Hi,
I’m new here and would very much like to ask a question regarding an aspect of a very well known book on Zen that I’m sure most if not all here are familiar with. Appended to Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, by Paul Reps, is “Centering,” 112 admonitions to meditate upon and which can help one in one’s quest for “awakening” or enlightenment. The author speculates that this pre-Zen writing might be a basis for Zen. My question regards #94 which reads as follows:
“Let attention be at a place where you are seeing some past happening, and even your form, having lost its present characteristics, is transformed.“
My question is: Do any reading here interpret this as seeing a past event that one once experienced as if one were an outside observer of the past event, i.e., one sees himself as if one is now detached from one’s form then, or rather as one experienced the event at the time, i.e., through one’s eyes without seeing all of one’s own form?
Secondly, having read over these 112 admonitions many times since first encountering them in Mr. Reps’s book in college many years ago, so many of them strike me as pointing the seeker of truth and enlightenment to the illusory nature of time, space and matter that explores the true nature of the elusive concepts we call a “moment” and an “event.”
From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (paraphrased from memory as I don’t have the book at hand), here is a Zen anecdote recounted:
“Two students were arguing over the nature of a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that the flag was moving while the other the wind. The master happened along and settled the debate with: ‘Mind moves.’”
Another is:
“A master and his student were watching a flock of geese. After the geese had left their sight, the master asked the student, ‘Where have the geese gone?’ The student seemingly puzzled responded, ‘They have flown away.’ The master suddenly grabbed and painfully twisted his student’s nose, asking rhetorically, 'How could they have flown away?!’”
My interpretation of these two similar for purpose anecdotes is that material reality is an illusion and all events are manifestations of the fundamental basis of existence which cannot be further sublated, undifferentiated Consciousness, one without a second: “No-thing.” My favorite analogy is that Consciousness (“Brahman" in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta terminology) is like a Rubik’s cube, constantly changing its face to produce different patterns while all the while retaining its essential integrity as one. The purpose of Zen and enlightenment is therefore to realize the true nature of reality as idealism, to see through the illusion of the dualism of material realism.
Genesis, 2:17:
“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." But we did and thus dualism was born and "we saw that we were naked and were sore afraid.” We forgot our true nature and came to identify with our material form which we recognized as mortal.
Do any here agree with my interpretation or, if not, why, please?
Thank you all very much.
I’m new here and would very much like to ask a question regarding an aspect of a very well known book on Zen that I’m sure most if not all here are familiar with. Appended to Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, by Paul Reps, is “Centering,” 112 admonitions to meditate upon and which can help one in one’s quest for “awakening” or enlightenment. The author speculates that this pre-Zen writing might be a basis for Zen. My question regards #94 which reads as follows:
“Let attention be at a place where you are seeing some past happening, and even your form, having lost its present characteristics, is transformed.“
My question is: Do any reading here interpret this as seeing a past event that one once experienced as if one were an outside observer of the past event, i.e., one sees himself as if one is now detached from one’s form then, or rather as one experienced the event at the time, i.e., through one’s eyes without seeing all of one’s own form?
Secondly, having read over these 112 admonitions many times since first encountering them in Mr. Reps’s book in college many years ago, so many of them strike me as pointing the seeker of truth and enlightenment to the illusory nature of time, space and matter that explores the true nature of the elusive concepts we call a “moment” and an “event.”
From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (paraphrased from memory as I don’t have the book at hand), here is a Zen anecdote recounted:
“Two students were arguing over the nature of a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that the flag was moving while the other the wind. The master happened along and settled the debate with: ‘Mind moves.’”
Another is:
“A master and his student were watching a flock of geese. After the geese had left their sight, the master asked the student, ‘Where have the geese gone?’ The student seemingly puzzled responded, ‘They have flown away.’ The master suddenly grabbed and painfully twisted his student’s nose, asking rhetorically, 'How could they have flown away?!’”
My interpretation of these two similar for purpose anecdotes is that material reality is an illusion and all events are manifestations of the fundamental basis of existence which cannot be further sublated, undifferentiated Consciousness, one without a second: “No-thing.” My favorite analogy is that Consciousness (“Brahman" in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta terminology) is like a Rubik’s cube, constantly changing its face to produce different patterns while all the while retaining its essential integrity as one. The purpose of Zen and enlightenment is therefore to realize the true nature of reality as idealism, to see through the illusion of the dualism of material realism.
Genesis, 2:17:
“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." But we did and thus dualism was born and "we saw that we were naked and were sore afraid.” We forgot our true nature and came to identify with our material form which we recognized as mortal.
Do any here agree with my interpretation or, if not, why, please?
Thank you all very much.
Comment