Re: God and Zen
I only had to look at one of those posted pictures to know this: To look at the image of a man with his head split open and say that it is anything other than a cause for deep and abiding compassion, and a proof that evil exists in the hearts and minds of man, is a misdirection and, frankly, perversion, of the essence of Zen. The notion of ‘not two’ and the exhortation to drop the idea of duality is not to say that evil is not evil and good is not good. It is intended to remind the practitioner that one cannot exist without the other. This co-dependant existence is the joining of both sides of the concept into the ‘One’. Darkness cannot be without Light, if this is so, then Darkness cannot be divided from Light, indeed can you point to where Darkness empirically ends and Light precisely begins? This is the non-dual aspect of our way, the shining Net of Indra which has individual jewels that reflect the myriad other jewels connected to one another with the unbreakable bonds of co-dependant existence.
I find it interesting, as Hans said, about the Judeo-Christian flavor of the conversations about God and so forth. Lately I’ve been reading what many consider to be ‘esoteric’ texts such as the Kybalion and the Corpus Hermeticum, and I’ve read many interesting things. For example, the older religions all point to the divinity of Man and the presence of the “God within us all” and how our thoughts and intentions (our ‘Will’) shape and change the physical world around us. These thoughts are not so different from our own Zen tradition. The Buddha exclaimed “All beings are the Tathagata, however their delusions keep them from attesting to the fact.” There is a passage in the Dhammapada that reads simply, “With our thoughts, we make the world.” The Buddha was just as much a sage and Master of the reality of this as was Hermes Trismegestus, a potent reminder of his own statement that “there were countless Buddhas before me, and shall be countless Buddhas after.” Not just a point in fact that many others understood the interconnectedness of all things, but the fact that this very body is the body of the Buddha, this very world is the Lotus Land.” We are all Buddhas, just as much as we are all “don’t know”, as Bodhidharma put it.
The rejection of the concept of duality must be taken carefully, like the medicine that it is. The correct amount to heal the sickness, too much is just as bad. The ancients also knew that all things in the world shared the aspect of polarity, but as with Zen, knew that things were circular in that the extremes of any one thing depended entirely on where one stood on that ever continuous circle, and that in fact that circle was a single unbroken ‘Whole”.
Need proof? For those who’ve received Jukai, look at the Bloodline chart you received. The Source is pure circle, which goes first to Shakyamuni Buddha our Master (also represented by a circle), then through all our ancestors, to the Venerable Taigu or Jundo, then to you and from you back to the Source…..in a big circle.
So from that stand point yes, it is not two in that the co-dependant, circular existence of all things is deeply interconnected and from that point of view, there is no difference between a corpse and a flower, but that in no way means that an image of a man with his head crushed is not a vision of brutality and evil. Non Duality is not meant to create people who don’t know the difference between good and evil, compassion and harm. A circle, when viewed from a particular vantage can appear to be a single line, and if stretched out far enough, a single point; the two opposing sides of the circle disappear. Not One, but also not Two.
Epicurus never really understood that. He required empirical proof on everything, which at first blush may resemble Buddha’s exhortation “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” But Epicurus, standing in his Garden, could have easily overheard those last few lines beginning with “But after observation” as they were spoken upon the Stoa. As far as I know, none of the 5 Good Emperors of Rome were Epicurian, but all were Stoics, and that philosophy, at the core of which was Compassion and Equality, were just as Buddhist as we Soto Zen practitioners are Stoics.
alan.r nails it -- no duality ... God is either in all or nothing ... no picking or choosing, no attachment, no duality ... so where is God? In his heaven? In your mind? only in one and not the other? God is everywhere at once or nowhere at all ... no picking or choosing, no attachment, no duality ...
Riddle me this Batman --- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]
Does God, evil,malevolence,ability,omnipotence,willingness. all morals, come from inner space or from outer space? Is it my perception of skanda or a cosmic wavelenghth of duality?
While the Buddha sat meditating beneath a tree, Brahma came and requested him to teach the Dharma. Did Buddha come from his skandas? Did he come from his mother's skandas? Did Brahma come from Buddha's skandas? Did Brahma come from Brahma's skanda's ? Did the Dharma come from Within or Without? Does Brahma come from the God realm or your skanda's?
The hungry ghosts that haunt you? How do you know them?
Not One, Not Two
Riddle me this Batman --- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]
Does God, evil,malevolence,ability,omnipotence,willingness. all morals, come from inner space or from outer space? Is it my perception of skanda or a cosmic wavelenghth of duality?
While the Buddha sat meditating beneath a tree, Brahma came and requested him to teach the Dharma. Did Buddha come from his skandas? Did he come from his mother's skandas? Did Brahma come from Buddha's skandas? Did Brahma come from Brahma's skanda's ? Did the Dharma come from Within or Without? Does Brahma come from the God realm or your skanda's?
The hungry ghosts that haunt you? How do you know them?
Not One, Not Two
I find it interesting, as Hans said, about the Judeo-Christian flavor of the conversations about God and so forth. Lately I’ve been reading what many consider to be ‘esoteric’ texts such as the Kybalion and the Corpus Hermeticum, and I’ve read many interesting things. For example, the older religions all point to the divinity of Man and the presence of the “God within us all” and how our thoughts and intentions (our ‘Will’) shape and change the physical world around us. These thoughts are not so different from our own Zen tradition. The Buddha exclaimed “All beings are the Tathagata, however their delusions keep them from attesting to the fact.” There is a passage in the Dhammapada that reads simply, “With our thoughts, we make the world.” The Buddha was just as much a sage and Master of the reality of this as was Hermes Trismegestus, a potent reminder of his own statement that “there were countless Buddhas before me, and shall be countless Buddhas after.” Not just a point in fact that many others understood the interconnectedness of all things, but the fact that this very body is the body of the Buddha, this very world is the Lotus Land.” We are all Buddhas, just as much as we are all “don’t know”, as Bodhidharma put it.
The rejection of the concept of duality must be taken carefully, like the medicine that it is. The correct amount to heal the sickness, too much is just as bad. The ancients also knew that all things in the world shared the aspect of polarity, but as with Zen, knew that things were circular in that the extremes of any one thing depended entirely on where one stood on that ever continuous circle, and that in fact that circle was a single unbroken ‘Whole”.
Need proof? For those who’ve received Jukai, look at the Bloodline chart you received. The Source is pure circle, which goes first to Shakyamuni Buddha our Master (also represented by a circle), then through all our ancestors, to the Venerable Taigu or Jundo, then to you and from you back to the Source…..in a big circle.
So from that stand point yes, it is not two in that the co-dependant, circular existence of all things is deeply interconnected and from that point of view, there is no difference between a corpse and a flower, but that in no way means that an image of a man with his head crushed is not a vision of brutality and evil. Non Duality is not meant to create people who don’t know the difference between good and evil, compassion and harm. A circle, when viewed from a particular vantage can appear to be a single line, and if stretched out far enough, a single point; the two opposing sides of the circle disappear. Not One, but also not Two.
Epicurus never really understood that. He required empirical proof on everything, which at first blush may resemble Buddha’s exhortation “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” But Epicurus, standing in his Garden, could have easily overheard those last few lines beginning with “But after observation” as they were spoken upon the Stoa. As far as I know, none of the 5 Good Emperors of Rome were Epicurian, but all were Stoics, and that philosophy, at the core of which was Compassion and Equality, were just as Buddhist as we Soto Zen practitioners are Stoics.
Comment