Now you got it!Astus wrote:What is Zen? (so we don't omit it)jundo cohen wrote:You are trying to have a discussion of Zen leaving the Zen out of the Zen.
Nine bows, J
Now you got it!Astus wrote:What is Zen? (so we don't omit it)jundo cohen wrote:You are trying to have a discussion of Zen leaving the Zen out of the Zen.
So, it's ok to say that thread "makes Buddhism worse", but not ok to qualify that? How is that not proliferation? It's also endlessly amusing that you feel both qualified and compelled to over and over again come into these threads, tell people they are making Buddhism worse, yet can't muster any real alternatives to anything they are saying. Those are some pretty strong terms for someone who is advocating an approach of nonproliferation:)That being said, we need ordinary thinking to function, fix the sink, make a society of laws, practice medicine etc. Of course, Sometimes we even try to express Buddhism with it. Often by doing so, we make Buddhism worse (like the whole "Bilss in Zen" fiasco which drags us in the wrong direction).
Actually, I'm fine with that kind of discussion, non-discussion, or whatever.. some of the best Dharma teachings I've been to were near non-sequitur in their content, just like a loud pop I felt in my bones in response to all my expectations and crap I'd dreamed up. That's not what you're doing though, you're just repeating Zen slogans to avoid conversation.If you try to have a discussion about "intellectualization in Zen" ... then omit or discount as trickery or distraction all the word games that have that "stink of Zen" ... well, you are seeing things from one ignorant side only., You are totally missing the place of "intellectualization in Zen". Otherwise, it is like having a philosophical discussion of humor while leaving out being funny. a discussion of the the solar system while omitting the planets or sun. You are trying to have a discussion of Zen leaving the Zen out of the Zen.
Hi Johnny,Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Again we come to an interesting question though, which might actually be the heart of the thread: you seem to be saying that Zen is about certain specific, prescriptive uses of words and language while at the same time affirming that Zen is beyond the petty need of language. Is there some reason that Zen cannot be found in intellectual" words? Maybe more accurately, what is it exactly in this prescriptive form of "Zen talk" that makes it more suited than normal language?
Your wanting a "straight answer" is, to me, like asking for a "straight answer" regarding the place of bobsleds in Zen. What should I say?Thinking is linear and sequential, a separation from the reality that is the subject of thought, and thus is an abstraction rather than the reality itself. Not thinking is suppressive. It cuts away thoughts the moment they arise, making the mind into a great impenetrable mountain — dead, unresponsive. Non-thinking has no such edges. It is the boundless mind of samadhi that neither holds on to, nor lets go of, thoughts. It is the manifestation of the buddha mind in which the dualism of self and other, thinking and not thinking dissolve. This is the dharma of thusness that is the right thought of all the buddhas in the ten directions.
Bet you didn't see that one coming JD!jundo cohen wrote:Truth can be found in intellectual words, but not as intellectual words as well as no intellectual words and as intellectual words, much as found in Johnny not as Johnny and what Johnny and as Johnny.
Well, the problem is the confusion ... In reality, the picture of an orange is not an orange, it's a picture.conebeckham wrote:That's a very bare instance of "naming"--it's definitely prapanca, but I don't believe that's what people find fault with.
Actually, in reality you only have the mental image of the picture of an orange. Your mental image is neither a picture nor an orange.SeeLion wrote:Well, the problem is the confusion ... In reality, the picture of an orange is not an orange, it's a picture.conebeckham wrote:That's a very bare instance of "naming"--it's definitely prapanca, but I don't believe that's what people find fault with.
Sherab Dorje wrote:Bet you didn't see that one coming JD!jundo cohen wrote:Truth can be found in intellectual words, but not as intellectual words as well as no intellectual words and as intellectual words, much as found in Johnny not as Johnny and what Johnny and as Johnny.
You could start by actually trying to answer the OP questions in good faith.Jundo Cohen wrote:Your wanting a "straight answer" is, to me, like asking for a "straight answer" regarding the place of bobsleds in Zen. What should I say
So again here we go, you are willing to call us out as "misleading" but either unwilling or incapable of saying how we are misled, or how we are misleading anyone by asking questions.At worse they mislead, as in the whole "What is Bliss in Zen" fiasco.
Everyone has already acknowledged the limits of words and conceptual thought, we all get that. Nonetheless, it's a discussion forum, so...)((&* or get off the pot, IMO.Let me try one more time: We sometimes try to explain stuff, but ultimately it misleads and misdescribes, especially if "linear and sequential" thinking is all one relies on. Thus, the "Bliss in Zen" fiasco. One tries to get closer, ends up farther away. One has to also turn the words on their head, or throw them back into somebody's face (as so many of those old Koan's do, as this easy one) ...
Who are you?A monastic asked Mazu, "Aside from the four propositions and hundred negations1, please tell me the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from India."2
Mazu said, "I'm tired today. I cannot answer your question.3 Go and ask Zhichang."
The monastic asked the same question of Zhichang,5 and Zhichang said, "Why don't you ask the Master?"6
The monastic said, "The Master has sent me to you."7
Zhichang said, "I have a headache today. I cannot answer your question.8 Go and ask Senior Hai."9
The monastic asked the same question of Hai,10 and Hai said, "Having gotten to this point, I don't understand it."11
The monastic went back to Mazu and told him the story.12
Mazu said, "Zhichang's head is white; Hai's head is black.
The Commentary [by Daido Loori]
This monastic is sad indeed. His questions only succeeded in driving these adepts nostril-deep in muck and water, in an effort to help him, and in the end he still didn't get it. Be that as it may, do you get it? Mazu was tired and sent him to Zhichang. Zhichang tried to send him back to Mazu. When that failed, he said he had a headache and sent him to Baizhang, who in turn said he didn't understand it. These adepts were accomplished Dharma Masters; why would they avoid such a challenge? Is it just that it is inexpressible given the context of the monastic's question, or did they indeed address the matter? If you can see clearly into this you will understand it from the outset. The whole scenario was a redundant disaster up to and including Mazu's "Zhichang's head is white; Hai's head is black." And yet, at the same time, all of it went beyond the four propositions and hundred negations. ...
The four propositions and hundred negations are an aspect of Indian philosophy and analytical logic. The four propositions are the basic terms of: one, many, being, and nonbeing; or phrasing it another way, existence, nonexistence, both existence and nonexistence, and neither existence nor nonexistence. Each one of these conditions has four particular negations, and that makes a total of sixteen permutations; then, by introducing past, present and future, the number of conditions goes up to forty-eight; then these are doubled as having already arisen, or being about to arise, and that brings us to ninety-six; then we add the simple negation of the original four, and we have a hundred negations. In view of this, what the monastic's question asks is how do you directly transcend words and ideas; how do you express the truth of Buddhism? That puts a very clear restriction on how the question can be answered. ...
The commentary to the koan in this case says, If you can see clearly into this you will understand it from the outset. The whole scenario was a redundant disaster... How was it redundant, and what made it a disaster? The redundancy lies in the fact that the same truth was expressed again and again yet the monastic never got it. ...up to and including Mazu's "Zhichang's head is white; Hai's head is black." And yet, at the same time, it went beyond the four propositions and hundred negations. How did it go beyond? How did it avoid falling into one side or the other? Why is it even necessary to abandon the four propositions and hundred negations to see the reality of Bodhidharma's coming from India? ...
His questions only succeeded in driving these adepts nostril-deep in muck and water, in an effort to help him, and in the end he didn't get it. The expression "muck and water" has to do with being involved in delusion, discrimination, and mundane affairs. The adepts' answers put them in the world of differentiation, but all to no avail - the monastic never got it. So, were these Dharma masters avoiding the challenge, or was it just that it could not be expressed given the limitations the monastic put on the whole thing? He said they had to go beyond the four propositions and hundred negations. How can you answer without falling into some kind of philosophical explanation? Did Zhichang's headache explain it? Did Baizhang's not understanding it explain it? Did Mazu's "one head is white, the other's head is black" explain it? What are they talking about? What does this say about the truth of your life? That is what this koan is about. It is not some esoteric question that had to do with Buddhism in seventh century China. It has to do with right now - your life. It has to do with the questions of what is truth, what is reality, what is God, what is life, what is death, who am I?
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ma's__.htm
In that thread, it was very nicely discussed and settled that some people meant "bliss" in a more ordinary "feeling blissful" meaning, and some meant "bliss" in a meaning that was more transcendent beyond our ordinary human meanings of joy, happiness and jollies. It was also discussed that one should not chase after bliss experiences. Lovely.DGA wrote:
I'd like to know:
1. ... I say this because it didn't read like a tangled mess to me, apart from some well-meaning but repetitive and off-topic reminders that it's a bad idea to seek after bliss experiences in meditation practice (yes, we get it).
I believe I address this quite clearly in the opening portion of this post, together with the commentary by Daido. NO PROBLEM TO THINK ABOUT THIS STUFF. THEN THROW YOUR WORDS AWAY, PERHAPS AFTER TWISTING THEM UP AND PLAYING WITH THEM A LITTLE TO GET THE JUICE OUT. You cannot discussion "intellectualization in Zen" without also be willing to burn the books and upset the finely set dinner table.2. what "intellectualization" even means. is it prapanca? If so, then it would have no place in any Buddhist practice; it's not something that would have value in some but not others; and therefore, it seems to be something other than prapanca. But if it isn't prapanca, then what is meant by it?
It was only half the picture at best. The "can't discuss this" and "let's play with this and squeeze the juice out" is missing.3. what is it about the discussion on Bliss that might impede realization? It seemed to me that the discussion was oriented around practice and largely constructive. What did I miss in there that was so counterproductive?
^^^This is uninformed gibberish^^^jundo cohen wrote:Truth can be found in intellectual words, but not as intellectual words as well as no intellectual words and as intellectual words, much as found in Johnny not as Johnny and what Johnny and as Johnny. Truth is expressed precisely in intellectual words (as well as precisely everything else in reality, including silly words, swords and silence), but intellectual words do a terrible job at expressing truth (merely middle fingers pointing to the moon). At worse they mislead, as in the whole "What is Bliss in Zen" fiasco.
That is my answer. You are barking up the wrong tree, and it ain't the Cypress Tree in the Garden.
Your thinking these are "slogans" or my ducking the questions or pulling the wool over your ideas may perhaps indicate that you are not even sure what the questions are that are being asked. My responses are straight (though seemingly crooked to ordinary ways of talking) from a Zenny take ...
^^^This is a straightforward and informed answer by somebody that actually knows what they are talking about.^^^Thinking is linear and sequential, a separation from the reality that is the subject of thought, and thus is an abstraction rather than the reality itself. Not thinking is suppressive. It cuts away thoughts the moment they arise, making the mind into a great impenetrable mountain — dead, unresponsive. Non-thinking has no such edges. It is the boundless mind of samadhi that neither holds on to, nor lets go of, thoughts. It is the manifestation of the buddha mind in which the dualism of self and other, thinking and not thinking dissolve. This is the dharma of thusness that is the right thought of all the buddhas in the ten directions.
Introspection can very easily lead to chasing after thoughts and feelings, intellectual analysis, etc... Which is why Right View is so important. Without a correct understanding one can sit for 100 years engaging in daydreams, fantasies or discursive thought and come no closer to realisation.muni wrote:Sorry, as I jump here in between.
Isn't it so that by intellectualizing not the words are a problem, not phenomena are the problem, but the clinging mind? Not-intellectualizing is turning the gaze within, to see how this is and discover silent peace/nothing to grasp. Talk can be then as well, thoughts can be used as tool but we(awareness) are not used by them.
Not sure this makes sense.
This is by misunderstanding, is grasping, therefore there is guidance necessary.Introspection can very easily lead to chasing after thoughts and feelings, intellectual analysis, etc...
See ? That's the problem ...Actually, in reality you only have the mental image of the picture of an orange. Your mental image is neither a picture nor an orange.
Speaking for myself: I never said that Zen people don't make sense. I said that one person who says a lot of things about Zen said something that seemed contradictory, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification.jundo cohen wrote:LET ME PUT THIS DIRECTLY: I may not be the most talented Zen guy around, and I have no poetic genius. But do you realize how silly it looks to come into a Zen forum and say to Zen people "you don't make sense, your words give me a headache or don't look authentic to me, let me put right and straighten out your Zen through logical discussion based on philosophical or other Buddhist traditions disregarding what Zen folks have to say about their Zen"?
most people are lost in their thoughts, clear your mind of thoughts and then you can perceive ''this'' ordinary/universal mind.
intellect/understanding is unable to see the nameless, wordless and conceptless. however there is a role for intellect to point towards the nameless.
Hi SD,Sherab Dorje wrote:Introspection can very easily lead to chasing after thoughts and feelings, intellectual analysis, etc... Which is why Right View is so important. Without a correct understanding one can sit for 100 years engaging in daydreams, fantasies or discursive thought and come no closer to realisation.muni wrote:Sorry, as I jump here in between.
Isn't it so that by intellectualizing not the words are a problem, not phenomena are the problem, but the clinging mind? Not-intellectualizing is turning the gaze within, to see how this is and discover silent peace/nothing to grasp. Talk can be then as well, thoughts can be used as tool but we(awareness) are not used by them.
Not sure this makes sense.
Now, of course, the NATURE of thoughts and feelings is emptiness, but without an initial understanding of this truth can realisation arise?
What do you say Jundo?
From such a perspective, to ask and answer a question about Buddhist doctrine in a straight and ordinary way is an abomination, a perversion. It is the crooked that is in fact straight, the straight that is actually crooked. (Thus even to ask a question such as "Is there bliss in Zen" or "silent peace" might need to be answered yes and no simultaneously, something transcending yes/no/bliss ... and possibly even asking the questions is the cause of delusion and terminally misleading).The Great Master Xideng ... addressed the assembly, saying, “A person is up a tree above a thousand foot precipice. His mouth bites the tree branch; his feet don’t stand on the tree; his hands don’t hang on a branch. All of a sudden, a person beneath the tree asks him, ‘What is the intention of the ancestral master’s coming from the west?’
... “A person is up a tree above a thousand foot precipiece”: we should quietly investigate these words. What is the “person”? If it is not a column, we should not call it a post. Though it be the face of a buddha and the face of an ancestor breaking into a smile, we should not be mistaken about the meeting of self and other. This place where “a person is up a tree” is not the entire earth, not “a hundred foot pole”; it is “a thousand foot precipice.” Even if he drops off, he is within “a thousand foot precipice.” There is a time of dropping, a time of climbing. Where he says, “A person is up a tree above a thousand foot precipice,” we should realize that this is saying there is a time of climbing. Consequently, ascent is a thousand feet, descent is a thousand feet; left is a thousand feet, right is a thousand feet; here is a thousand feet, there is a thousand feet. “A person” is a thousand feet; “up a tree” is a thousand feet. So far, a thousand feet should be like this. Now, what I ask is, “what size is a thousand feet?’ It is the size of “the old mirror”; it is the size of “the brazier”; it is the size of “the seamless pagoda.”
... “His mouth bites the tree branch.” What is the “mouth”? Even though we do not know the whole mouth, the whole vastness of the mouth, we will know the location of the mouth by starting from “the tree branch” and “searching the branches and plucking at the leaves” for a while. By grasping the branch for a while, the mouth was made. Therefore, the whole mouth is the branch; the whole branch is the mouth. It is the mouth throughout the body; throughout the mouth is the body. The tree stands on the tree; therefore, it says, “his feet don’t stand on the tree,” as if his feet themselves stand on his feet. The branch hangs on the branch; therefore, it says, “his hands don’t hang on a branch,” as if his hands themselves hang on his hands. Nevertheless, his feet still “step forward and step back”; his hands still make a fist and open a fist. We and others sometimes think he is “hanging in space.” However, can “hanging in space” compare with “biting the tree branch”
... Therefore, we should realize that all the buddhas and ancestors who answer [the question of] “the intention of coming from the west” have been answering it as they encounter the moment of “up a tree, his mouth biting the tree branch”; all the buddhas and ancestors who ask about “the intention of coming from the west” have answered it as they encounter the moment of “up a tree, his mouth biting the tree branch.”
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/szt ... ation.html
I so much agree. One aspect, however, is that the Zen Way (I don't think there is only one. by the way) to express this "Right View" and realization may be a little "multi-faceted and non-faceted", ie, simple but not so simple. Again Dogen (Sanjûshichihon bodai bunpō):Right View is so important. Without a correct understanding one can sit for 100 years engaging in daydreams, fantasies or discursive thought and come no closer to realisation.
Multi-faceted, non-faceted, facets in facets and non in non ... thinking non thinking.“Right view as a branch of the path” is the inside of the eyes containing the body. At the same time, even prior to the body we must have the
eye that is prior to the body. Though the view has been grandly realized in the past, it is realized now as the real universe and is experienced immediately. In sum, those who do not put the body into the eyes are not Buddhist patriarchs.
"The branch of Right Thought" is the coming forth of all the Buddhas in the ten quarters when we cultivate this mode of thinking. As a result, the coming forth of the ten quarters and the coming forth of the Buddhas is what the time when we cultivate this mode of thinking refers to. When we cultivate this mode of thinking, we are beyond self and transcend other. Even so, at the very moment that we are completely involved in thinking about the Matter, we have directed our course towards Varanasi.20 The place where this mode of thinking exists is Varanasi. The Old Buddha Yakusan once said, “What I was thinking about was based on not deliberately thinking about any particular thing.” An old monk says, “I am thinking the concrete state of not thinking.” “How can the state of not thinking be thought?” “It is different from thinking.” This is right consideration, right thinking. To break a zafu is right thinking
DGA wrote:Let's review. This thread emerged when Jundo said something (one particular person--remember, we all speak for ourselves here only) that seemed confusing. So I asked a question about it. To the best of my knowledge, that question has never been answered at all.
in the moon--that's your business, and no one cares. That's not at issue. What is at issue? This is a public forum; whatever you say, just like whatever I may say or what anyone else may say, is fair game for questioning, rebuttal, and exchange.
Instead what you are doing is drowning Zen teachings in some beautiful, but not-Zen at all, teachings and expressions, and Zen folks like Dharmagoat and me get stamped down. Here, in "Zen", I am happy to talk to Meido about Zen (respectfully agreeing to disagree sometimes), but I would not charge into the Rinzai Section and tell him why I think he is a old shavepate and Dogen thought his Ancestors were full of gas etc.Open Dharma
A forum for comparing and contrasting different Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings, including controversial ones, for the sake of deeper understanding. This is the place to discuss 'hot topics' such as rebirth, karma, and differences between schools - but always within the Terms of Service and the guidelines for Right Speech.