Well put, Steve. When we dwell on one particular position, we are no
longer whole. When place ourselves on every position, or all
perspectives, then we no longer have our own. :-)
Be Enlightened In This Life - We ALL Can
http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com
http://www.heartchan.org
On 2/18/2011 9:38 AM, SteveW wrote:
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> If we subscribe to Bill!'s assertion that at the root of all
religion we can
> find zen, then yes, I do feel that the central realisation of the
religions you
> mentioned (esp Advaita Vedenat, Dzogchen and Zen) are the same. In
simple terms,
> they all cite that when we strip away our mind of desires and
aversions etc.
> then only Awareness (Spirit/Buddha Nature/Self/Tao/God etc) remains.
The
> difference lies in the outward features of the respective paths
(rituals, sutras
> versus tantra etc), but at their heart I would say they are the same.
>
> Mike
>
> Hi Mike. I tend to agree with that. Of course, all of my opinions
are provisional. In Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist philosophy
there are real differences of opinion in regards to Shunyata.
The major schools of thought and their definitions:
Mhadyamaka and Gelukpa: Emptiness of Inherent Existence
Yogacara and Nyingma-pa: Emptiness of Subject and Object
Tathagatagarbha and Shentong: Emptiness of Other
Advaita Vedanta has 3 explanations of phenomenal existence
depending on different levels of understanding.
Kashmir Shaivism differs with Advaita Vedanta on the question
of the inherent reality of phenomena.
There may have been a strong non-dualist orientation in some
early forms of Gnostic Christianity (which I regard as being
the original), but we have no way of verifying that, as it is no
longer a living tradition.
My personal understanding, at this time, is a fusion of the
Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha view-points in regards to intellectual
explanations. I have faithfully practiced zazen for over 3 decades
as well as other practices, and that is my tentative view-point at
this time. However, I agree with Seng T'san that we shouldn't
cherish fixed view-points. IMO, intellectual explanations will
always be provisional and more or less misleading.
Steve
>
>
