Hi Siska: The way I do this is by acknowledging and calling by its name the sensation felt. That's all what I do. Yes, there are times that the sensation can be very strong and I keep unfolding it by keep acknowledging all what is in there. If the sensation is very unpleasant and I feel as such, then I acknowledge it's unpleasantness. It's not that I label those sensations but only acknowledge then in the way they are felt. This acknowledging doesn't involves getting entangled on it, chasing after it. Acknowledging, acceptance of all that being there through the in and out conscious breathing dissolves all that. What about you?. How do you go around here?. What about you JMJM, Mike, Steve, Chris, ED and all ? Mayka
--- On Wed, 6/4/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 1:59 Hi Bill, Mayka, However, the judging of those sensations to be pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad, dualistic/non-dualistic are created by your discriminating mind and are not in and of themselves 'real' [siska] also, labels of the sensations such as 'pain', 'stiffness' are not real. Normally, judgements (good/bad) come after the labels. siska From: "Bill!" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:45:20 -0000 To: <[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse Mayka, I don't know how you got to where you are in this post from reading my last post. I never said physical sensations were not real. They are. They are the ONLY thing that is real. However, the judging of those sensations to be pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad, dualistic/non-dualistic are created by your discriminating mind and are not in and of themselves 'real'. They are illusions. They come and go. Physical sensations (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste - the 5 categories (illusory concepts) which our discriminating mind has created to describe these sensation) are trying to describe something real that does not come and go - that is the ability to be aware of them does not come and go. That awareness is Buddha Mind. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > > > > > > Bill: > >  > By the time you'll be receiving this mail you're tea will be cold. >  >  If somebody beat a finger with a hammer. Will the pain felt be real?. And > the answer is yes. Although the pain will be an impermanent pain still will > be real. >  > The different physical and mental states in the body and the mind. That > switching waves coming and going as the waves of the ocean bringing all the > rainbow of duality with them. The arising of different sensations such as > pleasant , unpleasant or neutral, in all the game of distinctions, duality > are felt as real in the realm of the form. What is illusion to me here is > not as much the many arising sensations in themselves, but to exchange all > that occurring as permanent having as a result mental attachment to what is > happening and mental entanglement as one identifies with it as something > permanent happening to one. Forgetfulness about that everything is > impermanent can be a cause of great illusion arising in one.  The many > sensations are real but not their duration as they dissolve by themselves > through mindfulness or awareness. >  > To me here the real massive illusion is to exchange impermanence as > something permanent but not as much the coming and going occurring in the > form. >  > I imagine the form of body and mind with all its sophisticated implications > as the waves of the ocean. In it's coming and going, continuously born and > continuously dying, they all have in common the water. They're all made of > the same.  Water is the nature of the wave in the ocean. But for that > matter of that seconds the water takes the form of an impermanent high, > low... wave. Is the form of the wave an illusion?...It all depends under > what kind of perspective is seen. >  > Mayka > > --- On Tue, 5/4/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011, 1:13 > > >  > > > > Bill! expounds... > > This is not a matter of non-duality/duality, it's a matter of awareness. > Duality is an illusion - probably the Mother of All Illusions. The concept of > non-duality is also an illusion. > > Illusions come and go. This might be the 'switching back and forth' you are > talking about. > > Awareness (Buddha Nature) is persistent. > > This is a matter of how illusions are accomodated. If you become attached to > the illusions of non-dualism/dualism then they come and go, but are mutually > exclusive. If you are not attached to these illusions (or any illusions) they > come and go, but are universally inclusive. > > That's the best I can do this morning before my first cup of tea...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > necessarily or usually ongoing.) > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > siska, > > > > After adequate Zen or other practice, I think that an experience of the > > non-dual mind-state switches back and forth, without the individual's > > choice - like is the casse in some optical illusions: > > > > http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sou\ > > rce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540 > > <http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=optical+illusions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&so\ > > urce=univ&sa=X&ei=mL-ZTbmpDY7YiAK09emcCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1014&bih=540> > > . > > > > With more practice, the mind may prefer the non-dual state over the > > dualistic state. Possibly for a few, the non-dual state will become > > ongoing after sufficient Zen or other practice. > > > > I repeat: Bill would be a better person to expound on this issue. > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > [siska] don't really get why it is a conception > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively.[siska] > > agree with you > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, > > > [siska] agree with you > > > > > > until they succeed in making the switch (which of course is not > > necessarily or usually ongoing.) > > > [siska] the way I see it, this happens when it happens. Nobody is > > making the switch. We can try to make the switch, but it won't happen > > until it happens. And when it happens, nobody can switch it back. > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > The way I understand it is as follows: 'Non-dualism' is a conception. > > > > > > The non-dual and the dualistic states are mind-states in which we > > > experience reality non-dually or dualistically respectively. > > > > > > Most humans experience reality dualistically, until they succeed in > > > making the switch (which of course is not necessarily or usually > > > ongoing.) > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > I was about to ask your views on non-dualism, but I am guessing your > > > view is represented by the article here and in your other post. And I > > > agree with what is being said here. > > > > > > > > The other article was fine too, in terms of putting non-dualism and > > > zen into words. My view is that non-dualism is here and now (as in > > > Hakuin's song), instead of some destination point, which you seemed to > > > imply in your previous post. > > > > > > > > siska > > > > > > > > Hi siska, > > > > > > > > You may want to ask Bill, Mike, Steve and Mayka their views on Zen > > and > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > --ED > > >
