Hey Merle and Joe, I hope you don't mind me butting in...
You asked, "Who was the very first to embrace zen?". The answer all depends on what you mean by "embrace zen". If by "embrace zen" you mean "realize Buddha Nature" I would say you'd have to go back to the very origin of life, whenever that was. If you want to limit that to humans I guess you'd have to go back to the first human, and of course I don't know who that was. The Bible names this person 'Adam', and of course 'Eve'. I think at first they lived in a state in which they constantly realized Buddha Nature. This was called The Garden of Eden. They were in constant communion with God then. It's only when they ate the fruit of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they were kicked out of the Garden. To me that means when humans evolved to a point where they begin to think dualistically (subject/object - to rationalize), that ability began to conceal Buddha Nature. So in the beginning (whenever that was) everyone realized Buddha Nature all the time, but when humans became more and more rational they moved farther and farther away from that. If by "embrace zen" you mean who was the first one to realize and identify Buddha Nature in the linage that we now identify as Zen Buddhism, the very first one would have to be Guatuama Buddha, or maybe you could say the first student that he prompted to realize Buddha Nature - Mahakashapa - during his 'Wordless Sermon at Vulture Peak'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > >  hey joe... > > if you don't mind me butting in... > > who was the very first person to embrace zen?... > > or let's put it this way..the originator?.. > > surely it's not something startlingly new?... > > surely even in the cave era..( early man)  there would have been a few zen > folk amongst the midst.. > > tis it not a  way to view the world.... or interact with the world.. > > .and i was under the impression zen went to the nitty gritty.. > > the heart of the matter with out all the" fluff, bubble and endless reams of > "homework" as you put it... > > you dive into the cold salty pool head first so to speak.... > > your thoughts?.. > > merle > >  > Bill!, > > Now, now; > > I sympathize with the difficulty some have in understanding the Sanskrit > technical terms "cold", but the fact is that they are precise, and carry > well-understood meaning. > > That's why they exist; and persist. > > Granted, for one who has not studied, and not assimilated them into the > understanding and the vocabulary, well, ...that person may as well be reading > Quantum Field-Theory, no? > > And yet the vocabulary in both cases has *exact* signification. > > Surely, one -- we -- can speak in common speech. That is fine. And then we > find, too, that a lot of agreement must be made on the fly about vocabulary > in mid-flight, during the course of the discussion. > > I sense that *that* is a cause of much disagreement here in several threads. > It's mostly due to mis-understanding, caused by different "takes" on the > meaning of words, when impressed into service to act as technical terms. > > In discussions of historical Buddhist philosophical schools' findings, it's > always good to know and to use the terms that those schools use. It's more > true to our subject to do so. > > Granted, somebody can try to speak about the workings of Quantum Mechanics > with you, but if you don't know the applicable mathematics, you will be lost > no matter how easily the common words roll off the tongue. They just don't > hit the mark. > > Very often, a close, intimate understanding of a topic, and a more skilful > *ability*, requires some homework: learning to read music; learning math; > learning the language of Wall Street and investing. > > Discussion of the mind or the Buddha is no different. > > Yes, make it up from scratch if you like; but expect misunderstanding at > *every* turn. Such discussions never end. > > Granted, we can use common speech to describe or discuss phenomenolgy, as my > Shihfu's disciple, Master Guo Jun does here, in giving a brief account of one > part of his awakening: > > http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/returning-home > > ...but he is not engaging there in a discussion of Philosophy!, just > phenomenology... what he felt as the blinkers fell away. > > And, it is wonderful! > > But he is a fellow who can teach Yogacara and Madhyamika, in all their > technical and precise panoply. And that is wonderful, too. My Shifu taught > it to many of us in months'-long classes, and so it carries on through Guo > Jun's generation. As well as in academic departments. And in my living room. > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Here's what I think it a good answer to this question by Bernie Glassman > > who was the Senior Monk at ZCLA when I was attending there and later > > became a full-fledged Zen Master. He's since renounced his Zen Master > > title and goes about his zen practice in a much more low-key and casual > > manner. > > It's refreshingly simple and to-the-point without any Buddhist or > > Sanskrit mumbo-jumbo: > > What is Enlightenment? > > <http://zenpeacemakers.org/2013/03/what-is-enlightenment/> > ------------------------------------ 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/
