Siska, I had to re-read the post below to re-orient myself to this discussion. I might not have brought myself completely up-to-date so please excuse any misunderstandings.
I copied the terms 'feelings, perceptons and volitions' from the text below. These are supposed to be the 'mental objects' that are supposed to comprise the '6th sense' that is the subject of the discussion. I replied that it is these very illusions that obscure Buddha Nature, and I still stand by that statement. You asked a very good question: "From a zen perspective, whether it is the zen you practise or other zen practices, does it mean that these feelings, perceptions and volitions, aka illusions, are not present in the presence Buddha Nature or are they present and yet the 'Buddha Nature consciousness' is not affected by it?" First of all I can only answer from the zen I practice. I never claim to represent 'standard Zen Buddhism' although I think in this case there is not a great divergence. Buddha Nature is the pure awareness of raw sensory input, and nothing more. All creations of the descriminating mind (the mind that intellectualizes, rationalizes, categorizes, judges, etc..., are illusions. When the discriminating mind is fully engaged it's activites censor, augment, interpret, categorize, etc..., sensory input; and creates pure illusions (fantasies) that don't even have a basis of current sensory input. These activities (thoughts) obscure Buddha Nature. Early in my practice I could not maintain Buddha Nature AND create thoughts at the same time. It was one or the other. Through futher practice I was better able to maintain Buddha Nature and allow thoughts to form and dissipate without loosing awareness of Buddha Nature. The ability to to this came gradually. I call this 'integrating Buddha Nature into my daily life', and that in fact IS my practice - the practice of integrating Buddha Nature into my daily life by holding awareness of Buddha Nature while still being able to operate in the world of illusions - WITHOUT loosing the awareness that all the intellection are indeed illusions. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote: > > Hi Bill, All, > > I'm still behind with my emails. > > > 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. > > > From a zen perspective, whether it is the zen you practise or other zen > practices, does it mean that these feelings, perceptions and volitions, aka > illusions, are not present in the presence Buddha Nature or are they present > and yet the 'Buddha Nature consciousness' is not affected by it? > > Siska > -----Original Message----- > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:50:27 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > 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 (bÄhirÄni ÄyatanÄni 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! > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
