Re: [Zen] The desperate Kate
Chris, Dunno if I have praised it. I doubt it. But I have been "raised from the dead" by it, numerous times. Only in the form of coffee. And kept up late at Nights (my Days) at telescopes at Observatories worldwide by it. Caffeine has nothing to do with "consciousness". It is a mere stimulant. And, tasty and satisfying and hydrating (although a diuretic) in a vehicle of "Coffee" (Black, please; no sugar). Note, I do not ingest caffeine in a purified or concentrated extract. No No-Doze. Is caffeine a drug, no matter how delivered? Yes. When preparing for sesshin (or Ch'an retreats), I go off all caffeine completely for at least ten days before attending. I also change my diet of food. On sesshin, I eat little, and never drink caffeine. After sesshin, I usually note I have lost 5 pounds (following a 7- or 10-day sit): the reason is that I eat very little, and like to remain light and hungry when doing that work intensively, and serving the sangha as a Leader. The belly growls, from mild hunger, and from the action of Chi. Some meals, I sit- through without eating, esp. late in the retreat. This is very enabling, and compassionate to others, because my practice is better. The Dinner meal is optional, anyway, on Ch'an retreat: it is called "Medicine": usually, only infirm people or old people partake of it. I like pea-berry bean coffees. Usually medium-roast. Also like a fine Mocha-Java blend. In normal walking-around life, I like my two or three cups a day. On Ch'an retreats, no coffee is available. Neither is Black Tea. This makes everyone's practice better. Especially after the third day when "the-addicted" headaches pass. I go there clean. By long experience. --Joe > Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Haven't you praised caffeine? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] The desperate Kate
Haven't you praised caffeine? Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On May 31, 2013 9:34 AM, "Joe" wrote: > Mike, > > I make absolutely no moral or medical pronouncements, nor even say much > about the Law; but I will say, in any case, that consciousness is one > thing, and drugs are another. > > Just noting the difference; just talking. > > --Joe > > > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > Joe, Mine is a simple point. If people want to experiment with > discovering different states of consciousness then let them with no fear of > the law. If we don't have sovereignty over our consciousness then we have > no freedom at all. That is all > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Zen] The desperate Kate
Mike, I make absolutely no moral or medical pronouncements, nor even say much about the Law; but I will say, in any case, that consciousness is one thing, and drugs are another. Just noting the difference; just talking. --Joe > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Joe, Mine is a simple point. If people want to experiment with discovering > different states of consciousness then let them with no fear of the law. If > we don't have sovereignty over our consciousness then we have no freedom at > all. That is all Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] A Question for Edgar about Forms
Mike, Did I fail to put in some smile-face emoticons? ;-) I must have forgotten. You missed my irony, or I did not stress it. Or, I missed yours! In fact, I was going about making a very serious point, and one that I think Edgar would agree with. If, by (our) effective practice, duality disappears for us in our experience, it is far from GONE from the world (of "others", who are yet bewitched with it and by it). As you know, when one continues practicing, after, say awakening, one undergoes a polishing, or sand-blasting, process, over years of time (a lifetime) and develops skilful means for almost any circumstance, just by working-out the proper muscles and keeping the proper ligaments flexible (NOT by training for specific, rehearsed cases). Well... bottom-line... we slough off the flaked paint chips of duality from our own hands and arms, but they are still adhering like unbroken skin to others. It's best not to forget! --Joe PS Unlike what you wrote in your post, I would say something like: Opposites are not "transcended" in Buddha Nature. I do not know what "transcended" would mean. Buddha Nature has nothing going-on, except via specific forms. Buddha Nature takes in all forms. Some of these look like opposites to one who is not awake. That is all. > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Joe, I dare to in the same way you dare to question my mentioning it! ; ) I'm hardly saying anything revolutionary, subversive or heretical. Don't we practice koans if not to resolve contradictions and paradoxes in a flash of satori? > desert_woodworker wrote: > Mike, > Now, now. How dare you ask such a deflating question. > There (!) goes the UNIVERSE! Into a flat pancake. And much flatter > than we > can comprehend. Mystery flatness. Gone, gone. > But not the Parasamgate of the Heart Sutra. > Seeing that, I feel better. And forgiving. Long life, ;-) --Joe > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!, Sometimes it seems as though you and Edgar are arguing from polar > opposites on what emptiness and form are, yet aren't opposites transcended in > Buddha Nature, along with all contradictions and paradoxes? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Hi Mike, I love this. Yes, Samsara is the way to Nirvana. Both are labels, in a second, it will reverse. JM On 5/29/2013 6:29 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, All dualities, contradictions and paradoxes are reconciled in buddhahood, so I don't see a problem. Doesn't Mahayana say that Samsara is no different to Nirvana? Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad *From: * Bill! ; *To: * ; *Subject: * Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion *Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 11:45:31 AM Edgar and Mike, So...Edgar has his thoughts. Mike has his thoughts. Merle has her thoughts. I have my thoughts. We all make them and we all terminate them. And they are all DIFFERENT! So are you really telling me that you think there is a different set of reality for each person on this planet that they make and terminate all on their own? That's about as dualistic as you can get. Are you telling me you believe reality is dualistic? What you are describing is certainly not what I'd call reality. I'd could call that individual perspectives, or perceptions - anything but reality. And as you know I call them all illusions. If you do decide to continue to call thoughts reality, please call them what you are really describing - realities - individual, customized, temporary realities. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote: > > Mike, > > Correct. > > As I've said over and over, illusion recognized as illusion is reality, but illusion taken for reality is illusion. > > The thought in your head of "Edgar being a member of a boy band" is a perfect example. It's a real thought but the thought is illusory. > > Now extend that to the entire world you think you live in and YOU'VE GOT IT! Because the entire world you think you live in is a construct of your mind. It exists so it is real, but it is an illusion. > > Edgar > > > On May 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > Edgar, Bill!, > > > > I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback. > > When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. > > > > Mike > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > > > From: Edgar Owen ; > > To: ; > > Subject: [Zen] Nature of Illusion > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:53:51 AM > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Philosophy and illusion > > [edit] > > > > Just like many other words often used in a different sense in spirituality the word "illusion" is used to denote different aspects in Hindu Philosophy (Maya). Many Monist philosophies clearly demarcate illusion from truth and falsehood. As per Hindu advaita philosophy, Illusion is something which is not true and not false. Whereas in general usage it is common to assume that illusion is false, Hindu philosophy makes a distinction between Maya (illusion) and falsehood. In terms of this philosophy maya is true in itself but it is not true in comparison with the truth. As per this philosophy, illusion is not the opposite of truth or reality. Based on these assumptions Vedas declare that the world as humans normally see is illusion (Maya). It does not mean the world is not real. The world is only so much real as the image of a person in a mirror. The world is not real/true when compared to the reality. But the world is also not false. Falsehood is something which does not exist. if we apply this philosophy to the above example, the illusion is not actually illusion but is false. This is because in general usage people tend to consider lllusion to be the same as falsehood. As per adishankar's a guru of monist teachings the world we think is not true but is an illusion (not true not false). The truth of the world is something which can only be experienced by removing the identity (ego). > > > > Edgar > > > > > > >
Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion
Yes, Mike, Everything that I posted, as well as, those from my Teacher and Buddha, and everything been discussed in this forum, are what we called in our school, as "formed dharma". "Formed dharma" only describes the dharma and not the dharma itself. Thus "formed dharma" are empty by nature. Dharma itself is formless and can only be synced to, can not be understood, grasped, practiced, etc. The word illusory been discussed so far really mean "do not attach to all forms and phenomena", because they are impermanent by nature, thus empty. Yet during their short life span, they still existed. I believe that's what Edgar's "reality" mean. Most of these discussions are on par. Because each of us are attached to a particular logic and definition, that's why we have these discussion. The key to discuss is not whether I am right and you are wrong. But is to see the truth is everything that is posted here in the forum. Each of us are right from our own perspective. Chan is to see all perspectives and not just our own. After all, opinions are empty, illusory forms in the first place. By saying everything is Chan, I meant to say that all forms and formlessness existed in the world are caused by the wisdom and life force of the universe. When we are ONE with it, we will be able to accept it, understand it, see its wisdom, feel its life force and fulfill it, at each moment. When we are separate, then we loose our connection with it, then we are driven by our ego. With palms together, JM On 5/29/2013 12:28 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Bill!, I also meant to add that saying everything is illusory is just as problematic as Edgar's (and JMJM) saying everything is Zen. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad *From: * Bill! ; *To: * ; *Subject: * Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion *Sent: * Wed, May 29, 2013 6:44:48 AM Mike, I have always believed 'dharma' as used in this 3rd part of the Bodhisattva Vow refers to 'the teachings of Buddha'. I agree that teachings are thoughts, so I do agree the use of the term 'dharma' in this vow refers to thoughts. The 1st part of that vow refers to 'sentient beings'. The 2nd part of that vow refers to 'desires'. The 4th and last part of that vow refers to 'the Buddha way'. I consider all of these thoughts, and I consider all of them illusions. We can 'save all sentient beings', 'put an end to all desires', 'master all the dharmas (teachings) and 'attain/accomplish the Buddha Way' all at one and the same time by doing just one thing - dissolving the attachments we have to these illusions by ceasing the arising of dualism which is the function of our human intellect. This doesn't mean we never have illusions or never use our intellect, or never form attachments again. We do. But now we realize 'sentient beings', 'desires', 'dharmas' and the 'Buddha Way' are illusory and can better resist forming attachments to them. We grow stronger at keeping this balance through continued practice - and that for me means zazen. That's the way this all fits together for me. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Edgar, Bill!,I don't have much invested in this topic, but just to clarify a few things I'd like your feedback.When we make our vows at every sit, one of those vows is "The dharmas are numberless, I vow to master them". Applying that to this topic, for me, means that a thought (a dharma) is real even if the object of that thought isn't. For example, if I said Edgar is a 20 year old member of a famous boy band, then the thought is real (a dharma) *even though* it is a delusional thought. MikeSent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >
[Zen] It's The Same Thing!
- The Tao of Pooh ...Bill!
