Daniel, Don't think I am defending Bill now. I am sad that you are so easily upset. What goes on between you and Bill is common with disagreeing people. I hope you show some magnanimity. Anthony
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, empty0grace <[email protected]> wrote: From: empty0grace <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Reply Daniel's Reply to Bill To: [email protected] Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 10:14 AM Bill, I don't want to beat this one to death, so I will let you have the last word on this if you want it. But the statement you made: "...and if that's is so a practitioner of satipatthana will be forever filling their insatiable bowl and increasing the thickness of the layers occluding Buddha Mind." Makes no exceptions, and is universal judgment and condemnation of all satipatthana practitioners. This is the English you used. Thereby it includes both me and my teachers. It is also a clear statement that their practice does not bear the fruit of awakening. I could not imagine myself saying such a thing to you, regardless of how profoundly we seem to disagree, not just because I have not met your teachers, but because it would be disrespectful. There is no need to be quoting dictionaries. The problem, as I see it, is that you do not take responsibility for your words. You do not qualify with "in my opinion, or in my experience etc." That is, I think, a pretty good working definition for the difference between an opinion and a judgment, the first is respectful in the sense of polite, the second is disrespectful in the commonly understood sense of intentionally condemnatory. Daniel --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Daniel, > > Your post surprised me. My comments are embedded below: > > --- In [email protected], "empty0grace" <empty0grace@> wrote: > > [Bill! (from a previous post)] "Maybe not so in satipatthana, and if that's > is so a practicioner of satipatthana will be forever filling their insatiable > bowl and increasing the thickness of the layers occluding Buddha Mind." > > > > Fistly, this is untrue. I have met teachers like Dipa Ma and Taungpulu > > Sayadaw whose presence was what can only described as completely resolved > > and utterly simple, and certainly with no "bowl to fill." > > [Bill!] I have never met or read posts from Dipa Ma or Taungpulu Sayadaw. If > they are as you say 'resolved and utterly simple, and ... with no "bowl to > fill"', I would like very much to meet or hear from them. 'Utterly simple' > and 'no bowl to fill' is not, however, how you have been describing > satipatthana. I live in Thailand which as you probably know is 95% Theravada > Buddhists and have many up-scale vipassana schools teaching vipassana > meditation (which I assume is 'satipatthana'). > > > Secondly, your words above are hostile, and a vilification. Surely you > > capable of expressing a point of view without being rude? I am not > > interested in participating in any dialogue in which I am being insulted, > > or my teachers disrespected. I would ask you therefore to remain polite and > > considerate in your discourse with me. If you don't feel you can do that, > > then I see no advantage for you and I to engage each other. > > > [Bill!] I certainly did not intend my post to be 'hostile' or a > 'vilification', and in fact after re-reading it do not think it is. It is > basically just saying that indulgence in religious dogma (of any kind) is a > hinderance to realizing Buddha Nature. > > I cannot deny that you were insulted. That characterization is entirely up to > you. > > I can deny that I disrepected your teachers because I've never heard of them > nor interacted with them, nor did I comment on them directly. I very much > doubt that if they would read my post they would feel insulted or slighted in > any way. If they are/were indeed your teachers than you yourself are the only > window I have into them, and I really have no idea how representative of them > you and your posts are. > > I do however want to say a little bit about 'respect'. On the Yahoo! Zen > Forum we are constantly using terms that mean different things to different > people. The current thread on 'mindfulness' is a good example. The term > 'respect' can mean at least three different things: > - one is to 'consider carefully', as in 'I read your posts respectfully'. I > do think I have done and promise I will continue to do that. > - another is to 'hold in esteem, have a high or special regard'. This is not > something you get as a default. You have to earn that. Right now I hold you > in a neutral regard. > - a third is do show deference, as you would show a superior or elder. I > don't do that here. Zen doesn't do that. Everyone is equal - even the > teachings of Guatama Siddharta Buddha as recorded in the Sutras are subject > to verification through experience, and if any parts of them are found > wanting they should be discarded. > > I respect you as a participant on the Yahoo! Zen Forum. I respect your right > to have opinions that differ from mine and your right to express them in > posts. > > I don't, however, feel have to respect those opinions themselves and beleive > I have every right to challenge them when I feel like doing so. But I will > not be 'hostile' or attempt to 'vilify' anyone including you. You have the > right to your opinion and I respect that right - but as I said, not > neccesarily the opinion itself. > > ...Bill! > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Beverley, > > > > > > Japanese Zen Buddhism was the vehicle of my introduction to zen, but many > > > of the positions I hold now have departed from that quite a bit. Probably > > > the biggest departure is the realization that zen is not at all dependent > > > upon or an exclusive sub-set of Buddhism. In order to note that in my > > > posts I use the term 'Zen' with an upper-case 'Z' to denote Zen Buddhsim, > > > and 'zen' with a lower-case 'z' to denote just 'zen'. You might refer to > > > 'zen' as a non-denominational (or more accurately non-religious) zen, or > > > Zen Buddhism stripped of the extraneous Buddhist religious dogma and > > > connotations. > > > > > > I know my writing does come across as 'intense'. I've been told that > > > before, and not in such a nice way as you have done below. I think > > > 'arrogant' and 'authoritarian' are words I've heard used before. That is > > > why I posted the 'caveat' that everything I post is my opinion, but > > > unfortnately didn't think to do that until after the intial post. > > > > > > I don't think of myself as 'intense', but after practicing zen for over > > > 40 years I do have a pretty solid base of experience from which to speak. > > > I do like to hear differing perspectives and that's in part why I > > > participate in the Zen Forum. > > > > > > Your subject post covered a lot of territory. I agree that I'm not > > > particularily interested in continuing a comprehensive blow-by-blow > > > dialog, but I do believe that one of your central points is completely > > > incorrect - at least from a zen perspective, and that is the point about > > > 'developing faculties', especially if associated with what you referred > > > to as 'mental notation'. This may indeed be the teaching of satipatthana, > > > and maybe the central teaching. This also may be compatible with the > > > teachings of Buddhism. But for me all that is the exteraneous RELIGIOUS > > > coating that has been layered over the fundamental zen core. These > > > add-ons are not only unnecessary, but are sometimes misleading and can be > > > extremely counter-productive in practice. This notion of your > > > (satipatthana?) is one of them. There is nothing that needs to be > > > developed. You already have everything you need, in fact you re already > > > Buddha - just as you are. Nothing additional is required. > > > > > > So again, this belief is fundamental to zen. Maybe not so in > > > satipatthana, and if that's is so a practicioner of satipatthana will be > > > forever filling their insatiable bowl and increasing the thickness of the > > > layers occluding Buddha Mind. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "empty0grace" <empty0grace@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for taking your time, and giving what I said an > > > > in-depth read, and for sharing your experience and POV in regards what > > > > I wrote. You initial comments as to the lack of clarity, I will > > > > definitely address. Your contrasts regarding the differing experience > > > > of Japanese Zen, I take interest in as a student of Buddhism, altered > > > > states, and a long time yogi. I think this is a good way to try and get > > > > some understanding of other people's differing experiences. Obviously, > > > > I would not share your conclusions on many of these matters, but I > > > > don't think a blow-by-blow discussion would be very profitable for any > > > > of us here. By the "intensity" of your remarks, I conclude that you > > > > have the answers that you are seeking, and I have no interest in > > > > convincing you otherwise. I will continue to give close attention to > > > > your remarks during my time here on this board. > > > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel, My comments are embedded below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > > > > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > > > > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them > > > > > over > > > > > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > > > > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > > > > > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > > > > > > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and > > > > > assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having > > > > > a > > > > > different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed > > > > > your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really > > > > > doesn't matter right now. It's your perspective. This is not good and > > > > > not bad, but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I > > > > > will comment from my perspective which has been built up from my zen > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > > > > > > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > > > > > > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter > > > > > > now > > > > > [how] > > > > > > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > > > > > > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the > > > > > second > > > > > > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > > > > > > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > > > > > > goes unoticed. > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you start applying > > > > > discrimination (categorizing, judging, associating, censoring, > > > > > rejecting, augmenting, translating, rationalizing, intellectualizing, > > > > > etc...), in other words applying some kind of CHOICE on your sensory > > > > > experiences you have entered into the realm of dualism and illusion. > > > > > Your choices are the illusions and the myths. > > > > > > > > > > > Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three > > > > > > things particularly difficult: the development of concentration, > > > > > insight > > > > > > into intention, and the development of effort and energy. When > > > > > practice > > > > > > is mature in Knowledge of Equanimity, a kind of choiceless awareness > > > > > > becomes possible, in that the illusion of the one who attends is now > > > > > > absent, but at that point the mind is very developed and will not be > > > > > > hindered or deluded by its own act of letting go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Here you seem to backtrack. In the paragraph above you > > > > > indicate 'choiceless awareness' is a myth, but in this paragraph you > > > > > admit in the absence of illusion (duality) it 'becomes possible'. So, > > > > > is 'choiceless awareness' a myth or not? Or, is it only a myth for > > > > > some > > > > > and not for others? Or, is it a myth for some and not a myth when no > > > > > one (self) exists to make choices? > > > > > > > > > > > The path along which our mind must evolve to come upon the > > > > > > experience > > > > > of > > > > > > the Unconditioned is quite narrow and precise. The ability to > > > > > > discover > > > > > > this precise point of balance in the development of the mind's > > > > > > faculties is what made the Buddha so unique. > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] There is nothing unique about Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha), or > > > > > Buddha (the direct experience of reality we share with all senient > > > > > beings). The very fact of this is essential to zen (and to Buddhism). > > > > > Otherwise you are elevating Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha) to some > > > > > special > > > > > state like Christianity has mistakenly elevated Jesus. Both Guatama > > > > > Siddhartha and Jesus are men, human beings just like you and me, and > > > > > anything they have done or accomplished or realized can be done by us > > > > > also. > > > > > > > > > > >There is no room in this > > > > > > process for personal predilections or intellectual prejudice. To be > > > > > > successful in this path we must train our attention so as to achieve > > > > > the > > > > > > necessary balance and development of the faculties. There may indeed > > > > > be > > > > > > more than one system of practice for achieving this, yet every such > > > > > > successful system will be discovered to be balanced within itself. > > > > > > However, even then, all practice methods must be regularly > > > > > > "tweaked" to insure that progress remains on course. In the end, > > > > > > it is not the method itself that achieves the goal, but the > > > > > > carefully > > > > > > balanced evolution of the faculties that leads the mind to > > > > > > emergence. > > > > > > This precision requires refined tuning, something that does not > > > > > > easily > > > > > > evolve from free-floating awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] I agree there is not one system of teaching. However, the > > > > > practice is not to 'develop faculities'. You already have everything > > > > > you need. The practice is to dissolve the sense of dualism you have > > > > > created which occludes and interfers with your ability to be aware of > > > > > direct sensory experience. So practice is a matter of discarding, not > > > > > developing or building. > > > > > > > > > > > Non-conceptual Awareness is the Goal of Mindfulness The conclusion > > > > > > to > > > > > > this logic is that the silent witnessing mind is superior to the use > > > > > of > > > > > > mental notation. For fuller explanation on the benefits of mental > > > > > > notation, please refer to my dedicated chapter on this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Non-conceptual Awareness (aka Buddha Mind) is zen. I don't > > > > > know if it is a 'Goal of Mindfulness' or not. Non-conceptual Awareness > > > > > is non-dualistic so is not subject to judgement (choices) such as > > > > > 'superior'. Mental notation (I think this is the same as I call > > > > > discrimnation or using the discriminating mind) is not good and not > > > > > bad. > > > > > It is used to form dualistic concepts. The only caveat here is to be > > > > > aware that these concepts, these 'mental notations' are not real but > > > > > illusory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conception and preception are so intimately merged that we cannot > > > > > > separate them, although we can come to distinguish them. Those who > > > > > > pretend that awareness is non-conceptual are lost in their own > > > > > concepts > > > > > > about practice and are far from seeing the present reality of their > > > > > > minds. > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] Both 'conception' and 'preception' pre-suppose a > > > > > discriminating > > > > > self. Both are interpretations (post-processing) of sensory > > > > > experience. > > > > > They are illusions created by the discriminating mind which are tagged > > > > > to experiences, and often obsure experience to the point of replacing > > > > > them as percieved 'reality'. 'Conceptions' and 'preceptions' are part > > > > > of the dualistic baggage of the discriminating mind that must be > > > > > discarded (or at least suspended) to directly experience reality. > > > > > > > > > > In ordinary life, the closest we come to non-conceptual awareness > > > > > > is in deep sleep, or when we see something in the distance that we > > > > > > do > > > > > > not recognize, or when we encounter some new object completely > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > and mysterious to us. However, even those last two examples, the > > > > > > mind > > > > > is > > > > > > busily applying the closest approximate concepts to try and "figure > > > > > > it out." > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] This is absolutely wrong. There is no awareness in dreamless > > > > > sleep, and dreams are all illusions. Intellectual activity as you > > > > > describe above is just juggling illusions to try to find one > > > > > characterize the sensory experience. Non-conceptual awareness happens > > > > > when your teacher slaps your face. It is the awareness of that slap > > > > > you > > > > > have BEFORE you think 'Pain!' or 'Bad'' or 'Embarassed!'. > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, yogis can experience non-conceptual awareness > > > > > > during their practice in that tiny space between sensory impingement > > > > > and > > > > > > mental recognition. Concepts are not the enemy. The enemy is that > > > > > > confusion of mind that cannot distinguish between the two dimensions > > > > > of > > > > > > conception and perception present in our moment-to-moment cognition. > > > > > It > > > > > > is this confusion that hides the true nature of both, and not the > > > > > > presence of concepts in the mind, which are inevitable and almost > > > > > > constantly present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill] We agree on something! - almost. I'd remove 'yogis' from the > > > > > first sentence above. It's not just yogis that can experience this, > > > > > it's everyone - all sentient beings. Concepts are not exactly the > > > > > enemy, it's the ATTACHMENT to concepts that is the 'enemy'. Concepts > > > > > will arise and dissapear. They are illusions. As long as you can > > > > > recognize this, concepts are not the 'enemy'; but anything that gives > > > > > rise to dualities (the most insiduous being the duality of self/other) > > > > > is an 'enemy' to direct awareness (Buddha Mind). > > > > > > > > > > > Mindfulness Only Reveals What Is > > > > > > A common mistake made by many dedicated practitioners of satipathana > > > > > or > > > > > > other forms of mindfulness as found in various schools of Buddhism, > > > > > > is > > > > > > to believe that mindfulness only reveals what is without altering > > > > > > how > > > > > > things appear to consciousness. Mindfulness is not a passive > > > > > > process. > > > > > It > > > > > > radically changes the way the mind experiences its reality. We > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > claim therefore that we are merely allowing reality to reveal > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > Because the perceptions, insights and states of consciousness that > > > > > arise > > > > > > in practice are conditioned by the development of the five > > > > > > controlling > > > > > > faculties, the jhana factors and the seven factors of enlightenment, > > > > > we > > > > > > cannot say that we are accessing the reality of the five aggregates > > > > > > as > > > > > > they really are in their own objective sphere or even as they would > > > > > > appear in some hypothetical state of subjective super clarity. > > > > > > Satipathana practice is definitely a system of mental development > > > > > > engaging and affecting the mind in many ways and on many levels. All > > > > > we > > > > > > can say is that mindfulness reveals reality as experienced by a mind > > > > > > properly developed in such a way as to experience freedom from > > > > > > greed, > > > > > > hatred and delusion. The absence of delusion means something very > > > > > > precise: the successful oppositing of the four vipalasas, or > > > > > distortions > > > > > > of subjective perception. There are the vipalasa that sees the > > > > > > impermanent as permanent, the vipalasa that sees the dissatisfactory > > > > > as > > > > > > satisfactory, the vipalasa that sees a self in what which is > > > > > > no-self, > > > > > > and the vipalasa that sees the repulsive as delightful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Bill!] I could not disagree more. I want to reiterate that I'm not > > > > > saying your paragraph above is not correct in pointing out what > > > > > 'Mindfulness' is and is not. My thoughts below are not from a > > > > > 'satipathana perspective. They are from my own zen practice > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > > Zen is awareness of only what is. All else is illusory. All > > > > > intellectualizations (post-processing) are illusions. And I say again > > > > > it is not the illusions that occlude Buddha Mind, it is ATTACHMENT to > > > > > illusions that occlude Buddha Mind and that must be dissoved or at > > > > > least > > > > > suspended. > > > > > > > > > > Clean your bowls! > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
