Being at Ease with the Self

[dharmasponge]

Hi Tony,

I know some people really dislike these discussions, and words do tend to lead us in circles! But “I” don’t “mind” discussing it. Shikantaza is the essential thing to do, no question. But I also think sometimes it’s ok to wonder and chatter like curious little monkeys. Sometimes sounding it out really helps to clarify things. It does for me, anyway; maybe it’s a “beginner” thing.

If you view the mind as an entity with a discrete existence, then yes, I suppose you would need to deal with it in some way, acknowledging, or doing something about it or not. But I think this view is an illusion that brings you into a hall of mirrors, with “I” reflecting off of “Mind”, and no end to it.

I was using the sea as a metaphor: the wave arises, but where is the boundary between the wave and the sea? There is no separation. In this metaphor the water has no need to acknowledge or do anything about the ocean or the wave... because they are all one, the same thing, just manifesting as their “water-ness”. I was trying to point to the idea that the mind may “arise from” Emptiness, but is not a separate thing from it.

I think you are saying that because you are sentient, you must respond to your perceptions of self and reality? The primary task, as I see it, is -- not to acknowledge or do anything about “mind” -- but rather to realize this fundamental nature, the real essence of mind, I, being, etc... They are all the same “stuff”. Realizing the nature of the water rather than cataloging oceans, waves, rivers, clouds, raindrops, etc.

The mind is not the root of your delusions. The idea of mind, self, or I, as a separate thing, is the delusion.

Anyway that’s how I see it. Today. Is there cake to go with our tea?

Gassho
Lisa
sat today

Hi Lisa,

I'm not sure discussing such deep philosophies as Emptiness and the nature of the mind is something 'chattering monkeys' would be capable of. But I agree some people dislike these types of discussion, personally I think they fear them - it's often a direct challenge to old fixed Memes. I suggest those that feel this way are beginners - though I appreciate its a very difficult subject.

A little understanding of Emptiness is worse than none at all.

I think Emptiness should be excluded for the Zen tradition at times as its only ever danced around and inferred to. Never debated or discussed. Those who do debate and discuss are, if experienced, also aware of the Emptiness of Emptiness etc...

Anyway, my OP was meant to be much less of a philosophical statement and more a discovery of an helpful tool I'd discovered in my sitting.

Tony...

Sat Today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Myosha]

Hi Lisa,

I'm not sure discussing such deep philosophies as Emptiness and the nature of the mind is something 'chattering monkeys' would be capable of. But I agree some people dislike these types of discussion, personally I think they fear them - it's often a direct challenge to old fixed Memes. I suggest those that feel this way are beginners - though I appreciate its a very difficult subject.

A little understanding of Emptiness is worse than none at all.

I think Emptiness should be excluded for the Zen tradition at times as its only ever danced around and inferred to. Never debated or discussed. Those who do debate and discuss are, if experienced, also aware of the Emptiness of Emptiness etc...

Anyway, my OP was meant to be much less of a philosophical statement and more a discovery of an helpful tool I'd discovered in my sitting.

Tony...

Sat Today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hello,

Amazing. Thank you.


Gassho
Myosha sat today

[Kokuu]

But I agree some people dislike these types of discussion, personally I think they fear them - it's often a direct challenge to old fixed Memes. I suggest those that feel this way are beginners - though I appreciate its a very difficult subject.

Hi Tony

I think that might be more than a little presumptive. Many people avoid these kinds of discussion because they do nothing for them. No fear, it just doesn't add anything to their practice. Some beginners love them, some advanced people don't and vice-versa. Personally, I don't mind discussing emptiness as my Gelug training was steeped in doing so. The one major problem is that many people take emptiness to be a thing, rather than the notion of anatta. Things don't arise from emptiness, they are empty. And that doesn't mean a vast field of emptiness but rather an interpenetrating field of causes and conditions that give rise to other things. As this arises, that arises. As this ceases, that ceases. Never think of emptiness without considering dependent-arising. They are two sides of the same coin. Because everything is dependently arisen, so it is empty of inherent self.

I have seen much discussion of emptiness and interdependence in Zen. Maybe not so much here but that is probably because a lot of Treeleaf folk are more interested in practice than philosophy. And there is probably a great deal of wisdom in that. Which is not to deride those who do have an interest in Buddhist philosophy but many come to Zen with a view to put it down in a box marked 'Here Be Dragons' and sit on their zafu instead.

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday (well, more sort of laid down and breathed)

[Yugen]

Being at Ease with the Self

Wait, it gets better.

Two things come out for me here....

Delusion ..... Is not separate from enlightenment. There is delusion within enlightenment and enlightenment within delusion. They are not separate while our minds, or the idea of our minds may make them so. Seeking enlightenment and viewing delusion as something to be avoided misses this. Practice = realization and all things arise here ..... The marrow of Dogen. Thank you Lisa...!

The big joyful opening for me in practice is that I have come to see no distinction between sentience and insentience. Contemplating the meaning of sentience may be a teaching vehicle as we move towards the understanding of the unity of all things. Dogen's Mountains and Rivers Sutra really helped me with this.

Deep bows
Yugen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dharmasponge]

Practice and philosophy are separate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yugen]

Being at Ease with the Self

Our actions are a manifestation of our personal beliefs. Philosophy is intended to support a "virtuous" life via action - or so Aristotle intended. Our personal narratives may vary from the truth behind our choices (Jung's Shadow lurks here)

Nishijima believes something similar to Aristotle by the way. Buddhism is very practical - it's a philosophy of action. Practice=realization

We have the precepts and the eightfold noble oath to guide us.

My view only -

Deep bows
Yugen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jishin]

Tony,

Why do you practice?

Gassho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Kokuu]

Practice and philosophy are separate?

Of course, they inform each other but philosophy tends to be rather conceptual so can get in the way of direct experience, in my opinion.

By intellectually understanding something, we may think we know it, yet sitting with things as they are brings us face-to-face with life.
Philosophy is only useful in that it aids practice. Otherwise it is just game for the mind.

“I don’t want to hear your philosophy if it doesn’t grow corn.” -- Sun Bear, Ojibwe elder

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday

[Yugen]

Well said Kokuu

Deep bows
Yugen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Byokan]

I agree some people dislike these types of discussion, personally I think they fear them - it's often a direct challenge to old fixed Memes.

I’m sure that’s true for some, but not everyone has a love for words and debate. People learn in different ways and express their understanding in different ways. I have a fondness for the written word, and hopefully the words we write here can help us, and others too. (Even if all we show is the futility of words!) When I’m posting like I did here, I’m not trying to exhibit what I know... I’m saying, this is my current understanding, and I’m hoping someone will come along and challenge that understanding. I want to know where the weak spots are or what I’m overlooking. Am looking for clues, course corrections, turning words. For instance:

Things don't arise from emptiness, they are empty. And that doesn't mean a vast field of emptiness but rather an interpenetrating field of causes and conditions that give rise to other things. As this arises, that arises. As this ceases, that ceases. Never think of emptiness without considering dependent-arising. They are two sides of the same coin. Because everything is dependently arisen, so it is empty of inherent self.

Wowza! Thank you Kokuu, this totally closes a circuit for me. I tend to visualize Emptiness as a field of potentialities, but was not fully making the connection... I will never think of Emptiness again without considering dependent-arising.

Philosophy is intended to support a "virtuous" life via action

Yes, this is the only legitimate aim. Our actions, not our thoughts/beliefs, are the ground we stand on. The only reason to seek to understand is so that we may better know how to act.

The big joyful opening for me in practice is that I have come to see no distinction between sentience and insentience. Contemplating the meaning of sentience may be a teaching vehicle as we move towards the understanding of the unity of all things.

10,000 yeses, Yugen! This is an understanding that changes everything, throws doors and windows wide open, illuminates and clarifies the very nature of existence. Whether a thing “thinks” in a way we recognize, or has our particular brand of self-consciousness, is not at all a meaningful measure of it, in the bigger picture. My words can’t contain my understanding of this, but sentient or not, each thing expresses its own nature, and ultimately the nature of all is one. Which is, I think, the answer to Tony’s original question. Thank you Tony, for once again leading us into a very interesting discussion.

There is no cake.

Ongen, you wound me to the core. Hey, what are those crumbs on your jacket?

Gassho
Lisa
sat today

[Joyo]

Hi Tony

Many people avoid these kinds of discussion because they do nothing for them. No fear, it just doesn't add anything to their practice.
Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday (well, more sort of laid down and breathed)

Yes, thank you!

Perhaps my practice will change as I go along, but maybe it won't. For me, I just like to keep things simple...sit, chant, study the dharma, chop wood, carry water. No fear, as that is dropped as the above is practiced.

Gassho,
Joyo
sat today

[Jundo]

Hi Tony

Many people avoid these kinds of discussion because they do nothing for them. No fear, it just doesn't add anything to their practice.
Gassho
Kokuu

And sometimes best to avoid this kind of discussion because some questions also vanish when one stops asking them and drops the whole question. "Would a horse with wings actually be a fish? Let's think about it!"

If you really want to challenge people's "old fixed memes", don't merely get them to think about things in a new way, but sometimes challenge their way of thinking at all!

Looking for "who sees it arise?" is a very different matter when one abandons "who" and "it" and simply lives the "arising". Asking the very question reifies a "who" and "you" and an "it" ... and creates the divisions between. There is just who, and that's it! ... So now, sit, chant, study the dharma, chop wood, carry water. No fear.

Philosophy is sometimes helpful and fun ... and sometimes creates the mess, and gets in the way of true Understanding.

By the way, "Emptiness" is not something to be neglected. Here is my best stab at expressing such ... as dance dancing ...

Buddha-Basics (Part XVII) — The Dance of Emptiness

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?7723-Buddha-Basics-%28Part-XVII%29-%C2%97-The-Dance-of-Emptiness

But it is ultimately a losing effort: One cannot really describe a dance even with the finest poetry or detailed step diagrams, nor is the problem resolved by asking "who is truly dancing?" One just needs to throw oneself into the dance, two left feet and all.

The big joyful opening for me in practice is that I have come to see no distinction between sentience and insentience. Contemplating the meaning of sentience may be a teaching vehicle as we move towards the understanding of the unity of all things.

That mountains, rivers and all the like things of the universe are "sentient beings" was not really a traditional idea of Buddhism, and was rather a later view of some Tendai folks. It came into Soto Zen through Dogen's years as a Tendai priest while young and through some other channels. Even so, Dogen used the term in a kinda mixed way, rather ambiguous on the idea that "non-sentient" beings are really "sentient" even though he called them such. So, splitting a rock in two with a hammer is not the same as taking a hammer to the head of the man next door.

But it is a lovely sentiment that this universe is so interconnected, interdependent and interflowing that ... yes, the rivers preach with the Buddha's tongue. Dr. Kim, the great Dogenologist, presents a good short discussion of this from the bottom of page 196 here, discussing Dogen's "Mujo Seppo" ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=bUAq8JqRqTIC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=dogen+sentient+insentient+beings&source=bl&ots=zNulJd6If6&sig=q_KqJLEb5FpdjQkG8h1lI7X0I6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4cwgVfftN8HssAX6-4KIDA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dogen%20sentient%20insentient%20beings&f=false

But, again, sometimes philosophy can get in the way of just hearing the "sentient insentient being non-beings" preach.

A famous Koan on this from the Soto Ancestor, Dongshan, and his master, Yunyen (Master Dogen's Shinji-Shobogenzo, Case 148) ...

Dongshan asked Yunyen, "Who can hear the teachings of the insentient?"

Yunyen said, "It can be heard by the insentient."

Dongshan asked, "Do you hear it, Master?"

Yunyen said, "If I heard it, then you would not hear my teaching."

Dongshan answered, "That being the case, then I do not hear your teaching."

Yunyen replied, "You don't even hear my teaching, how could you hear the teachings of the insentient?"

Dongshan was enlightened on hearing this and responded in verse:

Wondrous! Marvelous!
The teachings of the insentient are inconceivable.
If you listen with the ears, you won't understand.
When you hear with the eyes, then you will know.

Now, I am off to chop wood, carry water. No fear.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[dharmasponge]

Tony,

Why do you practice?

Gassho, Jishin, _/st\_

Why not? ( Jishin answer )

[Myosha]

What would you do with the answer?



Gassho
Myosha sat today

[Kokuu]

Grow a pair

Bit harsh, dude.

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday