One other thing about 'judgement' and 'opinion'... My feeling for the differences between these two terms are that a 'judgement' tends to be absolute, final with no room for another perspective; where an opinion is admitedly relative, modifable with an unspoken invitation to hear other perspectives.
Of course this is just in my opinion...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Daniel, > > I have had others say similar things to me - about prefacing my remarks with > 'in my opinion'. I do that sometimes, but in fact I think that is > unneccesary and cannot imagine why anyone would assume otherwise. > > Of course whatever I post is 'just my opinion'. Unless I quote someone else > - and then that is 'just their opinion' that I may or may not agree with. > > If that's all this is about I can assure you that everything I post is 'just > in my opinion' whether I explicitly state that or not. I do not speak for > anyone else nor any organization. > > All better now? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "empty0grace" <empty0grace@> wrote: > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
