It is difficult, if not impossible not to attach to romantic relationships. Do you have a specific example? Anthony
________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011, 0:16 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Enjoy it for what it is but don't be attached to it. Just like everything else... Edgar On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:49 AM, ED wrote: > > > >Hi sis >Hi siska, Bill, All, >I wonder what the consequences of applying the Zen perpective to a romantic >relationship might be. Your thoughts on this matter would be welcome. >--ED > > >> Hi Bill, All, >> >> > 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 ˆ 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 > > >> ED, >> >> Thanks for this reference. >> >> I obviously don't agree with what is presented here ˆ 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) ˆ 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 ˆ 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 ˆ 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 >> ˆ 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 ˆ 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! > > >> > 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 > > >> > 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! > > > >
