Hi Bill, Thanks for this. Up to a point, I can understand it fully. (I hope that the point I understand it to will move - hopefully towards greater understanding! ;-) - as I look into Zen more deeply.) I have had rare and brief moments in meditation of pure awareness, so I understand the principle of that.
I appreciate this is your opinion. One thing I've been noticing a lot recently is that some people seem to assume no one will take much notice of their opinion, while other people assume that everyone will concur with their opinion. Most people are somewhere in between those extremes. I suppose the important thing is to give real consideration (however brief) to everyone's opinion - recognising that everyone, potentially, is capable of providing valuable insight and having a valid point of view. :-) Beverley. ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 28 May, 2011 10:36:25 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverley, I'll be anxious to read Mel's reply on 'dualism', but since it's an important part of my understanding of zen I'd like to offer a response also. Dualisms are pairs (sets, actually) of concepts that are co-dependent. The best example is the dualistic pair 'good/bad'. In order to have a concept of 'good' you have to also have a concept of 'bad'. Labeling something as 'good' just doesn't make any sense if there is not such a thing as 'bad'. All concepts are dualistic, even if it just a dualism based on existence/non-existence. An example of this would be the dualistic concept set of 'self/no-self', or as I usually describe it 'self/other'. The dualistic concept of 'self/other' is very important to zen because in order to realize Buddha Nature you must abandon your concept (illusion) of 'self'. When you do this you then also automatically loose the paired concept of 'other'. There is no longer any 'self' that is seperated from 'other' (everything else). All is One. All is all. Just THIS! You will hear a lot about another very important dualistic set in all forms of Buddhism and Eastern religions in general, and that's the fundamental dualistic set of 'subject/object'. A subject views an object. An object is viewed by a subject. Meditation techniques that employ focusing awareness on something like a mantra or a visualization are 'objective'. The focus of awareness is on the object. Meditation techniques that employ turning the focus of your awareness back on yourself like 'who is it that is chanting?', or 'who is it that is visualizing' are 'subjective'. The focus of awareness is on the subject. Differenet Zen Buddhist teaching techniques use both subjective and objective meditation. Chanting, bowing, and even koan study usually starts with objective meditation and then slides into subjective mediation. But it is not until both subject and object are dropped that Buddha Nature can be realized. True zen meditation - pure zazen (shikantaza - 'clear mind') is neither objective nor subjective. There is only pure awareness with no sense of a subject being aware nor a sense of an object of awareness. Again, Just THIS! Some of the above are from teachings I have received both from individuals and reading, but all have been verified my own experience. And since I assume empty0grace is apparently no longer reading these posts since she previously posted she was unsubscribing from our forum I no longer feel obligated to say 'this is all only my opinion'; but that sentiment be the way you apporach all posts here, everywhere on the internet, all teachings from books, teachers and even Buddha himself. It's your life and you are the only one who is ultimately responsbile for it. Caveat Emptor! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Beverley Huish <beverley.huish@...> wrote: > > Hi Mel, > > I identify with your neighbour. Luckily, as my children get older, I feel > able give them (and me) more space. I used to force myself to give them >space, > > but it really cost me (in worry and stuff like that). > > Can you define 'dualistic' please. It's a word I keep coming across that > doesn't really mean much to me. I understand you're dealing with an example >of > > it here, but I'm still not grasping it. > > :-) > > Beverley. > >  > > > > ________________________________ > From: Mel <gunnar19632000@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 28 May, 2011 4:41:12 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > >  > Deshimaru-sensei spoke of this once. I'll use the example of my next-door > neighbor. The man's life revolves very much around his daughter. Truly a > father's love for one of his young, but one that could be of terrible > consequence should something happen to her. As I observed father and daugher > over the years, I asked myself.... > > - How will he cope with it if something does happen to her? > - Will he be able to keep a cool head(and heart) if she puts herself in danger? > > In the military 30 years ago, I was taught in first-aid so well that all my > reactions basically became automatic irrespective of which victim. I know >within > > me to this day that I'm not going to wail like a banshee should any of my >family > > and other loved ones gets into a crisis. Keeping a cool head in good, and bad > times, is very much in the realm of zen....and that father's love as I had > described above is as dualistic as one gets in this instance > > I'll use another example here. Parents/couples from the Indian sub-continent > have a known reputation (at least here DownUnder) for treating their little > children almost like demi-gods. Very..very...wrong-headed. Those of us who I >can > > best describe as normal, functioning human beings can never stop caring about > our loved ones...but I'm not sure much of the world's highly > emotionally-inclined cultures(eg. Near East, Indian sub-continent, Latin > America, Mediterranean region, etc) can understand that about zen's teaching > about keeping a cool head at all times > > For those interested, do check out GENESIS 37:1-36 of the bible. It's a prime > example of truly, wrong-headed attachment(plus favouritism) by a man called > Jacob for his son Joseph, at the expense of the rest his other sons....plus > the > > consequences... > > Buddha be praised > Mel > > --- On Fri, 27/5/11, Beverley Huish <beverley.huish@...> wrote: > > How about attachments to family members and friends (rather than thoughts). > Obviously, family members, at core, aren't who they appear to be: how does >Zen > > approach fondness for the illusory personalities of people we care about? >  > Beverley. > >  >
