Many things, but I will only give a couple of examples.
A. They can teach better than I could. For example, when I was in Paris, I went
to the morning meditations of Master Deshimaru's Zen Center of Paris. Shortly
after I started, after the meditation, I went into the entry room, and there,
his students were gathered around him, shaking his hand and talking. Seeing
that, I decided I wanted to shake his hand too, but the other students were
packed so closely that I would have had to shove someone out of the way to get
to Master Deshimaru. So I just gave up. Within less than a second of the time I
gave up, Master Deshimaru was plunging through the group of students with his
hand outstretched to shake mine. I could never, in such a crowd, have detected
someone in the back suddenly giving up inside his head, and known exactly what
he wanted to do.
B. It doesn't have to be just Zen teachers; there are other advanced Buddhist
teachers also. I backpacked to India, and then Nepal, in 1971 to try to find a
teacher for a small group of friends who were starting a Buddhist community in
British Columbia - though we were from California. While I was in India, the
group fell apart so I was no longer doing that, but I went on to Nepal and
there stayed at the center of Lama Thubten Yeshe. It was only for a short while
because Nepal was refusing to give long term visas to Western students. The
only people there when I arrived were a Russian princess, whose mother had long
lived in Nepal, and another woman. So I didn't have time to interact very much,
but even from that short relationship, Lama Yeshe was able to do something
rather advanced. After I left, I ended up at one point, studying the
Visuddhimagga while traveling, and learning how to transform anger type
emotions into positive ones--- ended up in Granada, Spain. There, in the wide
boulevard, a gypsy woman came up, begging, and I gave her may mala, wishing
that the Dharma would come to Granada. She was very happy, and swung the mala
around her arm like a student in a debate in a Tibetan monastery.
Several years later, Lama Yeshe was reborn in Granada. He had been aware of me
when I was thousands of miles away, and decided to reincarnate there as a
teaching to me. I certainly can't be aware of people in detail thousands of
miles away like that.
C. I try to take my bodhisattva vows, both made at Zen and Tibetan centers
seriously, because so many beings are suffering so. A bodhisattva can do many
things I can't. For example, in Chinese Zen literature, buddhas and
bodhisattvas can move about from world to world in what the literature calls
the ten thousand great thousand world systems. I can't even rise into the air
and fly down to the post office, let alone travel between worlds. There are
also descriptions of bodhisattvas at various levels (bhumis) in the Tibetan
literature. Even a lowest level bodhisattva is said to be able to teach beings
on a thousand worlds simultaneously. That is way way way beyond what I can do.
Of course, I can't prove the above about bodhisattvas. But becoming able to do
that would make it possible to rescue many beings quickly from suffering.
Therefore, it is a worthwhile goal, even if I'm not absolutely certain. If I am
right to believe the literature, I will eventually become able to rescue many
beings. If I am wrong, then it really isn't doing any harm to try.
Jim
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Â like what?..merle
>
>
> Â
> I don't see how. There are good teachers who can do a lot of things I can't
> do.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ã you might already be enlightened.... have you considered this?.
> > .searching for the light with a broomstick is about what you seem to be
> > doing here
> > merle
> >
> >
> > Ã
> > Thank you for your thoughts. I think you are right, for after all, I am
> > still being dualistic. The problem is that I can't find the lemon to bite
> > into.
> >
> > For example, I have three kinds of "emptiness" meditations, but none of
> > them could be correct because none of them enlighten me. Although they are
> > incorrect, you asked about how I meditate, so I will briefly describe them.
> >
> > 1. Ordinary space. If I sit and don't think, there is a space without
> > thoughts, relaxation, etc.. The space is a little like when I look at the
> > sky. However, that hasn't enlightened me.
> >
> > 2. Then there is subtle space, which I discovered by trying to see what is
> > behind my head. It is much subtler than ordinary space, not really so much
> > seen as just sort of something I am aware of. Compared with it, ordinary
> > space is coarse and heavy.
> >
> > 3. Then there is an emptiness I don't have control of, but it hasn't
> > enlightened me. In it, I suddenly discovered that I shrunk to a point and
> > disappeared, and am now re-expanding into my ordinary field of awareness.
> > So it is a kind of discontinuity of consciousness - more than something
> > like sleep. When it happens, there are unexpected ideas in my head when I
> > have returned from the discontinuity.
> >
> > But none of those are right, because they didn't cause me to become
> > enlightened.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "billsmart" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > Caveat: Everything I tell you is only my opinion.
> > >
> > > You've read a lot of books on what a lemon tastes like but now you need
> > > to bite into the lemon and find out for yourself. The books can't do
> > > that for you. They can encourage you and lead you up to that point, but
> > > their usefulness ends there - and in fact I'd even say much of what
> > > you've learned could be a hindrance to you in taking that final step.
> > >
> > > The taste of the lemon (and ONLY that)is what I call Buddha Nature, and
> > > it is non-dualistic (no taster/lemon distintion - no subject/object). It
> > > is what I often call 'Just THIS!' When experienced it has no name, no
> > > description - it is Just THIS! Later we put names on it and give it a
> > > description - but then it is not the thing itself (Just THIS!), it is our
> > > description of it. It is what all the books you have read are trying to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > IMO the image you described below as called "mental-integration-itself"
> > > is illusory - samsara. As soon as you become aware of it as something
> > > that seems to be an "...image inside my head, I can see all parts of the
> > > image simultaneously because something in me is integrating the parts of
> > > the image in some way." What you are describing here is still dualistic
> > > - there is a you, you have a head, your head has an inside, this image is
> > > located there, the image has parts, etc...
> > >
> > > The second description starts to move a little farther away from dualism:
> > > "In a way, this transparent mental-integration-itself seems to be in
> > > front of the image. I then de-emphasize the image so it slips partly from
> > > awareness, while becoming more aware of the clear empty
> > > mental-integration-itself." A lot would depend on just what you meant by
> > > the phrase "clear empty mental-integration-itself." If you are still
> > > clinging to a dualistic view of this, something like, 'I am sitting, and
> > > I experience an image, and that image has parts and then another image
> > > appears that I call the 'mental-integration' of that first image, and
> > > then the first image disappears from my awareness (or at least recedes
> > > into the background)- and this new image is EMPTY'.' I'd have to again
> > > ask, what do you mean by 'empty'?
> > >
> > > If you mean this new image that you are now aware of that exists inside
> > > you has no form, that's one thing. If you mean 'all is empty', no me, no
> > > image, Just EMPTINESS!, then that is another thing entirely.
> > >
> > > Again, all this is just IMO.
> > >
> > > Before I could really offer you any advice I'd have to know what you mean
> > > by 'mediation'. How do you do about that? If you could explain that a
> > > little more it would help. Here's an example of how I sit (zazen):
> > >
> > > I start sitting by counting my breathes, then following my breathes and
> > > then I drop the following and there is Just THIS!. In Japanese this is
> > > called 'shikantaza' which literally means 'just sit' or is sometimes
> > > translated as 'no mind'. What I do NOT do is try to visualize anything or
> > > think of anything (like a 'safe place' or a mantra), although I know
> > > these are styles of meditation.
> > >
> > > Thanks, and WELCOME TO THE ZEN FORUM!
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I need some practice advice. In my meditation, I have become aware of
> > > > something I will call "mental-integration-itself" although those words
> > > > are only an approximation. I will therefore report some background and
> > > > details, below, to see if I can get this across. What I need is advice
> > > > on whether or not mental-integration-itself is enough on the path that
> > > > I should spend a lot of time noticing it. Also, of course, if anyone
> > > > sees a way I can improve on the mental-integration-itself awareness I
> > > > have so far, I would be grateful.
> > > >
> > > > Both Dzogchen and Zen say that somehow, satori and samsara are the
> > > > same. I have tried for years to understand what that would feel like.
> > > > Here are a several examples from a vast number of comments:
> > > >
> > > > Cleary, Thomas, trans. (2002) SECRETS OF THE BLUE CLIFF RECORD, ZEN
> > > > COMMENTS BY HAKUIN AND TENKEI, Boston& London: Shambhala
> > > >
> > > > Page 76, "If potential does not leave a static position, it falls into
> > > > a sea of poison ...
> > > >
> > > > "[Hakuin] The entirety of this introduction applies to the example.
> > > > `Potential' is what appears before being expressed in words; the
> > > > `static position' is the cave of satori...
> > > >
> > > > "[Tenkei] If you realize an awakening but do not eliminate leaking of
> > > > views, you stick to the absolute stasis of transcendence in the realm
> > > > of satori, which is to `fall into a sea of poison' ... "
> > > >
> > > > Rabjam, Longchen, Richard Barron, trans., Padma Translation Committee
> > > > (2001) THE PRECIOUS TREASURY OF THE BASIC SPACE OF PHENOMENA, Junction
> > > > City" Padma Publishing.
> > > >
> > > > Page 7, "However things appear or sound, within the vast realm of
> > > > basic space they do not stray from the spontaneous equalness as
> > > > dharmakaya, awakened mind...
> > > >
> > > > Page 15, "On this infinite foundation, extending everywhere
> > > > impartially, the stronghold of awakened mind does not distinguish
> > > > between samsara and nirvana..."
> > > >
> > > > Norbu, Chogyal Namkhui, Adriano Clemente, and Andrew Lukianowicz (1999)
> > > > THE SUPREME SOURCE, THE KUNJED GYALPO, THE FUNDAMENTAL TANTRA OF
> > > > DZOGCHEN SEMDE, Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications
> > > >
> > > > Page 150, "I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that is
> > > > not my essence. The teachers of the three dimensions {I'm unclear about
> > > > what "dimensions" means here, Jim} are my essence. The Buddhas of the
> > > > three times are my essence. The four types of yogins are my essence.
> > > > The three worlds, of desire, of form, and without form, too, are my
> > > > manifestations. The five great elements are my essence. The six classes
> > > > of beings are my essence. All the habitats and the beings living
> > > > therein are my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence because I
> > > > am the universal root: there is nothing that is not contained in me ..."
> > > >
> > > > OK. Now when I am meditating while there is an image inside my head, I
> > > > can see all parts of the image simultaneously because something in me
> > > > is integrating the parts of the image in some way. If I try to see this
> > > > mental-integration-itself, the mental-integration-itself is like
> > > > transparent space yet active. I can barely detect this transparent and
> > > > it doesn't look like any of the shapes or colors of the image. In a
> > > > way, this transparent mental-integration-itself seems to be in front of
> > > > the image. I then de-emphasize the image so it slips partly from
> > > > awareness, while becoming more aware of the clear empty
> > > > mental-integration-itself.
> > > >
> > > > Intellectually, the mental-integration itself which I experience isn't
> > > > any of the shapes or colors, yet it connects all the shapes and colors
> > > > together. So it has a little bit of form, from the connecting, plus it
> > > > is empty. Does the fact that it looks like it fits Buddhist definitions
> > > > mean that what I am experiencing actually does fit those definitions?
> > > > Therefore, would it be right to continue to become aware of the
> > > > mental-integration-itself with all kinds of perceptions, experiences,
> > > > and situations?
> > > >
> > > > So that I what I need some advice on.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
