Dried Shit on a Stick!!!



--- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Anthony,
>
> I guess so.
>
> I've no idea how to describe anything beyond logic with words.
>
> Siska
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Wu wuasg@...
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 18:18:05
> To: [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
>
> Siska,
> Â
> Your reasoning makes sense logically. However, that statement is more
complicated than you think (and I think), I believe.
> Â
> Anthony
>
> --- On Sun, 4/9/11, siska_cen@... siska_cen@... wrote:
>
>
> From: siska_cen@... siska_cen@...
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, 4 September, 2011, 6:14 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> I'm not sure if I understand, the saying just feels more like it. But
perhaps it's something like this:
>
> When you are not different from others, I don't think it matters.
Also, if I don't exist, I don't need to be saved.
>
> Siska
>
>
> From: Anthony Wu wuasg@...
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:59:34 +0800 (SGT)
> To: [email protected]
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Siska,
> Â
> My teacher says 'your own enlightenment is equal to "others" being
saved'. Not you being saved. Do you understand?
> Â
> Anthony
>
> --- On Sun, 4/9/11, siska_cen@... siska_cen@... wrote:
>
>
> From: siska_cen@... siska_cen@...
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, 4 September, 2011, 5:33 PM
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
> > One of my teachers say that you own enlightenment is the same as
'saving all sentient beings'
>
> If being enlightened is equated as being saved, then I'm totally
alright with this. Is this what JM was saying?
>
> Siska
>
>
> From: Anthony Wu wuasg@...
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:19:42 +0800 (SGT)
> To: [email protected]
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Siska,
> Â
> In many zendos, you take a vow to 'save all sentient beings' while
practicing zazen. One of my teachers say that you own enlightenment is
the same as 'saving all sentient beings'. I still don't understand his
word even now.
> Â
> Anthony
>
> --- On Sun, 4/9/11, siska_cen@... siska_cen@... wrote:
>
>
> From: siska_cen@... siska_cen@...
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, 4 September, 2011, 4:49 PM
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi JM, All,
>
> Is this a zen premise ~ separating oneself from others and then work
on enlightening the 'self' and others?
>
> Or is it another conventional speaking limitation?
>
> It does not 'feel' right to me.
>
> Siska
>
>
> From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 chan.jmjm@...
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:08:50 -0700
> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: [Zen] Supreme Vehicle
>
> Â
>
> Good morning Sensei,
>
> Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.  I am just a
practitioner of Chan and not a master.  A master in our school means
someone who is enlightened and has received "Buddha Heart Imprint",
while I have neither.  Since Zen does recognize the Mahayana
practice, then please let me share some of the discussions we had
recently in our school....
>
> As we know, Hinayana is often called the Small Vehicle and Mahayana is
the Great Vehicle.  And in China, the Chan is called the Supreme
Vehicle.  It means that Chan could free everyone.
>
> It is true, when others are enlightened, we are enlightened.  The
danger of this realization is the rationalization that we only need to
work on ourselves.  If so, then we are only practicing Hinayana.Â
We did not "do" the circular track of Chan.
>
> The Mahayana practice is a practice, only when we leave our lotus and
step into the mud, could we than detach ourselves from the limitation of
our practice and our dharma.  In other words, as we focus on the
difficulty in freeing others, could we then realize how limited we are
in wisdom and energy in resolving their karmic hindrance. Only then we
could be motivated to continuously surpassing our habitual practice,
form and formless. In turn to realize that "Dharma is not dharma. No
dharma is dharma."Â
>
> Then we would know dharma is in every encounter.  It is up to us
to be one with it.  Only then we are liberated from the
rationalization of our mind and awaken to the fact that the One of Chan
is the ALL.  This realization occurs when we journey midway into the
freeing of each one, as a Supreme Vehicle.
>
> Too often we quit by rationalizing to ourselves that this practice is
not for everyone.  Or the time is not right, or whatever excuses we
place upon our practice.  If so, we have trapped ourselves into
believing that our current practice is the only path.  The practice
of Supreme Vehicle is every practice in each moment, in each encounter,
without self, without other, without dharma, without form, without
notion, etc.
>
> To free all beings is not to impose "our" practice upon them, but
rather let them awaken from within.  The only way we could
accomplish that is to speak in their language in their mindset and help
them to resolve whatever there needs to be resolve in resources, mindset
or life force.  In other words, we needed to be them and undertake
their karma. Thus the mud is the lotus and lotus is the mud and they
both grow in tandem.
>
> To phrase it in beautiful labels, Mahayana is the journey for
Bodhisattva, Supreme Vehicle is the journey for Buddha, who is the one
and all and us and everyone.
>
> Thank you all for your attention,
> JMJM
> Head Teacher
> Order Of Chan
> Learn the Basics of Chan Meditation...
> http://www.chan-meditation.org
> Chan in everyday life...
> http://www.chanliving.org
> To be enlightened in this life...
> http://www.heartchan.org
> To save our world...
> http://www.universal-oneness.org
>
>
> On 9/1/2011 9:49 PM, Harvey Daiho Hilbert wrote:
> Â
>
>
>
> Â
> Â
> With palms together,
> Good Evening Everyone,
> Â
> On the Zen Living list, Ch’an Master Jue Miao Jing Ming , asked
me a question the other day. “Dear Sensei, Do you consider Zen a
Mahayana practice?  If so, what does Mahayana actually do?”
> Â
> While Zen is within the Mahayana tradition, it is not a Mahayana
practice as I understand it.  Student Rev. Shoji and I were
discussing this question today and Rev. Shoji brought up an interesting
distinction.  He argued that Mahayana Buddhists aim at the
Bodhisattva ideal to free all beings before they, themselves, enter
nirvana.  He points out that from a Zen point of view, self and
other are one, therefore there is no one, but oneself, to free.
> Â
> Zen Master Seung Sahn argues in his Compass, that  both Theravadan
and Mahayane traditions have “roads,”  but that Zen
has not only no road, but no map, as well.  The practice is practice
realization as one.  Path and destination are not two.
> Â
> These beg the question, however, “What does Mahayana actually
do?”
> Â
> Mahayana does nothing.  Mahayana is just a word.  And we can
see from the question that such things as words and concepts can create
a hindrance.  We could ask a better question, “What is
Mahayana practice and what does it do?” The aim of the practice
is to free beings, but how?
> Â
> Again, Master Sahn offers the Six Paramitas as “practice
guides.”  They are rather like the manifest value in the nexus
between idea and behavior, rather like the term “Quality”
as used in Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance.”  A Mahayana practitioner practices to make
manifest the six aspects of our true nature in the hope that to do so
will free suffering beings.Â
> Â
> A Zen practitioner, however realizes practice and life are one, that
everything is already free, perfect as it is, but that we  jail
ourselves with our thoughts.  A Zen practitioner notices and ceases
all grasping: no attachment to ideas, desires, things, feelings, etc.
 Â
> A Zen practitioner is free and easy in the everyday world.  His
mind is free and his heart limitless.  He recognizes all beings are
likewise like this.
> Â
> Be well.
>
> Rev. Daiho Hilbert, abbot
> OCMZÂ
>


Reply via email to