6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

[Jundo]

Hi All,

We begin at the beginning of the Line ... with Shakyamuni, Gautama Buddha.

Or are we starting at the end? Does Shakyamuni receive Transmission from all the Ancestors? From you and me?

Is it just every single step of the line in every single step? Or is the line truly a circle? A single point? Not even there.

Is it a quilt of many threads, covering us and keeping us warm?

viewtopic.php?p=36746#p36746

Is Shakyamuni just Shakyamuni, with no one else before or after?

May we, should we, need we even try to say?

...

In Cook, pages 29 - 31, and in Hixon, pages 35 - 37

Gassho, J

[Silva]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

:shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P ops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

all at the same time and in whatever order you prefer!

gassho,

Sylvie

[Silva]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

At first the questions made me merry, but that skin has peeled off leaving a baffled and bewildered child. I read and read again but with sightless eyes and ignorant mind. Keizan speaks of intimacy of enlightenment, and where I feel solitude in darkness. How can there be intimacy with the insubstantial ? There isn't anything to be enlightened, before during or after. Empty person reading empty words... All I know is a quiet place on a cushion

[Taylor]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

I intellectualize and philosophize too much. "Well Buddha attained Enlightenment by manifesting..." STOP!

I simply don't know. Keizan speaks in tongues to me, some words touch deep and others waft over the surface as if they were never written. Maybe it's the mid-day sun I'm reading in 8)

Hixon's commentary clears away a bit of the fog but, then again, maybe I'm just trying to intellectualize everything and am adding more fog than before. Comfortable, cozy; an all too familiar fog of ignorance and contentment. To the cushion!

Taylor

[Jundo]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Here is a Lineage Chart, typical of Zen groups, similar to the one we have here at Treeleaf for our Jukai (Undertaking the Precepts) Ceremony ...



Notice that the red bloodline comes round from where it starts ... notice that it does not truly begin or end with Shakyamuni ... notice the circle that comes before Shakyamuni (or, when heading in the other direction, after Shakyamuni ... and the line circles around too ... Perhaps endless circles within circles ).

Notice that, in this particular version of the line, no names are present other than Shakyamuni (need his name be present?). Yet, there are all the ancestors ... and you and me too ... each in our proper place.

Notice the clear white writing space from which it all comes to life ... the same whiteness found within the circle and without.

A lovely quilt.

Gassho, J

[Taigu]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Hi everybody,

A few ramblings and pointers using the beloved words of Lex Hixon. Sorry in advance for my cryptic-poetic junk :roll: .

We begin in the begin less moment. For Shakyamuni ‘s awakening is not his. For there is no self left to be called anything, even Shakyamuni.

The amber autumn moon sets before dawn, balancing on the black rock palisade, reflecting across the wide river: this is the universality of this transmission, instantly shining through and across the big stretches of space and time, moon dear to Dogen’ heart, undefiled moon meeting reality, matter, enlightening darkness itself. This big majestic dew drop or this small pool of water we are in instantly burning, dancing. Where is the moon now, can it be seen or named?

Seeing directly. Nothing in between, no veil of thoughts, no wave of emotion, no past or future, directly means perfect fitting, absolute merging. Like two hands in gassho. Like two legs in sitting. Seeing directly is living fully, experiencing without any traces left behind. You-me-others-this boundless universe is perfect oneness. Does not need to be fixed. This universe is your body, your flesh, your words and mind. It does not live over there, comes from somebody else. In fact, true transmission is no transmission, no movement between two sentient beings, no separation whatsoever. Can you measure your true body? How many inches? How many faces? Can you cut it? This is why it is said that this sword, the sword of Prajana, cuts things into one…?

Now you may understand never alone. A moon so full it engulfs the sun. Call it oneness or nondulaity, call it whatever. It is where you are truly from, made of, your very stuff. It cannot leave you or being taken away from you. So compassion is given not because of an intention to give, not from a giver to a bunch of deluded idiots daydreaming.This unique compassion without subject or object is the activity of awakening , compassion is the radiance, the tide, the flow or rays in action rippling through and through tirelessly. Compassion arises when awkening activity meets awakening activity. Sadness in front of the samsara is extra. For absolute are relative are not one-not two, Samsara and Nirvana are but a single gate.

The living Buddha possesses only robe and alms-bowl. Utter simplicity, something to wear, something to be fed from. What is a robe? Buddha’s Body, skin, lineage, boundless space…the robe is both a clothing and the timeless naked reality. A robe that borrows from everything, as you make it, you sew into it everything you meet, all bits and pieces ( pains, sorrows, joys, name it), a quilt made of your life but also a quilt made of stars, moon, seas, cities, stones, trees, dirt…As you wrap your sitting body-mind into it and keep this empty bowl on your lap, empty because it welcomes without discriminating ( in the ritual practice of begging, everything is accepted), you simply come back home. The true home you are is at home everywhere. Speck of dust or golden palaces, remote mountain hermitages or busy city streets are all but other names given to you. Simplicity is not to take away things and live cheaply, it is rather not to add to this already perfect being. Being one with everything you meet.

[Silva]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

This unique compassion without subject or object is the activity of awakening , compassion is the radiance, the tide, the flow or rays in action rippling through and through tirelessly. Compassion arises when awkening activity meets awakening activity.

Thank-you for this, I relate better to your commentaries than to Lex Hixon's funnily enough, I find your

cryptic-poetic junk

far more straightforward,
bizarre, bizarre!
gassho
Sylvie

[Rich]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Thanks Taigu. In Hixon's I had underlined:

"Great compassion is simply the absence of separateness."

and

"Our very skin, nerves, and senses are the morning star of enlightenment, yet Total Awakeness has absolutely nothing to do with skin, nerves, senses. Although both sides are true, leave both sides behind! There is only limitless awareness in this hermitage!

Wow!!

/Rich

[AlanLa]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

I love Keizan's focus on the word "and." We get so focused on objects that we forget there is no separation, and the link is the word "and." Nice!

I loved Hixon's "Never alone. This means oneness.... Great compassion is simply the absence of separateness.... Suffering beings on the tree of enlightenment? Impossible! Yet they continue to appear right before our eyes."

Put it all together and I get the following: "And" means no separation, never being alone, which is compassion for those suffering, including me, of which I am "and."

[chicanobudista]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Must there be a beginning?

[Silva]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

"And" means no separation, never being alone, which is compassion for those suffering, including me, of which I am "and."

All is "and", "nothing-everything " because all is LIFE and LIFE is ALL.

[CraigfromAz]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Thanks to Taigu for his very helpful interpretive words. The only thing I have to offer is more questions:

From Hixon: "There are no separate sentient beings, yet the enlightened way naturally and tenderly serves sentient beings." I am very confused by the "not one/not two" language. My latest interpretation of this is that buddha nature, soul, big mind, whatever you want to call it, is a single, formless entity shared by all sentient beings (and all objects in the universe?), but expressed in the body of each sentient being. It is the true "lord of the manor", and individual "self" is merely a delusional construct of the (small) mind?

"...This is the drama of Dharma succession, the transmission of light from one living Buddha to the next, from one generation to the next." Then Hixon goes on to state that all beings are simultaneously awakened - so what is the point of transmission?

[Myozan Kodo]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Great and insightful words Taigu, and provocative questions Jundo.

A few musings…

There is…

Conventional reality: Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha, gets the whole thing going. He brings a new awareness and understanding into the world. He lights a bright fuse that burns forward in time, forever. On this level, a mountain is a mountain and Larry is Larry.

There is…

Ultimate reality: the ground of being is the same before and after Shakyamuni. Time is irrelevant. You and I disappear. There were beings awakened to reality before Shakyamuni and there have been awakened beings since Shakyamuni. There are awakened beings to come. On this level, a mountain is not a mountain and Larry is not Larry.

Once duality is broken through, both these conditions co-exist simultaneously. In fact, they always co-exist in reality … even if it seems contradictory to say so. But let’s put all that aside…

The mountain is a mountain again. And Larry … were you ever anything but Larry?

Gassho,
Soen

PS: The Larry reference comes from Jundo's talk last week.

[Jikyo]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

Hi everyone,

Both texts have beautiful words, confusing words, penetrating words, resonating words. Thank you as always Taigu for your “poetic-cryptic junk” - your words enter me through my eyes and instantly reside in my heart. Deep gassho.

I have spent the afternoon mulling (dancing with) “when a large net is taken up . . . all the many openings of the net are also taken up.” The thing and the no-thing as one, not two. What isn’t the net defines the net just as the openings of the net do not exist without the net. Shakyamuni was enlightened therefore the whole earth and all beings were simultaneously enlightened - there is no separation - life IS. It’s our minds that create separation and linear time. Maybe? I am quite positive I know nothing. :?

Gassho,
Jikyo

[Jundo]

Re: 6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

I am very confused by the "not one/not two" language. My latest interpretation of this is that buddha nature, soul, big mind, whatever you want to call it, is a single, formless entity shared by all sentient beings (and all objects in the universe?), but expressed in the body of each sentient being. It is the true "lord of the manor", and individual "self" is merely a delusional construct of the (small) mind?

Most Zen teachers throughout history (at least, the good ones! 8) ) would caution against reifying "buddha nature" "emptyness" "enlightenment" etc. ... even "Buddha" ... into a thing ... ("reification" meaning to turn something into a fixed, rigid, concrete idea, separate from other things ... a separate and half dead mental object). In so doing, you kill the subtly of what is there ... take the living butterfly and, capturing it, press it under glass ... drive a wall between you and it.

You also limit "it" to what your little human mind and imagination thinks it must be ... as if, by thinking of "China", one can capture by some one word or mental image all the richness, history, beauty and ugliness, comedy and tragedy, tastes and smells, movement of billions of people and vastness of that place and culture on this planet ... How much more would we do an injustice by trying to label "Buddha"??

That is why, for example, I often like to refer to Buddha and emptyness as a dance ... for there is a world of difference between simply describing a dance with the word "dance" ... or the concrete mental image of "a dance" ... and the actual joyful and free experience of dancing! (Take a spin here when you have a chance) ...

viewtopic.php?p=36135#p36135

There was always the tendency, throughout the history of Buddhism, and within Zen Buddhism too, to reify "Buddha" etc. into another god, a "Cosmic Spirit" etc. ... and most of the good teachers (fortunately, in the majority over the centuries) have always resisted doing that too easily for the reasons I describe.

Zen teachings are filled with expressions like "not two" to present the subtly of something that is not well captured, and may even mislead, if we say it in ordinary language. So, for example, the Buddhist teachings instruct us to dance with the fact that we are all one with this life-self-world to such a degree of intimacy and sameness that even the word "one" is misleading as just a creation of the mind (for what use is the word "one" if there is not even a "two" that we should compare it to?) What is more, "one" has that same danger of being turned into a thing ... some "one concrete, frozen thing" ... like saying that it is "just one dance" as opposed to a constantly moving and growing, changing, flowering ongoing dancing! And what is more, we are also "two" too ... because your are absolutely and perfectly you, the only and unique "one of you dancer" dancing in all reality without not a thing about you to make "you" more "you" ... and the same for me too! (It is not a contradiction from saying that "there is no two" and "there are two", just a different perspective on things. It is only a "delusion", perhaps, when all you can see is you as you alone.).

When we are swept up in the dance ... there is just the dancing, the dancers now just the dance ... the dancing. And there are the separate dancers too, each making their own twirls and whirls. (Soen expresses this nicely in his post too.) Craig, you are as intimately and fully Craig as Craig can be Craig, with not one hair on your head to add or take away to make you more "Craigy". As well, Craig is the life-world-self-dance as intimately and wholly as a single hair growing on Craig's lovely head is just a Craig's head lovely growing single hair!

Something like that.

To capture the subtlety of that living, ever and every moving, changing dance ... we might say "not two" or "not even one" or "one beyond one" or some other poetic expressions. I prefer the "dancing". Better still, I prefer to just dance.

"...This is the drama of Dharma succession, the transmission of light from one living Buddha to the next, from one generation to the next." Then Hixon goes on to state that all beings are simultaneously awakened - so what is the point of transmission?

One dancer picks up and twirls and releases another ...