09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokalia1. It is not a Buddhist tradition! It is a movement of Buddhists eager to apply the insights from meditation practice and Dharma teachings to situations of social, political, environmental, and economic suffering and injustice.
(1) It is relatively new and is an extremely important part of Buddhism.
(2) SO a Koan is some form of skillful means for introducing an idea. I do not believe I contradicted that at all but rather affirmed it.
(3) These sorts of Zen koans are also given to laypersons who are scarcely initiates.
(4) I do not really get the passive aggression ...[text shortened]... an in a similar way to how I did:
http://taosangha-na.com/blog/the-sound-of-one-hand-clapping/
2. Koans never introduce an "idea". All the ideas are part of the conceptual awareness of the mind, they belong to the relative level of reality and they are related to the realism that takes place in the Floating World.
In fact koans were used as skillful means in order to promote non-conceptual awareness of persons well trained in a specific Buddhist tradition but who could not pass the Barrier of the Patriarchs and thus were unable to get directly enlightenment.
3. If a layperson is not trained to use his non-conceptual awareness, the koan is unsolvable by him. On the other hand, if a layperson is a pratyekabuddha, a koan is simply not a challenge to his awareness because he is beyond the Barrier of the Patriarchs koan. So what?
4. Passive aggression comes from your side, not mine. From my side comes clarity and love. Zen is a thunder that turns instantly the Darkness into Light. To see the thunder and realize it directly, you have earlier to do your chores in order not to miss it in a blink of the eye, and the chores are to conduct earlier specific analysis by means of conceptual awareness so that, at a given time, you could keep your eyes wide open.
But to keep both your conceptual and non-conceptual awareness so sharp is very hard, so the practitioner starts with specific sutras and meditation, and then conducts his conceptual analysis the way Nagarjuna points out at the Mulamadyamakakarikas, Sunyatasaptati etc., etc. Then the practitioner must meditate in order to sharpen his non-conceptual awareness, till he manages to see the thunder and realize instantly the nature of all dharmas along with the nature of the Mind.
So, Zen is not "understood", my feer, as you appear to think. Zen is just realized by means of one's non-conceptual awareness. When one says he "understands" Zen, he understands nothing, for in fact there is nothing to be understood.
5. Oh the horror.
If you are a member of this team, kindly please explain to the author of the article that Emptiness/ MU/ Sunyata is neither some sort of "infinite" or "ultimate truth", nor the koan is the gate of the Gateless Gate. In every Buddhist tradition, Emptiness is not to be understood as a description of reality as it were independent of human conceptual conventions. The absence of svabhava (Emptiness) is nothing the dharmas (in this context: phenomena) have intrinsically within themselves, but merely something which is projected into them from the outside in order to rectify a false cognition.
So the theory of Emptiness is not to be regarded as an "ultimately true" theory or some sort of "infinity", because such a theory would describe things as if they were independent of human concerns and interests, and this approach is not Buddhist. Mind you, if there were no human minds who mistakenly read the existence of Self into phenomena which lack it there would be no point in having a theory to correct this. Well, it is only due to our false view of things that Sunyata is required as a corrective. Sunyata is empty of inherent existence, that is.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaWiki means nothing to me. My sources are the Prajnaparamita, Ratnakuta, Avatamsaka and Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa literature.
Saying that this is the total foundation of it is off:
The teachings of Zen include various sources of Mahayana thought, especially Yogachara, the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras and the Huayan school, with their emphasis on Buddha-nature, totality, and the Bodhisattva-ideal.[8][9] The Prajñāpāramitā literature[10] and, to a lesser extent, Madhyamaka h ...[text shortened]... the 11th century during the Muslim incursion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
The "total foundation" is by any means the Dharma.
However, due to his place in the Buddhist thought and the development of the theory of Non-substantiality and Emptiness of all dharmas, Nagarjuna is regarded by all the Buddhist traditions as the first and most important systematizer of Mahayanist thought. Not only Madhyamaka and Ch’an/ Zen Buddhism are grounded on the Prajñāpāramitā literature, but also the Madhyamaka reasoning and the catuskoti influenced heavily the Zen tradition.
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelTake care of you and your boy and yours, Karoly!
Do not mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself, indeed
Cheers bro
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeLife is an illusion
Just not Zen.
(Life is an illusion).
(that must be taken seriously)
😵
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleMy circle of friend grows by one. Time for joy.
Take care of you and your boy and yours, Karoly!
😵
Sufferring and pain to come still , so we build up to it.
Thanks again Beastie
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetle(1) I did not say it was a tradition. It is quite new. It is also very important because we live in an age of democratization. Just as how the ethical teachings of Chrsitianity have large ramifications, so do the ethical teachings of Buddhism, and they inevitably enter the political sphere.
1. It is not a Buddhist tradition! It is a movement of Buddhists eager to apply the insights from meditation practice and Dharma teachings to situations of social, political, environmental, and economic suffering and injustice.
2. Koans never introduce an "idea". All the ideas are part of the conceptual awareness of the mind, they belong to the rela ...[text shortened]... s a corrective. Sunyata is empty of inherent existence, that is.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
(2) And here in Korea they give koans out to laypersons that visit the temple and have shown at least some desire to attend regularly.
(3) We're going nowhere with this. I think that a koan doesn't have to be that pretentious.
(4) That is a lot of obfuscation. Not entirely wrong, though. That's fine.
So if Zen is unexpressable, and too profound for all of us who are not on the way to enlightenment, you are coming at this with a devotee's perspective. That's fine. But it gets annoying when people want to explain it and then you respond with obfuscation and just hamming home these ideas of profundity.
It's fine but perhaps you would want to be more polite about it and try to explain your position more.
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @philokalia1. Engaged Buddhism is just what I told you. The fact that the subject of your Master is Engaged Buddhism ain't mean you perceive the Dharma the way a Ch'an initiate or a Yogacarin or a Madyamika perceive it. There is a reason for it.
(1) I did not say it was a tradition. It is quite new. It is also very important because we live in an age of democratization. Just as how the ethical teachings of Chrsitianity have large ramifications, so do the ethical teachings of Buddhism, and they inevitably enter the political sphere.
(2) And here in Korea they give koans out to laypersons that ...[text shortened]... ine but perhaps you would want to be more polite about it and try to explain your position more.
2. If the monks in your country want to give koans to laypersons, so be it. Instead of our conversation, I could well tell you: "Stain on your mirror", or "Your foal runs wild in a deserted land" or "Vast emptiness; Nothing holy". But I preferred to approach you as a Madhyamika, because I evaluated that, for the time being, I can reach you better through your conceptual awareness. No big deal.
3. Koans are not "pretentious", they are pointers. However, kindly please feel free to think whatever you want.
4. I cannot make you realize Ch'an; I can only make you conceive the main frame of the case at the relative level. Then you have to work either alone or with a teacher, if you want to do deeper.
Zen is a wee blurry at the relative level, and at the other one experiences do not exist. When one wants to "explain" it at the relative level, one does so and acknowledges that whatever one says is provisional, pure noise and must be discarded. So I point to the fishnet, and you are the one to get the fish if this is what you really want. When at last you will get the fish, get rid of the fishnet. That's all. Not profound at all, anybody can do it in a blink.
In fact you do not see the net, you think that you got the fish, and you compare this "fish" (Zen) with your beloved "fish" (Christianity) and you are happy with the outcome. In fact, you compare one picture of your own mind with another picture of your own mind. These two pictures are strictly mind-depended and they both lack of inherent existence. How dusty your Mirror herenow!
I am very sorry I am not polite. I can only give to you a fractal of my precious time.
"Enlightenment" is pure noise. "Enlightenment" is simply focus at a specific point of attention. I cannot explain Ch'an more. I have no position, so you will get no position from me.
Thank you so much for your time.
Namaste
😵
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetleListen to this c ***
1. Engaged Buddhism is just what I told you. The fact that the subject of your Master is Engaged Buddhism ain't mean you perceive the Dharma the way a Ch'an initiate or a Yogacarin or a Madyamika perceive it. There is a reason for it.
2. If the monks in your country want to give koans to laypersons, so be it. Instead of our conversation, I could wel ...[text shortened]... osition, so you will get no position from me.
Thank you so much for your time.
Namaste
😵
Off tap!
Originally posted by @black-beetle
1. Engaged Buddhism is just what I told you. The fact that the subject of your Master is Engaged Buddhism ain't mean you perceive the Dharma the way a Ch'an initiate or a Yogacarin or a Madyamika perceive it. There is a reason for it.
2. If the monks in your country want to give koans to laypersons, so be it. Instead of our conversation, I could wel ...[text shortened]... osition, so you will get no position from me.
Thank you so much for your time.
Namaste
😵
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @black-beetle...And I had thought koans were a way for your teacher to give you no useful information while making you do all the work on a problem that doesn't exist. This leaves the teacher free to enjoy some saki in her little spartan cell.
In fact koans were used as skillful means in order to promote non-conceptual awareness of persons well trained in a specific Buddhist tradition but who could not pass the Barrier of the Patriarchs and thus were unable to get directly enlightenment. ...
I do love zen, it has been very useful for me. Except for the koans of course. Let's stop pretending that not making sense somehow makes sense.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @apathistThey exhaust the rational mind old chap, allowing for enlightenment.
And I had thought koans were a way for your teacher to give you no useful information while making you do all the work on a problem that doesn't exist. This leaves the teacher free to enjoy some saki in her little spartan cell.
I do love zen, it has been very useful for me. Except for the koans of course. Let's stop pretending that not making sense somehow makes sense.
11 Apr 18
Originally posted by @apathistThe last phrase of your post is were the buck stops.
And I had thought koans were a way for your teacher to give you no useful information while making you do all the work on a problem that doesn't exist. This leaves the teacher free to enjoy some saki in her little spartan cell.
I do love zen, it has been very useful for me. Except for the koans of course. Let's stop pretending that not making sense somehow makes sense.
According to all the Buddhist traditions, reality is not negated; negated is the ignorance as regards the way reality is.
Koans do make sense, just like a sigh of the road pointing towards a direction. However this sense is neither transmitted from person to person by means of conceptual awareness, nor is graspable by persons who think that the map is the territory and/ or that "enlightenment" is some sort of philosophic understanding or religious belief. In addition, it is always the person who receives the koan the one who has to do the job😵