Help

[ghop]

Re: Help

Incedentally, here are some quotes by Quaker authors that I like,
the first from Isaac Pennington, which sounds like the Quakers
were on to a style of prayerful waiting that sounds kinda like zazen.
The second from John Woolman, which is as open minded as I've
ever read from any Christian.

Give over thine own willing; give over thine own running; give over thine own desiring to know, or to be any thing, and sink down to the seed which God sows in the heart; and let that grow in thee, and be in thee, and breathe in thee, and act in thee, and thou shalt find by sweet experience, that the Lord knows that, and loves and owns that, and will lead it to the inheritance of life, which is his portion. And as thou takest up the cross to thyself, and sufferest that to overspread and become a yoke over thee, thou shalt become renewed, and enjoy life, and everlasting inheritance in that.
-----

"There is a Principle which is pure, placed in the human Mind, which in different Places and Ages hath had different Names; it is, however, pure, and proceeds from God. It is deep, and inward, confined to no Forms of Religion, nor excluded from any, where the Heart stands in perfect Sincerity. In whomsoever this takes Root and grows, of what Nation soever, they become Brethren"
"The inhabitants of the earth have often appeared to me as one great family consisting of various parts, divided by great waters, but united in one common interest, that is, In living righteously according to that light and understanding wherein Christ doth enlighten every man that cometh into the world."

gassho
Greg

[Hans]

Re: Help

Hello everybody,

the following article sheds an interesting light on some of the issues that were raised in this thread....anyway it's a good read for anyone interested in Sanbo Kyodan and the historical origins of some of the things the we "masses" now consider to be be typical of "Zen" (it being a wisdom behind/beyond all religions etc. etc.). Well worth the read methinks.

http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications ... df/456.pdf


Gassho,

Hans

[ghop]

Re: Help

Jundo, (and all)...

I started this post because I was in a funk.
Well, zazen seems to have both started the problem and settled it.
It's amazing what kind of demons "just sitting" turns loose! But it also makes them vanish.

So, I came across an older post from Beliefnet, Oct. 14, 2009.
You talk about turning the light to shine inward.
This has been on my mind alot lately.
You said,

"That you still do not grasp the certainty of this principle is because your thinking scatters, like wild horses, and your emotions run wild, like monkeys in a forest. If you can make those monkeys and horses, just once, take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward, then naturally you will be completely integrated. This is the means by which we, who are [ordinarily] set into motion by things, become able to set things into motion."

Is "turning the light inward" the same as just returning to "this?" Is it something special we do with our awareness during zazen, such as putting special emphasis on "watching" our thoughts? Or is it just simply coming back to the bare bones awarness of the fact that I am a body, sitting in this place, not seperate from what is happening?

Could you talk a little more about what "turning the light to shine inward" means?
Either here, or in a talk on Sunspace?

gassho
Greg

[Jundo]

Re: Help

Hi Greg,,

Both Taigu and I will have to be away from here for a few days due to other obligations and travel. I will be looking in. I promise to return to this as soon as I return next week.

It is not posted yet, but Friday's sit-a-long is on point, I think.

Gassho, J

[Nick B]

Re: Help

I was raised a protestant Christian and I have formally renounced Christianity for about ten years now.

When it was all said and done it was not whether or not there is a God that informed my decision. It came down to the central message of Christianity, which is that we are all born with a fundamental flaw, an original sin and nothing can remove that sin except a perfect human sacrifice. This perfect human sacrifice is the new covenant as opposed to the old covenant of a perfect animal sacrifice used to remove sin. It is here that I found the fundamental error of Christianity for me, even Paul points out that this is the essence of the religion and no one can rightly call themselves a Christian without accepting this human sacrifice as there own. A sacrifice given to God and in which one is washed in the blood of this sacrifice for the removal of sin, which in turn grants one eternal life in paradise.

When it comes down to it, the only reason most of the Christians I have met in my life are Christian is for the sake of their souls, with life after death being the main concern and eternal torture coming in a close second. Now I understand that there are people out there who are far more spiritual then those who I have had contact with, so please don't take my statements as absolutes, they do not apply to all people for all time.

When I did formally renounce Christianity, I had to face the fact, that the religion says, to do so, means that when I die I will for sure go to a fiery lake and fry :twisted: , until I am wiped out of all existence, for all time. Even my mother gave her motherly advice of "well... may be you should just be a Christian, just a little bit, just in case because.... you never know."

Once I was willing to stand by my choice, even if it meant I would fry and die, the Christian religion melted away from my mind and at present it is no more real to me than Greek mythology.

I choose to share my experience not to belittle Christians or Christianity or to judge, but to show that one can be free from the shackles of the Christian religion if they are willing to make the conscious choice to do so and at the same time accepting the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be.

Best wishes

Edited one to many thens.

[Jundo]

Re: Help

Is "turning the light inward" the same as just returning to "this?" Is it something special we do with our awareness during zazen, such as putting special emphasis on "watching" our thoughts? Or is it just simply coming back to the bare bones awarness of the fact that I am a body, sitting in this place, not seperate from what is happening?

Hi Greg,

I would not overly analyze this, as it is more a knowing in the doing. Otherwise, it is like asking what the experience of "eating ice cream" is ... which is something to be known in experience, not words.

However, I would say that "turning the light inward" is to just sit vibrantly, yet unattached to conditions within or without (not two). Dogen wrote in Fukanzazengi "learn the backward step that turns your light inwardly to illuminate your self." Another translation is "allow the external seeking of your mind to collapse upon itself and light up your own nature".

The Ancestor Shitou wrote, "Turn around the light to shine within, then just return. . . . Let go of hundreds of years and relax completely."

Our senses are usually pointed outward, grasping and judging. Even when we think about our selves, our lives, we judge it as an object (we judge our life like we judge everything, with aversions, attractions. We have attachments.). Withdraw all that looking and judging outward. turning the light around. Let that light just shine.

Does that shed some light on the question?

Gassho, Jundo (written from the road)

[Rich]

Re: Help

I choose to share my experience not to belittle Christians or Christianity or to judge, but to show that one can be free from the shackles of the Christian religion if they are willing to make the conscious choice to do so and at the same time accepting the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be.

Best wishes

Edited one to many thens.

Please consider that you may also be free of all the shackles that the human mind is capable of creating and this is also a conscious choice - a kind of will to the truth.
/Rich

[ghop]

Re: Help

Does that shed some light on the question?

It does. Thanks for the answers.

gassho
Greg

[CraigfromAz]

Re: Help

Please consider that you may also be free of all the shackles that the human mind is capable of creating and this is also a conscious choice [emphasis added]- a kind of will to the truth.
/Rich

This may be the most optimistic post I have read. I'm counting on you being right!

[Rich]

Re: Help

I was raised a protestant Christian and I have formally renounced Christianity for about ten years now.

When it was all said and done it was not whether or not there is a God that informed my decision. It came down to the central message of Christianity, which is that we are all born with a fundamental flaw, an original sin and nothing can remove that sin except a perfect human sacrifice. This perfect human sacrifice is the new covenant as opposed to the old covenant of a perfect animal sacrifice used to remove sin. It is here that I found the fundamental error of Christianity for me, even Paul points out that this is the essence of the religion and no one can rightly call themselves a Christian without accepting this human sacrifice as there own. A sacrifice given to God and in which one is washed in the blood of this sacrifice for the removal of sin, which in turn grants one eternal life in paradise.



Edited one to many thens.

I was thinking that this original sin may symbolically be the same as 'being in delusion' as Buddhists like to say. Accepting the existence and causes of suffering goes a long way in washing away original sin and I guess letting go of the self is a kind of sacrifice to have eternal life in this paradise right now.

Please consider that you may also be free of all the shackles that the human mind is capable of creating and this is also a conscious choice [emphasis added]- a kind of will to the truth.
/Rich

This may be the most optimistic post I have read. I'm counting on you being right!

Yea, I'm an eternal optimist but not always right

[Hans]

Re: Help

Hello Rich,

with all due respect, original sin and karmic delusions are two completely different concepts, whether you see it symbolically or not.

Whether you're looking at the Catholic church's, Martin Luther's or Calvin's take....original sin means we as humans are flawed from the beginning. We are inherently not completely good.

Buddhadharma has it the exact opposite way around, there is delusion etc., but we ourselves are pure and perfect Dharmakaya reality as it manifests itself. The bottom of "We" (no matter how provisional a notion of "we" as individuals might be) is inherently pure and good.

My approach to this topic seems to be different from a lot of people's here. And I do not consider this to be pure intellectualising btw. but rather crucial points regarding what does and what does not constitute "right view". Buddhism is designed to "self-destruct",once the other shore is reached. We know that the -ism in Buddhism is just skillful means in a way. Christian and most other monotheist approaches do not work that way. At no point is one to abandon Jesus/Jahveh/Allah etc.


Gassho,

Hans

[ghop]

Re: Help

Whether you're looking at the Catholic church's, Martin Luther's or Calvin's take....original sin means we as humans are flawed from the beginning. We are inherently not completely good.

Buddhadharma has it the exact opposite way around,

I dunno. I like Rich's take on it. I mean, in Christianity
we are created in the image of God, and later flawed by
the fact that we act otherwise. Isn't this the same? We
are Buddha, but we behave like bastards? I do, at times.
I have no doubt that you do too. It's called being human.
Samsara makes us one. Sin makes us one. We deserve
hell because that's what we act like we want. We deserve
Samsara because that's what we act like we want. But in
the end, we are children of God. In the end, we are Buddha.
In fact, if we encounter any other Buddha than the one right
now, which is just ourself, we should kill him. Isn't this the
same as "Christ in you...?"

gassho
Greg

[Jundo]

Re: Help

Hello Rich,

with all due respect, original sin and karmic delusions are two completely different concepts, whether you see it symbolically or not.

Whether you're looking at the Catholic church's, Martin Luther's or Calvin's take....original sin means we as humans are flawed from the beginning. We are inherently not completely good.

Buddhadharma has it the exact opposite way around, there is delusion etc., but we ourselves are pure and perfect Dharmakaya reality as it manifests itself. The bottom of "We" (no matter how provisional a notion of "we" as individuals might be) is inherently pure and good.

My approach to this topic seems to be different from a lot of people's here. And I do not consider this to be pure intellectualising btw. but rather crucial points regarding what does and what does not constitute "right view". Buddhism is designed to "self-destruct",once the other shore is reached. We know that the -ism in Buddhism is just skillful means in a way. Christian and most other monotheist approaches do not work that way. At no point is one to abandon Jesus/Jahveh/Allah etc.


Gassho,

Hans

Hey Hans,

Well, I would suggest that we drop all thought of "flawed" or not, "from the beginning" or not, "opposites" or not, "deluded" or not, "pure and perfect" or not and all the rest. All should be dropped away, and thus the Flawless, Pure and Perfect realized which realizes both that flawed/flawless, pure/pureless, perfect/imperfect which the mind imposes on life. Same with that Dharmakaya which sweeps in all human conception of dharmakaya or sin, jesus and buddha, beginnings and origins and "self destructs".

In any case, what is most important is the sin/harm/karma we bring about through our volitional words, thoughts and acts in this life.

I would not be so sure what common ground can or cannot be found. It is only that very same mind which can or cannot find "other shores" and "common ground".

Gassho, J

[ghop]

Re: Help

I would not be so sure what common ground can or cannot be found. It is only that very same mind which can or cannot find "other shores" and "common ground".

Shunryu Suzuki...

"In Zen practice, mountains are not “over there,” but instated are here within our mind. If we pursue such practice continuously, action and non-action are not distinct phenomena. When our mind is river, the whole world is river. When this “non-arising” of outside phenomena is attained, inflexibility is cast off. When we feel that phenomena is outside of us, then the mind loses its flexibility i.e., is inflexible. When mind includes all things, e.g., rivers and mountains, then it is big and flexible. The various things we are aware of are temporary forms and colors of our mind."

gassho (and thanks Jundo!)
Greg

[Hans]

Re: Help

Hello,

I have no problem with a "we agree to disagree" situation, I get the feeling from this thread however, that there is a tendency in many of the posts to ultimately want to arrive at a conclusion that negates true differences in order to arrive at a slightly perennialist outcome. Countering "relative" arguments with "ultimate" viewpoints to me kills off any wish to actually have a meaningful argument based on relative, hitorical or conventional facts.

Jundo, just for the record, do you think that an acceptance of Anatta is crucial for to right view, or not?

Do you think that right view is essential for Zazen to actually be Zazen and not just a great meditation technique?

Gassho,

Hans

P.S. I won't post in this thread anymore, for Ithink that all I wanted to say has been said.