Practice

[A.J.]

Well, the formula for fructose sugar in ice cream (C6-H12-O6) does not necessarily imply sweetness, but yet ... there it is, sweet on the tongue and not to be denied! I think that it is actually not that different from the "bliss" states you asked about on that other thread, but we just tend to avoid to run to the extremes of "bliss," and emphasize more an equanimity, peace and simple positive wholeness while living in this world.

As to Bodhidharma, I think it is just a case of "gruff old grandpa with a heart of gold." I know a lot of guys like that, and I once made this picture with a bit of photoshop, turning that frown upside down:

The Japanese, in their earthiness, have also made all kinds of Bodhidharma pictures through the centuries ... such as the many "Bodhidharma & the Geisha" pictures by Utagawa and others (still not quite smiling though! ) ...

In more recent times, I do like the Bodhidharma action figures, ready to clear the room of the unenlightened!

https://manofactionfigures.com/produ...ure-triad-toys

Gassho, J

STLah

In my experience rapturous samadhi is something that can be stumbled on as a meditative state but I don't think it is the logical consequence of non-duality. That Bodhidharma with the Geisha is great. I've never seen that one.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Ah, this is the great Koan that must be experienced, not merely encountered intellectually (as Kotei so rightly says). Master Dogen wrote,



Suchness and division are not two ... and yet most people, in their ignorance, do not realize so and only encounter division. Our practice is to realize (grock, understand) and realize (make real in life through our living so) such fact. Only then is samsara, this world of division, the same as before, yet completely different.

Gassho, J

STLah

If duality and non-duality are not a duality then how is there room for deviation? Non-duality and the non-duality of duality and non-duality in my experience don't leave much of a sense that there is much room to deviate from the suchness of suchness.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

If duality and non-duality are not a duality then how is there room for deviation? Non-duality and the non-duality of duality and non-duality in my experience don't leave much of a sense that there is much room to deviate from the suchness of suchness.

This is the point where any decent Zen teacher would bop you on the head, toss you out of the room, and tell you to go wash your bowls.

Fortunately for you, I am not a decent Zen teacher.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

This is the point where any decent Zen teacher would bop you on the head, toss you out of the room, and tell you to go wash your bowls.

Fortunately for you, I am not a decent Zen teacher.

Gassho, J

STLah

To me this kind of resorting to stereotypical zen antics smacks of a cop out. If duality and non-duality are not a duality then how can you deviate from suchness? That is a serious question about the ultimate implications of a non-dual point of view and not something to be hedged.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

To me this kind of resorting to stereotypical zen antics smacks of a cop out. If duality and non-duality are not a duality then how can you deviate from suchness? That is a serious question about the ultimate implications of a non-dual point of view and not something to be hedged.

Well, you are asking me to explain why water is wet without diving in the water, but I will try.

In one view, there is only "ocean" in which water, swimmer and swimming, as well as sharks and snapper, coral and brine are only ocean. Ocean is just its water, swimmers, swimming, sharks and fish, coral and brine ... and water, swimmers, swimming, sharks and fish, coral and brine are precisely the ocean, not to mention the flowing life and activity of it all as all rolls and swirls together. Waves rise and fall, but there is only flowing ocean, nothing gained or lost. Shark eats swimmer, yet ocean is still ocean, so nothing actually comes and goes. What is more, coral is just ocean, sharks and swimmer are just ocean ... and since ocean is ocean is ocean ... coral is precisely shark which is thoroughly swimmer.

When the swimmer experiences, not just her coming and going, birthing and dying individual self pursued by sharks, but one's oceanness ... there is no death, no other place to go, no fear.

And yet ... swimmers are just swimmers, hungry sharks are hungry sharks ... and that is darn scary, so swim like hell to get away, lest ya get eaten!

Which is true? YES!

Our practice is to become good swimmers, swimming with grace, realizing both our swimmer nature and our ocean nature ... avoiding the sharks as we can lest we lose a leg or life, even though the sharks are just us and there is nothing to lose for all is ocean.

Now, forget all this silly talk about oceans and swimmers and fish, because the mere image and idea ... even the idea between the ears of the vast "ocean" ... does not even come close to capturing the actual ocean whose salt stings the eyes, and which flows endlessly across the horizon in all directions. Best to just jump in (= Zazen) and taste this briny whole in every drop on one's own tongue.

(Sorry I ran long ... maybe it is just all wet. )

Gassho, J

STLah

[gaurdianaq]

This also, is a standard answer that any religion might provide to advocate for their special claims. What you said runs the gamut from Mormons to Pentecostals to Scientologists so I'm not sure it's the best argument for the uniqueness in a Buddhist version of "it is what it is".

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

It might be a standard answer, but I think in this scenario it's the correct answer. When we explain things via words we can only explain by referring to other things we've already familiar with. If I asked you to describe the colour red to someone born blind, would you be able to do it? What about if I asked you to describe the music of Mozart to someone born deaf? These are things that must be personally experienced, now if you had someone who had never seen the colour purple, but had seen the colour blue. You might be able to say "it's kind of like blue, but not quite" that would get someone closer to the understanding of what purple is, but they'd still have to see purple to have actually experienced it, until then any conceptions they have about it are not likely to be accurate. The same could be said with music, even if someone had never heard Mozart, but had perhaps heard a different musician and had a general idea what different music notes/instruments sounded like, you might be able to use words to describe what Mozart sounds like, because they have a reference point of what a C note sounds like, a D note, etc etc.

I'll also say that I never liked these types of answers either, I would say "If it can't be described to me then how can I know it's real!?!? I can't just have faith!". It's only recently that I've begun to change my mind about this, and some of the zenny (two sides of a no sided coin) have started to make more sense to me. Do I believe I've fully experienced them? Definitely not, but I've decided I'm going to continue my practice with faith that it's worth doing. If I experience the oneness of all reality one day, then that's cool, if I don't... then that's cool too!

Apologies for going over 3 sentences.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[A.J.]

It might be a standard answer, but I think in this scenario it's the correct answer. When we explain things via words we can only explain by referring to other things we've already familiar with. If I asked you to describe the colour red to someone born blind, would you be able to do it? What about if I asked you to describe the music of Mozart to someone born deaf? These are things that must be personally experienced, now if you had someone who had never seen the colour purple, but had seen the colour blue. You might be able to say "it's kind of like blue, but not quite" that would get someone closer to the understanding of what purple is, but they'd still have to see purple to have actually experienced it, until then any conceptions they have about it are not likely to be accurate. The same could be said with music, even if someone had never heard Mozart, but had perhaps heard a different musician and had a general idea what different music notes/instruments sounded like, you might be able to use words to describe what Mozart sounds like, because they have a reference point of what a C note sounds like, a D note, etc etc.

I'll also say that I never liked these types of answers either, I would say "If it can't be described to me then how can I know it's real!?!? I can't just have faith!". It's only recently that I've begun to change my mind about this, and some of the zenny (two sides of a no sided coin) have started to make more sense to me. Do I believe I've fully experienced them? Definitely not, but I've decided I'm going to continue my practice with faith that it's worth doing. If I experience the oneness of all reality one day, then that's cool, if I don't... then that's cool too!

Apologies for going over 3 sentences.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

How it is possible to deviate from true non-duality is a legitimate question based on the position accepted in Zen that duality and non-duality are not a duality. It is not a matter of describing red to the blind but of being willing to examine the implications of an accepted position. Faith can go any direction and a Mormon could give you a similar argument for why you need to pray for the witness of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true so the above approach is pretty much pointless.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I'll also say that I never liked these types of answers either, I would say "If it can't be described to me then how can I know it's real!?!? I can't just have faith!". It's only recently that I've begun to change my mind about this, and some of the zenny (two sides of a no sided coin) have started to make more sense to me. Do I believe I've fully experienced them? Definitely not, but I've decided I'm going to continue my practice with faith that it's worth doing.

Just out of curiosity, are explanations (not original to me, by the way, and pretty standard) like the "ocean" and "swimmer/shark" thing above still fuzzy for you? Any sense of how it could be so? It is logical too, although not our standard mental geometry.

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?18091-Practice&p=270367&viewfull=1#post270367

Gassho, J

STLah

[gaurdianaq]

Just out of curiosity, are explanations (not original to me, by the way, and pretty standard) like the "ocean" and "swimmer/shark" thing above still fuzzy for you? Any sense of how it could be so? It is logical too, although not our standard mental geometry.

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?18091-Practice&p=270367&viewfull=1#post270367

Gassho, J

STLah

Nah not anymore. In fact the one about the ocean and the waves coming from the ocean and going back to the ocean (but never having been separate from the ocean in the first place) was one of the ones that helped me quite a bit in my understanding if I remember correctly.


Evan,
Sat todau, lah

[Jundo]

Nah not anymore.

Ah, that's bad, sorry to hear that. Drinking the kool-aid I see.

Gassho, J

STLah

[gaurdianaq]

Ah, that's bad, sorry to hear that. Drinking the kool-aid I see.

Gassho, J

STLah

Lol, somehow I had a feeling you were going to say something like that.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[A.J.]

Well, you are asking me to explain why water is wet without diving in the water, but I will try.

In one view, there is only "ocean" in which water, swimmer and swimming, as well as sharks and snapper, coral and brine are only ocean. Ocean is just its water, swimmers, swimming, sharks and fish, coral and brine ... and water, swimmers, swimming, sharks and fish, coral and brine are precisely the ocean, not to mention the flowing life and activity of it all as all rolls and swirls together. Waves rise and fall, but there is only flowing ocean, nothing gained or lost. Shark eats swimmer, yet ocean is still ocean, so nothing actually comes and goes. What is more, coral is just ocean, sharks and swimmer are just ocean ... and since ocean is ocean is ocean ... coral is precisely shark which is thoroughly swimmer.

When the swimmer experiences, not just her coming and going, birthing and dying individual self pursued by sharks, but one's oceanness ... there is no death, no other place to go, no fear.

And yet ... swimmers are just swimmers, hungry sharks are hungry sharks ... and that is darn scary, so swim like hell to get away, lest ya get eaten!

Which is true? YES!

Our practice is to become good swimmers, swimming with grace, realizing both our swimmer nature and our ocean nature ... avoiding the sharks as we can lest we lose a leg or life, even though the sharks are just us and there is nothing to lose for all is ocean.

Now, forget all this silly talk about oceans and swimmers and fish, because the mere image and idea ... even the idea between the ears of the vast "ocean" ... does not even come close to capturing the actual ocean whose salt stings the eyes, and which flows endlessly across the horizon in all directions. Best to just jump in (= Zazen) and taste this briny whole in every drop on one's own tongue.

(Sorry I ran long ... maybe it is just all wet. )

Gassho, J

STLah

I appreciate your honest attempt at an answer and there is some sense to it, although I must admit the constant insistence that to have serious questions is to refuse to dive in the water isn't something I find true or helpful.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I appreciate your honest attempt at an answer and there is some sense to it, although I must admit the constant insistence that to have serious questions is to refuse to dive in the water isn't something I find true or helpful.

Sorry you feel that way. Have been trying to respond to all your questions as possible. Now, let's all swim!

Gassho, J

STLah

[gaurdianaq]

Sorry you feel that way. Have been trying to respond to all your questions as possible. Now, let's all swim!

Gassho, J

STLah

Just a heads up, I don't think you meant it this way but "Sorry you feel that way" is considered to be a non-apology apology/a way to dismiss someones frustrations.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[Jundo]

Just a heads up, I don't think you meant it this way but "Sorry you feel that way" is considered to be a non-apology apology/a way to dismiss someones frustrations.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

I know what I meant.

Gassho, J

STLah