontus

[galen]

I know what you mean, but that paints the Christian God with too broad a brush in my opinion. Could it be that you have misunderstood the Christian God? Who is this Christian God?

I sometimes wonder if the direct experience of God, Dharmakaya and Atman is not the experience of the same undescribable underlying reality, what is there when you give up all ideas of self, other, God, Atman, Buddha. The problem is, when the self returns, it instantly changes the memory of the experience, so that it fits in better in the system of beliefs and ideas that we all carry around. And it's not true anymore.

Here's a passage from the Wikipedia article on Christian mysticism. Is it impossible that what the mysticist calls the presence of God, is what a Buddhist would call dhyana or blissful samadhi?

As described by scholar Bernard McGinn, Christian mysticism would be "that part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of [the Christian] God".[1] The idea of mystical realities has been widely held in Christianity since the second century AD, referring not simply to spiritual practices, but also to the belief that their rituals and even their scriptures have hidden ("mystical") meanings.[1]

McGinn raises several points about his choice of words: He argues that "presence" is more accurate than "union", since not all mystics spoke of union with God, and since many visions, miracles, etc., were not necessarily related to union. He also argues that we should speak of "consciousness" of God's presence, rather than of "experience", since mystical activity is not simply about the sensation of God as an external object, but more broadly about "new ways of knowing and loving based on states of awareness in which God becomes present in our inner acts". Related to this idea is his emphasis on the transformation that occurs through mystical activity: "This is why the only test that Christianity has known for determining the authenticity of a mystic and her or his message has been that of personal transformation, both on the mystic's part and—especially—on the part of those whom the mystic has affected."[1]


They wouldn't understand, and I couldn't explain. It just doesn't seem skillful to me as it would only be confusing. Better to embody it, actualize it, be it, live it. And let the answer be determined by the moment.

Gassho,
Pontus

Your view here is well taken. I agree with most of the ancient Christian view, as very comparable to the ancients of the East (they of the monks and meditations). But how many people that ask you the question if you believe in god, come from that ancient belief? When asked that question, it can only be taken as the modern day christian view, and I am forth right in saying no. Modern day christain beliefs are about separation and ego, and some 'guy' up in the sky, having nothing to do with their personal self.

[galen]

Thank you Galen,
I love that you are not too self-conscious about throwing your understanding out there! You don't seem afraid of making a fool out of your self and I admire that. (Not that I think you're making a fool out of yourself, not at all! )


I would say that when poked, the gourd is unaffected. It can never lose it's balance. The secret of its stability is its ability to turn freely, even when poked hard. When it's turned around, it doesn't see this as a defeat, loss of prestige or failure, it just continues on its path, always going straight, never caring which way, never losing its way.

Gassho,
Pontus

, and yes as you imply here about me throwing it out `there, foolery or not, come what may, and here you are. You seem to have gotten this from my post on just this explanation from a past post, almost word for word as to invite the discussion, and lessons learned from both sides, not necessarily wrong or right.

What if the gourd takes on water? How can it Not be effected, even if it does not take on water? So poked hard , thats a good one, how hard is hard? How does your view here, that is not necessarily right or wrong, fit in with the rest of the Preface and the implication of it as a lesson?

[galen]

[QUOTE=Omoi Otoshi;89099]

-It would seem from your post that you don't like your ego, your small self, much! You would like to cut it off and then you would be free. But I'm not sure you can. You may have to accept it. It may be the only way to be free from it. It is you. Not all of you, but you. And in my view, it's Buddha nature.

I am not sure if I imply totally cutting it off. It might come down to, what you or I call freeing, and not necessarily cutting as killing. For most, most all the time, there is very little freedom from it, but agree with most of your perception here.


-The way I read it, what is meant is that no or yes kills the question. When you keep the question, live the question, you can explore more deeply.

I am not sure I imply a yes or no here.

-Why resist being turned?

Not sure what you are implying here. Where is there resistance?


Gassho

[AlanLa]

This is just to add to my post way up there.
If it has anything to do with what has been posted since is up to you.

MU

[BrianW]

Hello all,

Been out as the bottom has been falling out everywhere it seems. But to the question, which is connected ...I guess it is always relevant to what is going on right now.

"What deep, personal issue or question in your life might be resolved not by "yes" ... not by "no" ... but by "MU!" or "YES! YES! YES!" that swallows whole both yes and no?"

"To be or not to be...that is the great question " Or to go on or just give it all up....just spiral downward....sink to oblivion? MU! (And I mean MU in the most positive of ways!)

Gassho,
Jisen/BrianW

[Omoi Otoshi]

I am not sure I imply a yes or no here.

No, you didn't!
Just sharing my take on it! Neither no-mindedness, nor yes-mindedness, flexiblemindedness!

-Why resist being turned?
Not sure what you are implying here. Where is there resistance?

How can you avoid being turned? My answer is, there's no reason to avoid. With resist I meant avoid!

Thank you Galen,
Gassho,
Pontus

[Mp]

So Michael, you know `the Bodhi on an intimate level .

Gassho

Hey Galen ... oh yes, Bodhi and I are well connected.

Gassho
Michael

[galen]

No, you didn't!
Just sharing my take on it! Neither no-mindedness, nor yes-mindedness, flexiblemindedness!



How can you avoid being turned? My answer is, there's no reason to avoid. With resist I meant avoid!

Thank you Galen,
Gassho,
Pontus

Thank you, Pontus... have enjoyed the navel gazing and Zen bla bla bla very much with you here and before! Some here like myself have to spread a little cheese through the threads, gum them up a little, if you will. For those it bothers, we/I can only hope to become as pure and as observant. For those who feel above the shit, they still do realize theirs stinks too, so its all good and sometimes even bad, thats life in relativity! Even our teachers here, have from time to time, stunk things up a little. After all, we are all teachers and students of this Great Practice.


Gassho

[galen]

Hey Galen ... oh yes, Bodhi and I are well connected.

Gassho
Michael

Thanks, Michael. And what you say is so true, in actuality!



Gassho