"Categorisation" as such is not real Buddhism either or at least not in all Buddhist traditions. However, there are explanatory dharmas only with the meaning of attention and awareness being awaken. I would most certainly agree with you Bill that most of times this is used as categorisation rather than a toy to awareness. The gradual unfolding mind layers. Mayka --- On Sat, 5/11/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, 5 November, 2011, 8:50 ED, Thanks for this reference. I obviously don't agree with what is presented here – not that I disagree that this is a faithful representation of Buddhist thought, but I disagree that it is a correct view. It might be okay from a Buddhist religious perspective, but it doesn't speak to me from a zen perspective at all. First of all and although I can understand and even sympathize with Buddhist and Western thought that leads to the separation and categorization of sentient quality in 5 (or 6) categories: external objects (transmitters) and `internal' sense organs (receptors) – ex., visible object/eye. That is the logical thing to do: create a dualistic, structured framework which our rational, discriminating mind can grasp and feel comfortable with. >From my experience when Buddha Nature is manifest there is not a separation. >There is not a dualistic separation such as `external' and `internal' such as >`sound' and `ear', nor is there a separation between `internal organs' such as >ear and eye. Sound and sight is not separate from nor distinct pieces of >Buddha Nature. When `you hear a sound', there is no `you', there is no `hear', >there is no `sound'. There is Just THIS! When `you hear a sound and see a >sight', there is no `you', no separation between `hear' or `see' or `sound' or >`sight'. It is all just one thing: Buddha Nature – Just THIS! Now, as to how Buddhist thought adds in the paired, external/internal category of `feelings, perceptions and volitions'/mind is really beyond me. When I'm operating in a nice cozy, logical, dualistic mode I could understand the grouping of the first 5 `external objects' since the source of all of them are vibrations – something physical. However my logic tells me that `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are NOT the same as external physical objects transmitting vibrations which are picked up by my paired `internal' 5 sense organs. `Feelings, perceptions and violations' are NOT something physical nor external at all. They are in fact internal creations of my mind (unless you want to assign their origin to something supernatural – like a god. The proceeding as I said was an argument and perspective using logic. >From a zen perspective `feelings, perceptions and volitions' are in fact the >very ILLUSIONS that are created by your discriminating mind that prevent you >from experiencing your sensory input directly – in a raw, unfiltered, >uncategorized, un-judged manner. In other words `feelings, perceptions and >volitions' are the very illusions which obscure Buddha Nature. This mismatch of the two perspectives described above concerning sentient qualities (aka as the 5 senses) and mind (aka in Buddhism as the 6th sense) is in fact the difference I see/sense/experience between Buddhism proper and the zen I practice. …Bill! --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > > Five or six? See below. --ED > > "Ayatana (Pali; Sanskrit) is a Buddhist term that has been translated as > "sense base", "sense-media" or "sense sphere." In Buddhism, there are > six internal sense bases (Pali: ajjhattikani ayatanani; also known as, > "organs", "gates", "doors", "powers" or "roots") and six external sense > bases (bÄ�hirÄ�ni Ä�yatanÄ�ni or "sense objects"; also > known as vishaya or "domains"). Thus, there are six internal-external > (organ-object) pairs of sense bases: > > * eye and visible objects > * ear and sound > * nose and odor > * tongue and taste > * body and touch > * mind and mental objects > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)> > > Buddhism and other Indian epistemologies identify six "senses" as > opposed to the Western identification of five. > > In Buddhism, "mind" denotes an internal sense organ which interacts with > sense objects that include sense impressions > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phassa> , feelings > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedana> , perceptions > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%C3%B1%C3%B1a> and volition > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra> ." > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > Chris, > > Truthfully I haven't thought about that a lot. > > Just off-the-cuff I'd say I would object to saying that the awareness of > mentation was a sixth sense. All your other senses bring you awareness > of real > things. Mentation is not a real thing, it is a collection of illusions, > so I > believe it is not in the same category as the other senses. > > This answer was arrived at without much thought so don't hold me to it > to > closely in the future... > > ...BIll! > > > > > Do you disagree that the awareness of mentation is a sixth sense? (as > I have > considered the heart sutra et alia to imply? And which I personally find > to be > a very freeing bit of Buddhist insight). > > > > Thanks, > > Chris Austin-Lane > > > > > ED, > > > > > > I'll answer your questions below in the reverse order that you asked > them: > > > > > > [ED] By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: ... > > > > > > I do mean what we call the five senses. > > > > > > From an illusory dualistic and discriminating (categorizing/judging) > perspective there is a 'me/I' (self) so 'I have 5 senses. I see > something blue > and it is pretty.' > > > > > > Contrast this with a non-dualistic, non-discriminating perspective > which > would be: 'Just THIS!' - just awareness. That is no distinction between > 'self' > and 'sight', no catagorization of the awareness as 'blue' and no > judgement made > that it is 'pretty'. > > > > > > Just THIS! That is Buddha Nature. > > > > > > [ED] Was it the position of your Zen teachers? > > > > > > I've never discussed Buddha Nature in this manner with my Zen > Buddhist > teachers. If I had they would have probably told me to 'empty my bowls' > - > meaning 'don't try to intellectualize Buddha Nature'. But to directly > answer > your question, no - none of my teachers ever told me this. > > > > > > [ED] Is this position traditional in Zen? > > > > > > I don't know if there's anyone or any organization that could > officially > speak for Zen Buddhism. I think it is the 'traditional position' because > most > of the traditional koans and stories (mondos) of historical zen adepts > that I've > read or heard about support this position - at least it seems that way > to me. > > > > > > In the end however I don't need any validation from traditional zen > or from > living Zen Buddhist teachers. I have experienced it myself. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > >> Bill, > > >> > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses ... > > >> > > >> Is this position traditional in Zen? > > >> > > >> Was it the position of your Zen teachers? > > >> > > >> Thanks, ED > > >> > > >> PS: By 'senses' I assume you refer to the five senses: seeing, > hearing, > > >> touch, tasting, smelling. > > > > > >>> ED, > > >>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of Buddhism' to be the sutras, and especially > > >> those that are presented as a first-hand account of the teachings > of > > >> Siddartha Buddha. > > >>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of Zen Buddhism' to be the account of > Siddartha > > >> Buddha's 'Flower Sermon' on Vulture Peak when he is reported to > have > > >> wordlessly trasmited the Dharma to Mahakasyapa. > > >>> > > >>> I consider the 'root of zen' to be our senses: Just THIS! > > >>> > > >>> ...Bill! >
