Moving from a selfish practice to practice for all

[shikantazen]

Touched by below post by Horin in the other thread on Rapturous samadhi


My idea on it is that Dogen Zenji tried to make clear that the effort to attain certain mind states in order to gain personal liberation through the practice is the wrong way. He called it hinayana. Afaik is this exactly describing the aim for self liberation. Our bodhisattva vows aim in another direction. we try to liberate all sentient beings. We take the last place in the queue.

My practice is selfish (judging my zazen on focus, worrying if it is "working", no compassion in real life, would never give away my zazen "progress" to others) for my own liberation despite all vows I say daily. What tips do others have for really being a selfless student and not minding taking the last place in the queue

Gassho,
Sam
ST

[Sekishi]

Two quick reflections on my experience (take with a grain of salt and YMMV):

1. With time and practice, I feel the walls between “self” and “other” have gotten much thinner / feel like conventional constructs only. At some point “my Dukkha” becomes less and less of a focus and all beings come into focus instead. Eg “my suffering” isn’t the enemy, simply “suffering” is. It feels like this just comes with the territory, no forcing it.

2. I’ve found no quicker way to ease “my Dukkha” than to help someone else with theirs. It sounds simplistic to the point of absurdity: help someone else with their suffering and you both might feel better. If this seems self serving, perhaps, but see also #1... Dukkha is Dukkha.

Both of these come with a caveat: you need to care for your body and life too of course. There is a balancing act. When the oxygen mask falls, take some so you stay functional and then give it your child or others around you that need it.

Anyhow maybe that’s too simplistic, but it comes from this heart.

Deep bows,
Sekishi
#sat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Onka]

Intrinsically I'm a protector and helper, always have been someone community minded and always stood up for the underdog and brought home "strays" which I still do. My Practice is selfish in that I started sitting in order to sit with the pain of my spinal disabilities but the discipline and structure of Zen Buddhism Practice with its focus on compassion for all has united the selfishness and the desire to serve others.
I hope that makes sense.
Gassho
Onka
ST

[Jundo]

Sekishi echoes my heart.


Our bodhisattva vows aim in another direction. we try to liberate all sentient beings. We take the last place in the queue.

Taking the last place in the queue, we realize that there was never a front or back of the line. gassho1

Gassho, J

STLah

[Horin]

I'm not sure who was saying this. But to liberate all sentient beings means also to liberate them from "me", from my views, ideas, judgements about them and reality. I liked that aspect.
By dropping our ideas, our idealism about the others, and the reality, we have to drop the idea of me and about our personal enlightenment, I think.

Gassho

Horin


Stlah

Enviado desde mi PLK-L01 mediante Tapatalk

[Margherita]

Hello,
Sam I am no expert, I am still troubled by my ego that, I can see that clearly in Zazen, tries to cling onto everything and anything. If it can help, not long ago I decided to let go of my fears and my doubts and have faith. Faith intended as trust towards the enlightened people that have walked the Path before me and left a trace, like our Master Dogen for example. I want to trust these people that state that we are one, that when we sit the entire universe is sitting with us, that Practice is enlightenment and that our efforts will reverberate and be of benefit to all sentient beings. Also, to remind myself that Practice is not just for my benefit, at the end of my Zazen I bow and dedicate the session and the Sutras to all beings, in particular to those who suffer, and at times I add names of people I know of that are going through a tough time or need a little boost.

Gassho,
Mags
ST

[Risho]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately too, and the responses have been really good in this thread. It’s sort of, well it is, a koan. without any self-interest we wouldn’t have come to practice but, after time, and a little right intention I think that self/other divisor naturally fades a bit; that can’t be rushed; it has to unfold, naturally, so I just sit selfishness or not, goal or no goal, just sit

gassho

risho
-st

[Bion]

I believe one becomes selfless when one understands interdependence and that what it means is that the wellbeing of others is our wellbeing and vice-versa. The Buddha's initial mission was to find the end of suffering and that was meant to be for all beings, for if he could end his own suffering, he could end everyone else's, so if we strive to generate beneficial karma, we follow Buddha's example. It also helps to understand that every present moment is an opportunity to embody the Buddha so even if we judge past moments and actions as selfish, we have the perfect opportunity right now to act differently.

[Shinshi]

Well, you can't be a lifeguard unless you know how to swim. Just let your practice be your practice until you are ready for the next step. In the meantime practice small acts of compassion as you find the opportunity: pay for someone's groceries, wave and say hi to strangers, treat the earth with compassion, volunteer or donate to an organization that means something to you, smile more often, pick up some trash in the park, find what works for you.

Gassho, Shinshi

SaT-LaH

[Bion]

Well, you can't be a lifeguard unless you know how to swim. Just let your practice be your practice until you are ready for the next step. In the meantime practice small acts of compassion as you find the opportunity: pay for someone's groceries, wave and say hi to strangers, treat the earth with compassion, volunteer or donate to an organization that means something to you, smile more often, pick up some trash in the park, find what works for you.

Gassho, Shinshi

SaT-LaH

great advice! Practicing compassion is not like training to be compassionate. Every compassionate act performed already IS COMPASSION.

[Hoseki]

Touched by below post by Horin in the other thread on Rapturous samadhi



My practice is selfish (judging my zazen on focus, worrying if it is "working", no compassion in real life, would never give away my zazen "progress" to others) for my own liberation despite all vows I say daily. What tips do others have for really being a selfless student and not minding taking the last place in the queue

Gassho,
Sam
ST

Hi Sam,

I don't think I have much to add but I have a little something. You could thinking of our practice like a flower (maybe a Tulup.) When its still in the bud or its the night time they appear to be closed off. But they are still being a plant. But when the sun comes up it opens and its beautiful, fragrant and it allows bees and other insects to drink its nectar. The bees are a part of their reproductive processes. They take part in the life of the flower and the flower takes part in the life of the bee. I don't have enough time to fully clarif but I hope it makes sense and isn't to hokey.

The other thing is that care for yourself is fine and in fact if you loved everyone that would include yourself. But with time that love can grow to encompass more than yourself and your inner circle. Plus love can be expressed through actions as well even if we don't "feel" it. So when I hold my tongue with my kids I'm still angry but the love manifests in my calming myself down to deal with them respect and care (at least I try.)


Does any of this work for you?

Gassho
Hoseki
sattoday

[Jundo]

In the monastery, whether in Buddha's time or Dogen's, a monk would take care of others AND take care of his/her own personal needs, practice, mental and physical health. Others were fed and tended to, but one fed and tended to oneself too. Even outside a monastery, out in the world, we may be part of a loving family in which one needs and works to take care of others, feeding and clothing and comforting them, but we also must feed and clothe, rest and recreate, and comfort ourself in order to do so. The others are not separate from you, but neither are you separate from them. I think it is much the same for doctors and nurses in a hospital, flight attendants on a plane, social workers helping the poor, teachers in a school ... all need to strike a balance, so as not to burn out, between being 'other directed' AND their own healthful, moderated and mentally/physically balanced self interest (don't be too self-absorbed, personal pleasure addicted, excessive, greedy or someone who indulges in harmful activities). Self and others, all in balance, all in its time.

:buddha: But Buddhism provides a few more lessons: That there never were "others" to start with, nor a personal "self," and thus the others are already safe ... although they just don't know so. As strange as it sounds, we rescue the others by proving to the others that there were never others in need of rescue all along! gassho1 Also, they are just us, and we are just them ... so our sitting Zazen and practice is automatically their sitting and practice. Your sitting Zazen automatically saves the whole world, a whole world that never needed saving. There is nothing to do, nothing ever in need of doing ... and nobody to do it, or to do it to.

Nonetheless, though all that is true and, from one perspective, there is nobody in need of saving in the absolute perspective, nonetheless here in the relative world there are still hungry mouths to feed and minds to enlighten ... so when we monks and mommies get back up from the cushion, we get back to work feeding our fellow monks or children, waiting tables or curing patients, tending to passengers or the needy poor ... and tending to our own needs too.

All together, all in healthy balance.

Gassho, J

STLah

(pardon, more than 3 small sentences)

[Horin]

In the monastery, whether in Buddha's time or Dogen's, a monk would take care of others AND take care of his/her own personal needs, practice, mental and physical health. Others were fed and tended to, but one fed and tended to oneself too. Even outside a monastery, out in the world, we may be part of a loving family in which one needs and works to take care of others, feeding and clothing and comforting them, but we also must feed and clothe, rest and recreate, and comfort oneself in order to do so. The others are not separate from you, but neither are you separate from them. I think it is much the same for doctors and nurses in a hospital, flight attendants on a plane, social workers helping the poor, teachers in a school ... all need to strike a balance between being 'other directed' AND healthful, moderated and mentally/physically balanced self interest (don't be too self-absorbed, personal pleasure addicted, excessive, greedy or someone who indulges in harmful activities) so as not to burn out.

:buddha: But Buddhism provides a few more lessons: That there never were "others" to start with, nor a personal "self," and thus the others are already safe ... although they just don't know so. Also, they are just us, and we are just them ... so our sitting Zazen and practice is automatically their sitting and practice. Your sitting Zazen automatically saves the whole world, a whole world that never needed saving.

Nonetheless, though all that is true and, from one perspective, there is nobody in need of saving in the absolute perspective, here in the relative world there are still hungry mouths to feed and minds to enlighten ... so when we monks and mommies get back up from the cushion, we get back to work feeding our fellow monks or children, waiting tables or curing patients, tending to passengers or the needy poor ... and tending to our own needs too.

All together, all in healthy balance.

Gassho, J

STLah

(pardon, more than 3 small sentences)Really beautiful, thank you gassho1


Gassho
Horin

Stlah

Enviado desde mi PLK-L01 mediante Tapatalk

[Jundo]

great advice! Practicing compassion is not like training to be compassionate. Every compassionate act performed already IS COMPASSION.

Lovely! This is Master Dogen's teaching of "Practice-Enlightenment," in which every "Buddha-like" act, word or thought of compassion, peace, generosity, equanimity, patience, diligence, kindness and the rest ... IS ... a Buddha realized and brought to life right here, in the doing.

Alas, our acts of greed, anger, violence, jealousy and the like also bring to life something very different.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Risho]

(pardon, more than 3 small sentences)

I will not pardon you good sir! :) gassho2

Gassho

Rish
-stlah

[Jakuden]

To illustrate what many others have already pointed out in this lovely thread: early in my career, I struggled with "burnout" (a form of dukkha) which is common in health care professions, since they require tending to other people's needs all day in an often urgent setting. Most of what I called "burnout" was my own mind resisting, ruminating over how much I wanted to be wherever I wasn't, doing something else, putting "my own needs" higher on the list. With observation of my own mind over the years, I can better decide when I am creating my own inner "burnout" due to greed, anger and delusion, or whether I really do need to tend to myself for the good of all involved.

Gassho,
Jakuden
SatToday/LAH

[Bion]

Exactly. I can´t help but to think of his teaching about the meaning of practice and realization. Thanks for your nice addition to my brief less than 3 sentences reply 😄
Lovely! This is Master Dogen's teaching of "Practice-Enlightenment," in which every "Buddha-like" act, word or thought of compassion, peace, generosity, equanimity, patience, diligence, kindness and the rest ... IS ... a Buddha realized and brought to life right here, in the doing.

Alas, our acts of greed, anger, violence, jealousy and the like also bring to life something very different.

Gassho, J

STLah

[shikantazen]

Thank you sangha. Such beautiful replies and wisdom everyone.

Gassho,
Sam
ST

[Kokuu]

My practice is selfish (judging my zazen on focus, worrying if it is "working", no compassion in real life, would never give away my zazen "progress" to others) for my own liberation despite all vows I say daily. What tips do others have for really being a selfless student and not minding taking the last place in the queue

Hi Sam

My personal suggestions based on thing which has helped me are two-fold

1. Compassionate activity, including volunteer work, the more physical the better, although that may be harder in the current pandemic restrictions.

2. Compassion practices such as the Metta Verses. Use daily for most benefit.


Neither of these is focused on getting you enlightened, which is part of the reason for suggesting them.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[A.J.]

I don't have a tip so much as a thought.
If an individual were to be free from dukha then it's unlikely they would spread dukha to those they are around.
Perhaps since humans are interconnected to be centered in your self (in a Dhammapada sense) is not the same as being self-centered.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I don't have a tip so much as a thought.
If an individual were to be free from dukha then it's unlikely they would spread dukha to those they are around.
Perhaps since humans are interconnected to be centered in your self (in a Dhammapada sense) is not the same as being self-centered.



I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Bion]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

What many of us fail to understand is that there is no exterior cause for our emotional suffering. Someone doesn’t offend us, we choose to interpret words or actions and assign them a certain moral or emotional value, and then decide the intention behind them and how we “feel” about them. We react to ourselves and our senses but blame the result on external conditions.


Sat Today

[Shinshou]

Some people are naturally strong and have big muscles; likewise, some people are naturally selfless and take the worst parking spot. If one is not naturally muscular, the only way to build muscles (if you want them) is to work from the outside in and exercise them. It's no different with character traits like selflessness: if you don't have it naturally, just do it whether you want to or not and it will gradually become a "natural" part of you.

Just my experience -
Shinshou (Daniel)
Sat Today

[StoBird]

There is a great article that pertains to this discussion in this issue of ‘Dharma Eye’ titled “How to Live Here and Now – The Connection With a 1.5 Personal Pronoun”: https://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/dharma/pdf/45e.pdf

Gassho,
Tom

Sat/lah

[A.J.]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

To a large extent I think that is true and is a useful belief psychologically. Nevertheless I can't completely buy the idea that people don't influence other people. Therefore if your practice makes you a better influence on those around you then all the better.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

For instance, you've mentioned the atrocities committed by Chogyam Trungpa before. It would be wrong to say that the harm was only in the heads of the victims.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

To a large extent I think that is true and is a useful belief psychologically. Nevertheless I can't completely buy the idea that people don't influence other people. Therefore if your practice makes you a better influence on those around you then all the better.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Horin]

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLahYes, I think there are folks that tend to say "so what, it's just illness. It is what it is, who cares?" Although this is true on a certain level, as you said, with this perspective we are ignorant to another level, and dismiss that aspect of being a human that suffers from certain circumstances. So it's neither only the one nor the other. It's neither getting lost into nihilism nor into the total entanglement of finding oneself a victim to the circumstances. But out of the "it is what is" and the level of dukkha and suffering, we can act and try to make a situation better, help people, and find compassion and practice the way of the bodhisattva

Gassho

Horin

Stlah

Enviado desde mi PLK-L01 mediante Tapatalk

[gaurdianaq]

Going along with Shinshi's analogy of "You can't be a lifeguard if you don't know how to swim" another great analogy comes from airliners.

You must put your own oxygen mask before helping someone else with there's. If you pass out from lack of oxygen you can't help others. (That being said, once you have your mask on you should do what you can to help others)

gassho1
Evan,
Sat today!

[StoBird]

This is starting to make sense: closing the gap that creates dukkha naturally minimizes the "self" or the inner needy child (or putting on the oxgyen mask), making it easier to respect reality as it is, here and now (helping others with their masks).

Outside of Zazen, the subtle trap is to only see "pretty," "good" or "high value" people, experiences or things because of expecting to win or gain things or praise, as if expecting to be awarded for every mask put on a childs face. Though even then, I suppose we just accept the feeling of wanting to help only that which we will gain from and continue to put masks on faces.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat/lah

[A.J.]

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLah

Ah, I see the distinction you are making.
In the Pali Canon do you think it is possible that dukkha includes all forms of suffering in existence because of the soteriological framework around enlightenment, the arhat and the ultimate goal of no longer being on the wheel of Samsara?
Did the meaning of dukkha change along with the new bodhisattva ideal in the Mahayana?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

Ah, I see the distinction you are making.
In the Pali Canon do you think it is possible that dukkha includes all forms of suffering in existence because of the soteriological framework around enlightenment, the arhat and the ultimate goal of no longer being on the wheel of Samsara?
Did the meaning of dukkha change along with the new bodhisattva ideal in the Mahayana?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

[A.J.]

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLah

... come to think of it I think I get your distinction but I might need more clarification.
Let's say someone punches a Buddhist in the face:
is the impact suffering (but not dukkha) and the internal reaction (aversion, resentment, animosity, whatever) dukkha but not quite the same as sheer suffering?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

Some of these terms seem slippery. What I like about the Zen emphasis in your example on sadness is that it is more of a fully fledged way of facing what's there rather than making it into something else.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

My original comment on this thread had more to do with the idea of dukkha as mental afflictions that people can't help but spill all over other people. Misery loves company, for instance. The idea being that if one were more liberated from that sort of dukkha one would be less beholden to spreading it everywhere.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

... come to think of it I think I get your distinction but I might need more clarification.
Let's say someone punches a Buddhist in the face:
is the impact suffering (but not dukkha) and the internal reaction (aversion, resentment, animosity, whatever) dukkha but not quite the same as sheer suffering?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.



I would say that the situation is, first, a broken nose and physical pain. There may even be some aversion, resentment, animosity, fear etc. that begins to arise in the victim's animal brain as a result, as a natural reaction. Hopefully, the well-trained Buddhist can learn to head that off and turn away from such angry reaction before it starts to boil out of control.

But Dukkha is something more basic, and that is an underlying refusal to accept the situation and conditions themselves. I can be rolling on the floor in pain with a bloody nose, I can even feel some anger and fear welling up in my animal "fight or flight" mind as just a circumstance (hopefully not to run to excess) ...

... but simultaneously can also just be in total acceptance and flowing with the situation at the same time, and even in touch with an aspect beyond puncher and punched, pain or no pain, anger or no anger at once. There is nothing to fight, no other place to fly too, even as I am in the midst of fight or flight response.

In such case, there is no Dukkha. Furthermore, such realization may actually help head off the arising anger and fear of the mind.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

My original comment on this thread had more to do with the idea of dukkha as mental afflictions that people can't help but spill all over other people. Misery loves company, for instance. The idea being that if one were more liberated from that sort of dukkha one would be less beholden to spreading it everywhere.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

I would say that we can choose to harm others or not harm others. I can want to cause another harm, whether a broken nose, feelings of sadness or feelings of Dukkha.

But our "Dukkha" is a most personal matter. I am ultimately the creator of my own Dukkha, even if somebody else is the creator of my broken nose.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

I would say that the situation is, first, a broken nose and physical pain. There may even be some aversion, resentment, animosity, fear etc. that begins to arise in the victims animal brain as a result, as a natural reaction. Hopefully, the well-trained Buddhist can learn to head that off and turn away from such angry reaction before it starts to boil out of control.

But Dukkha is something more basic, and that is an underlying refusal to accept the situation and conditions themselves. I can be rolling on the floor in pain with a bloody nose, I can even feel some anger and fear welling up in my animal "fight or flight" mind as just a circumstance (hopefully not to run to excess) ...

... but simultaneously can also just be in total acceptance and flowing with the situation at the same time, and even in touch with an aspect beyond puncher and punched, pain or no pain, anger or no anger at once. There is nothing to fight, no other place to fly too, even as I am in the midst of fight or flight response.

In such case, there is no Dukkha. Furthermore, such realization may actually help head off the arising anger and fear of the mind.

Gassho, J

STLah

Alright, I think I get your idea.
Just trying to figure our where exactly dukkha begins in your view by playing off a stark example.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I would say that we can choose to harm others or not harm others. I can want to cause another harm, whether a broken nose, feelings of sadness or feelings of Dukkha.

But our "Dukkha" is a most personal matter. I am ultimately the creator of my own Dukkha, even if somebody else is the creator of my broken nose.

Gassho, J

STLah

So then, in effect, liberation from personal dukkha does absolutely nothing for other beings?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Hokin]

Wonderful Thread, really.
I have been dealing with this same kind of koan-like questioning pretty much as of late, especially...and find all the advises I have read from you all so far very helpful! Thank you beautiful Sangha!
I just feel I have nothing more to add that hasn't yet been wistfully stated by you all, so I appreciate your deep and useful counselling and will look forward to keep them at heart and let them flow through day-by-day sincere and wholehearted practice (on-and-off the zafu), always surely starting from here and now. There are always beings whom we can try benefit, even if with a little kind thought, a smile, a comforting word or gesture..a heartfelt wish and ready/steady openness to be and make/do better and better. We are one in multiplicity, we are multiplicity in one!

Gassho.
Hokin.
ST.

[Jundo]

So then, in effect, liberation from personal dukkha does absolutely nothing for other beings?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

[A.J.]

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

So how do various references in Zen ritual that refer to practicing for all beings fit into that point of view? I'm sure I've heard instances where people in Zen temples made it sound like the practice that they were doing in that place was itself for the whole world.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

Also, based on this what is the point of the bodhisattva ideal? Might as well be an arhat.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

So how do various references in Zen ritual that refer to practicing for all beings fit into that point of view? I'm sure I've heard instances where people in Zen temples made it sound like the practice that they were doing in that place was itself for the whole world.

...

Also, based on this what is the point of the bodhisattva ideal? Might as well be an arhat.



Yes, we practice to rescue the sentient beings, not merely for ourselves. To rescue the sentient beings in an ultimate sense is to help them realize how to be free of the "Dukkha" which they are creating between their own ears.

The way to free the sentient beings is to show them that there never were any "sentient beings" in need of saving from the beginingless-beginning, nor anything lacking. except for the self-created sense of separate "self," the self-created measures of division and lack, and self-created frictions and disappointments of "Dukkha" which the separate self creates between its own ears.

Arhats can do what arhats do, but Bodhisattvas practice to liberate the sentient beings.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

As to the difference between "Dukkha" and physical harm or revulsion, I stumbled on a truly stomach turning story yesterday about the Korean Master, Wonhyo, more than our "pooh and peaches":

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED for the SENSITIVE [mindblowing]


In 661 he and a close friend - Uisang - were traveling to China where they hoped to study Buddhism further. Somewhere in the region of Baekje, the pair were caught in a heavy downpour and forced to take shelter in what they believed to be an earthen sanctuary. During the night Wonhyo was overcome with thirst, and reaching out grasped what he perceived to be a gourd, and drinking from it was refreshed with a draught of cool, refreshing water. Upon waking the next morning, however, the companions discovered much to their amazement that their shelter was in fact an ancient tomb littered with human skulls, and the vessel from which Wonhyo had drunk was a human skull full of brackish water and human remains. Upon seeing this, Wonhyo vomited. Startled by the experience of believing that a gruesome liquid was a refreshing treat, Wonhyo was astonished at the power of the human mind to transform reality.

The body vomits, this is natural. A mental and physical revulsion is felt, this is natural.

However, one can so come to accept and flow with this experience ... drinking when drinking, being mistaken when mistaken, thinking it a gourd when thinking it a gourd, just vomiting when vomiting, just feeling revulsion when feeling revulsion ... that there is no Dukkha.

Perhaps you think that a fully enlightened Buddha would neither vomit nor feel revulsion?

Okay, it is noon ... I'm off to lunch. :encouragement:

Gassho, J

STlah

PS - In fact, when I was in India, I encountered some Shavist holy men who train themselves to do just that ... but I don't think that one needs to be so in order to escape Samsara. That is the kind of extreme which, it is said, the ascetic Buddha rejected.

https://youtu.be/9xsnsEYYK7c

[A.J.]

Yes, we practice to rescue the sentient beings, not merely for ourselves. To rescue the sentient beings in an ultimate sense is to help them realize how to be free of the "Dukkha" which they are creating between their own ears.

The way to free the sentient beings is to show them that there never were any "sentient beings" in need of saving from the beginingless-beginning, nor anything lacking. except for the self-created sense of separate "self," the self-created measures of division and lack, and self-created frictions and disappointments of "Dukkha" which the separate self creates between its own ears.

Arhats can do what arhats do, but Bodhisattvas practice to liberate the sentient beings.

Gassho, J

STLah

To show anyone anything don't you have to know it yourself? Doesn't even that show some connection between liberation of the person showing and the shown? It's funny to me here that everything is part of interdependent co-arising... except for dukkha... that's an isolated phenomena in the head.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

As to the difference between "Dukkha" and physical harm or revulsion, I stumbled on a truly stomach turning story yesterday about the Korean Master, Wonhyo, more than our "pooh and peaches":

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED for the SENSITIVE [mindblowing]



The body vomits, this is natural. A mental and physical revulsion is felt, this is natural.

However, one can so come to accept and flow with this experience ... drinking when drinking, being mistaken when mistaken, thinking it a gourd when thinking it a gourd, just vomiting when vomiting, just feeling revulsion when feeling revulsion ... that there is no Dukkha.

Perhaps you think that a fully enlightened Buddha would neither vomit nor feel revulsion?

Okay, it is noon ... I'm off to lunch. :encouragement:

Gassho, J

STlah

PS - In fact, when I was in India, I encountered some Shavist holy men who train themselves to do just that ... but I don't think that one needs to be so in order to escape Samsara. That is the kind of extreme which, it is said, the ascetic Buddha rejected.

https://youtu.be/9xsnsEYYK7c

Yeah, gross. I accept that shit exists but don't need to eat it because of non-duality. There is still conventional duality... enjoy your poohless peaches :)

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

As to the difference between "Dukkha" and physical harm or revulsion, I stumbled on a truly stomach turning story yesterday about the Korean Master, Wonhyo, more than our "pooh and peaches":

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED for the SENSITIVE [mindblowing]



The body vomits, this is natural. A mental and physical revulsion is felt, this is natural.

However, one can so come to accept and flow with this experience ... drinking when drinking, being mistaken when mistaken, thinking it a gourd when thinking it a gourd, just vomiting when vomiting, just feeling revulsion when feeling revulsion ... that there is no Dukkha.

Perhaps you think that a fully enlightened Buddha would neither vomit nor feel revulsion?

Okay, it is noon ... I'm off to lunch. :encouragement:

Gassho, J

STlah

PS - In fact, when I was in India, I encountered some Shavist holy men who train themselves to do just that ... but I don't think that one needs to be so in order to escape Samsara. That is the kind of extreme which, it is said, the ascetic Buddha rejected.

https://youtu.be/9xsnsEYYK7c

I don't think a fully enlightened Buddha wouldn't vomit or feel revulsion. I think that is what people sound like they are promoting some of the time though when talking about being totally beyond craving and aversion. That's not my bag because I'm happy to accept the conventional parameters of human life along with a more ultimate view.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

To show anyone anything don't you have to know it yourself? Doesn't even that show some connection between liberation of the person showing and the shown?

Oh, yes, the guide must know it to show it, but that does not mean that the teacher can do the "heavy lifting" for the student. The teacher can help guide the student, but the student must realize the lesson of "self" for herself between her own ears.


It's funny to me here that everything is part of interdependent co-arising... except for dukkha... that's an isolated phenomena in the head.


Oh no, Dukkha is part of interdependent co-arising, as are all phenomena. That does not mean that it is not primarily personal. For example, the sun and moon, all other creatures, history and every blade of grass, every thing, being or moment of the whole universe gathers together in some ways, directly and indirectly, to cause you to have a heart beating in your chest and a brain between your ears. This is true. Nonetheless, my heart beating in my body does not cause your blood to pump in your body ... your heart must do its own beating, and your liberation from Dukkha must be done by you in the end.


I don't think a fully enlightened Buddha wouldn't vomit or feel revulsion. I think that is what people sound like they are promoting some of the time though when talking about being totally beyond craving and aversion. That's not my bag because I'm happy to accept the conventional parameters of human life along with a more ultimate view.

Well, I happen to think that a "fully enlightened Buddha" is going to turn blue in the face and die if I cut off his oxygen, that he will tumble over in pain and nausea if he gets hit in the nuts (assuming a Buddha has those ... some people debate that), and that certain situations or actions, somehow to some degree if extreme enough, will cause him to feel nausea and revulsion because it is hard wired into the animal brain (it may not be drinking from a skull, but something will cross the line of disgust even for a buddha). So long as the buddha had a human body, he cannot avoid these facts. In any case, were a buddha so removed from the human conditions that he felt no reaction at all, that would not be a "buddha" that I would care to follow.

But what we can do in this life, say the Zen and other Mahayana masters, is be free even when bound ... for example, we can drink from a skull and be disgusted, all while realizing that "life and death" are just a dream, and there was never any death or skull all along. Thus we vomit and roll on the floor in pain, yet there is no "sentient being" to do so from the startless start.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

Oh, yes, the guide must know it to show it, but that does not mean that the teacher can do the "heavy lifting" for the student. The teacher can help guide the student, but the student must realize the lesson of "self" for herself between her own ears.



Oh no, Dukkha is part of interdependent co-arising, as are all phenomena. That does not mean that it is not primarily personal. For example, the sun and moon, all other creatures, history and every blade of grass, every thing, being or moment of the whole universe gathers together in some ways, directly and indirectly, to cause you to have a heart beating in your chest and a brain between your ears. This is true. Nonetheless, my heart beating in my body does not cause your blood to pump in your body ... your heart must do its own beating, and your liberation from Dukkha must be done by you in the end.



Well, I happen to think that a "fully enlightened Buddha" is going to turn blue in the face and die if I cut off his oxygen, that he will tumble over in pain and nausea if he gets hit in the nuts (assuming a Buddha has those ... some people debate that), and that certain situations or actions, somehow to some degree if extreme enough, will cause him to feel nausea and revulsion because it is hard wired into the animal brain (it may not be drinking from a skull, but something will cross the line of disgust even for a buddha). So long as the buddha had a human body, he cannot avoid these facts. In any case, were a buddha so removed from the human conditions that he felt no reaction at all, that would not be a "buddha" that I would care to follow.

But what we can do in this life, say the Zen and other Mahayana masters, is be free even when bound ... for example, we can drink from a skull and be disgusted, all while realizing that "life and death" are just a dream, and there was never any death or skull all along. Thus we vomit and roll on the floor in pain, yet there is no "sentient being" to do so from the startless start.

Gassho, J

STLah

I wouldn't expect that anyone could enlighten someone else anymore than they could pump someone else's blood for them but only mention the interlinked nature of existence because in my original comment on this particular thread I mentioned the possibility that personal liberation from dukkha could have positive ripple effects on those we are around (therefore solving some of the dichotomy between self-centered and selfless practice).

From there we have had a very interesting discussion about the exact definition of dukkha from your view, though I still see, with some modification, room for the idea that your own individual practice can have ripple effects (e.g. your example of showing the selfless nature of existence).

I just hope the Buddha wouldn't eat peaches with poo in them to prove a point for that would be a colossal waste of peaches.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I wouldn't expect that anyone could enlighten someone else anymore than they could pump someone else's blood for them but only mention the interlinked nature of existence because in my original comment on this particular thread I mentioned the possibility that personal liberation from dukkha could have positive ripple effects on those we are around (therefore solving some of the dichotomy between self-centered and selfless practice).



We agree there. Freedom from Dukkha ... being less bound by excess desire, anger, jealousy and other divided thinking ... will tend to make me act in ways less harmful to others. Furthermore, it may/should give rise to compassion, and a concern to help those others, including by helping them learn and practice Buddhism!

But what it cannot do is cause those others to be free of Dukkha until they realize so themselves between their own ears. A teacher can point them to the Zafu, a book, a teaching, some other technique ... but their self must free itself for itself.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

We agree there. Freedom from Dukkha ... being less bound by excess desire, anger, jealousy and other divided thinking ... will tend to make me act in ways less harmful to others. Furthermore, it may/should give rise to compassion, and a concern to help those others, including by helping them learn and practice Buddhism!

But what it cannot do is cause those others to be free of Dukkha until they realize so themselves between their own ears. A teacher can point them to the Zafu, a book, a teaching, some other technique ... but their self must free itself for itself.

Gassho, J

STLah

Yes. And now that I understand your particular use of the term dukkha (I have read many books and listened to many teachings that ascribed to it many shades of meaning) I know I agree with your thought as well.

There are ripple effects on the top of the ocean but everyone has to deal with the sea floor in themselves by themselves.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

The one exception I have pondered for a book I am writing, something that may come with future (not so far future) technology, would be machines and pharmaceuticals that cause people to realize "no self," to be free of Dukkha, when administered ... whether the people want to be so or not, to undergo the treatment or not.

In other words (I am ethically against this, by the way, just to be clear), can I make people free of Dukkha and "enlightened" against their will?

I believe that it could be technically possible, but in fact, what you still would be doing is changing what is happening between the ears of the individual by use of the machine or drug.

(By the way, the solution I proposed in my book to the ethical issue is to make the experience of liberation and freedom from Dukkha so nice for people that, on word of mouth, they will choose to undergo the procedures voluntarily, totally of their own free will, because it leaves them healthier and more content. They will willingly choose to undergo the change, without compulsion of any kind, for the same reason that people choose anything in the marketplace which makes them feel better, same as for a new pair of shoes at the mall or cosmetic surgery or an ice cream cone on a hot day. I also foresee them voluntarily choosing treatments which leave them more peaceful, more altruistic, less violent and the like for the same reasons ... the treatments leave them physically healthier and feeling better about themselves.)

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

The one exception I have pondered for a book I am writing, something that may come with future (not so far future) technology, would be machines and pharmaceuticals that cause people to realize "no self," to be free of Dukkha, when administered ... whether the people want to be so or not, to undergo the treatment or not.

In other words (I am ethically against this, by the way, just to be clear), can I make people free of Dukkha and "enlightened" against their will?

I believe that it could be technically possible, but in fact, what you still would be doing is changing what is happening between the ears of the individual by use of the machine or drug.

(By the way, the solution I proposed in my book to the ethical issue is to make the experience of liberation and freedom from Dukkha so nice for people that, on word of mouth, they will choose to undergo the procedures voluntarily, totally of their own free will, because it leaves them healthier and more content. They will willingly choose to undergo the change, without compulsion of any kind, for the same reason that people choose anything in the marketplace which makes them feel better, same as for a new pair of shoes at the mall or cosmetic surgery or an ice cream cone on a hot day. I also foresee them voluntarily choosing treatments which leave them more peaceful, more altruistic, less violent and the like for the same reasons ... the treatments leave them physically healthier and feeling better about themselves.)

Gassho, J

STLah

Psychedelics probably wouldn't quite fit into the kind of situation you're talking about, yet when the right causes and conditions are in place the seeker and the trip certainly can become one in a sort of entheogenic satori. One way in which this can be productive (and not just something that happened) is in reflecting on what was different in the moment of release, such as, giving up control, not looping around the default network of habit-force thoughts, recognizing "big mind", etc. The problem of integrating and enacting such insights in that case seems to me to be similar whether it is realized in a sober or not-so-sober way.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I'm note talking about psychedelics, but rather alterations to the DNA leading to changes in brain structure, nano-implants to regulate brain firings, chemical regulation of our most harmful addictions, damaging emotions and destructive drives, all to reduce our tendencies toward violence, to make us more charitable and empathetic, less generally selfish, and to soften the brain created borders of the "self/other" divide and the like.

Anyway, we are way off topic here ... You will just have to wait and someday read in the future my book about all this called: "ZEN of the FUTURE!"

I am generally against psychedelics (although I understand that people may experiment at certain times in life). Psychedelics do more harm than good. Zen practice is a day by day integration of wisdom and insight into our life, and some quick "trips" don't do that ... and may lead us down totally the wrong paths too.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

I'm note talking about psychedelics, but rather alterations to the DNA leading to changes in brain structure, nano-implants to regulate brain firings, chemical regulation of our most harmful addictions, damaging emotions and destructive drives, all to reduce our tendencies toward violence, to make us more charitable and empathetic, less generally selfish, and to soften the brain created borders of the "self/other" divide and the like.

Anyway, we are way off topic here ... You will just have to wait and someday read in the future my book about all this called: "ZEN of the FUTURE!"

I am generally against psychedelics (although I understand that people may experiment at certain times in life). Psychedelics do more harm than good. Zen practice is a day by day integration of wisdom and insight into our life, and some quick "trips" don't do that ... and may lead us down totally the wrong paths too.

Gassho, J

STLah

"Zen of the Future" sounds truly Sci-fi, which is to say, a possible future for all we know.
I understand some people have had harm from entheogens, nevertheless my experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. Back in my days of having a time of that sort of thing I was convinced of their being some redeeming value there because of the widespread use of these kinds of plants across varied lands by many cultures.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

"Zen of the Future" sounds truly Sci-fi, which is to say, a possible future for all we know.
I understand some people have had harm from entheogens, nevertheless my experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. Back in my days of having a time of that sort of thing I was convinced of their being some redeeming value there because of the widespread use of these kinds of plants across varied lands by many cultures.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Generally, they are disfavored in Zen Buddhism (there are a few teachers who seem to make exceptions). Certainly, they are not to be taken during Zazen or other times of practice.

Experiences with such substances can demonstrate to us much about how the mind creates realities, but it is not Zen practice. It is no more Zen practice than taking such substances will turn one into an airplane pilot, and most especially, we do not want to be taking them while piloting a plane. So, they are certainly not part of our practice in this Sangha.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

Generally, they are disfavored in Zen Buddhism (there are a few teachers who seem to make exceptions). Certainly, they are not to be taken during Zazen or other times of practice.

Experiences with such substances can demonstrate to us much about how the mind creates realities, but it is not Zen practice. It is no more Zen practice than taking such substances will turn one into an airplane pilot, and most especially, we do not want to be taking them while piloting a plane. So, they are certainly not part of our practice in this Sangha.

Gassho, J

STLah

Oh it's definitely not Zen practice although it was the practice of a large portion of our human ancestors before the advent of priestly religions. If there are correspondences between the two it is only inasmuch as there can be more than one way to a similar point of view.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

Anyway, enough chit chat.

Time to chop some wood and fetch water.

Thanks for the interesting little conversation, AJ.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Inshin]

Touched by below post by Horin in the other thread on Rapturous samadhi



My practice is selfish (judging my zazen on focus, worrying if it is "working", no compassion in real life, would never give away my zazen "progress" to others) for my own liberation despite all vows I say daily. What tips do others have for really being a selfless student and not minding taking the last place in the queue

Gassho,
Sam
ST

I think that shining awareness onto something has a great potential to transform it. On a daily basis I try to pay attention whenever I become egoistic, cling to something or put defenses on, and if I'm successful at noticing it I ask myself : how can I be more generous in this situation. This opening up can be something very small, like deciding to give away your time and attention to someone when all you want to do is to shut off and scroll down the Facebook. The often we have those awareness and tiny "generosity" moments the more we change and become more open to other scientent beings.
I guess.
Gassho
Sat

[Inshin]

I'm note talking about psychedelics, but rather alterations to the DNA leading to changes in brain structure, nano-implants to regulate brain firings, chemical regulation of our most harmful addictions, damaging emotions and destructive drives, all to reduce our tendencies toward violence, to make us more charitable and empathetic, less generally selfish, and to soften the brain created borders of the "self/other" divide and the like.

Anyway, we are way off topic here ... You will just have to wait and someday read in the future my book about all this called: "ZEN of the FUTURE!"

I am generally against psychedelics (although I understand that people may experiment at certain times in life). Psychedelics do more harm than good. Zen practice is a day by day integration of wisdom and insight into our life, and some quick "trips" don't do that ... and may lead us down totally the wrong paths too.

Gassho, J

STLah

I am sorry, I feel like I'm putting a stick in the ants nest here. There's has been a lot of scientific research on how psilocybin found in "magic mushrooms" can help treat clinical depression by changing the structure of the brain. In a similar way long term meditation changes the brain waves. I believe though that Zen is much more than Kensho, or a "trip into the nature of the universe". Hakuin wrote a bit about wasted Satoris, because some masters got "Zen sickness" and couldn't realise the Way in ordinary daily life.
Gassho
Sat

[Inshin]

For instance, you've mentioned the atrocities committed by Chogyam Trungpa before. It would be wrong to say that the harm was only in the heads of the victims.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

I'm reading a book now by Chogyam Trungpa, I wasn't aware of any atrocities he committed?
Gassho
Sat

[Jundo]

I am sorry, I feel like I'm putting a stick in the ants nest here. There's has been a lot of scientific research on how psilocybin found in "magic mushrooms" can help treat clinical depression by changing the structure of the brain. ....

...

I'm reading a book now by Chogyam Trungpa, I wasn't aware of any atrocities he committed?

I am very interested in this research that has been ongoing for a few years now, and it seems that psilocybin experiences in a clinical setting have been shown to have very positive effects on the mental health of those with terminal diseases. I am not opposed to such uses at all. Here is one example:

Johns Hopkins Study of Psilocybin in Cancer Patient
https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patien ts

For point of reference and self-disclosure, I experimented "back in the 70's" :) with a bit of this and that, although never to the point that it took over my life or seemed to cause me any harm. I value the experiences, which were lessons on the power of the mind. I am not opposed to some experimentation at certain points in life. But, as you say, that is not Zen practice, which is also "mind eye opening," but also totally down to earth and ordinary in our day to day living. We do not need any mind altering substances apart from Zazen and our practice.

And speaking of the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol ... Trungpa is a case study. I think that he was a sociopath and narcissist (all while teaching lessons on "non-ego"), in addition to being a sex and drug addict. He had some brilliant insights, and he was charismatic, but his behavior did not match the words. His successors in that organization, right down to current times, have exhibited like behavior. I risk violating the Precept on not criticizing other Buddhists in their failings, but I mean to do so as a lesson on what can go wrong in a Buddhist group. The following is worth reading:

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/encounter-shadow-buddhist-america/

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

I'm reading a book now by Chogyam Trungpa, I wasn't aware of any atrocities he committed?
Gassho
Sat

Some of his stuff is a decent spiritual exercise to read independent of his faults. With certain gifts and opportunities people can deliver some gems and at the same time not necessarily be a very good person or someone you would want to trust yourself to. I've never gotten close to seeing the messed up side of Shambhala in person although I did attend regularly for a year while knowing (because of avid reading) that it was there.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I am very interested in this research that has been ongoing for a few years now, and it seems that psilocybin experiences in a clinical setting have been shown to have very positive effects on the mental health of those with terminal diseases. I am not opposed to such uses at all. Here is one example:

Johns Hopkins Study of Psilocybin in Cancer Patient
https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patien ts

For point of reference and self-disclosure, I experimented "back in the 70's" :) with a bit of this and that, although never to the point that it took over my life or seemed to cause me any harm. I value the experiences, which were lessons on the power of the mind. I am not opposed to some experimentation at certain points in life. But, as you say, that is not Zen practice, which is also "mind eye opening," but also totally down to earth and ordinary in our day to day living. We do not need any mind altering substances apart from Zazen and our practice.

And speaking of the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol ... Trungpa is a case study. I think that he was a sociopath and narcissist (all while teaching lessons on "non-ego"), in addition to being a sex and drug addict. He had some brilliant insights, and he was charismatic, but his behavior did not match the words. His successors in that organization, right down to current times, have exhibited like behavior. I risk violating the Precept on not criticizing other Buddhists in their failings, but I mean to do so as a lesson on what can go wrong in a Buddhist group. The following is worth reading:

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/encounter-shadow-buddhist-america/

Gassho, J

STLah

From cacti, to fungi, to various sorts of plants and animals including toads, the widespread proliferation in nature of such resources along with the medicinal/mystical value placed on them by many ancient cultures was enough for me personally to investigate. I know for myself it always came down to how those experiences would effect the way I think, feel and live so there wasn't any need to stay there all the time. One of the many consistent psychedelic impressions I received was that the mundane is profound and the profound is mundane... not Zen but Zen enough for me.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

.... the mundane is profound and the profound is mundane... Zen enough



mundane profound profound mundane ...

Now, just put all that stuff down and simply sit Zazen.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Bion]

mundane profound profound mundane ...

Now, just put all that stuff down and simply sit Zazen.

Gassho, J

STLah

Funny how that is the hardest part to do for so many of us... just let mind drop off, body drop off and sit. There is no debate in sitting, no winning an argument, no showing off of knowledge, no merit, no wisdom or foolishness. What do they call it?! Good for nothing [emoji1]

SatToday lah

[A.J.]

mundane profound profound mundane ...

Now, just put all that stuff down and simply sit Zazen.

Gassho, J

STLah

Having a regular practice of sitting that's pretty much what happens. Nevertheless there are many facets of life to be interested in which I happily allow. I enjoy poetry and therefore I enjoy the communication of insights through words.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Funny how that is the hardest part to do for so many of us... just let mind drop off, body drop off and sit. There is no debate in sitting, no winning an argument, no showing off of knowledge, no merit, no wisdom or foolishness. What do they call it?! Good for nothing [emoji1]

SatToday lah

Nevertheless if that was all of life there would be no exchange in dialogue, be it discussion of differences in thought or otherwise. Buddhism shouldn't be a just-sit echo chamber just because just-sitting is the meditation practice.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Bion]

Nevertheless if that was all of life there would be no exchange in dialogue, be it discussion of differences in thought or otherwise. Buddhism shouldn't be a just-sit echo chamber just because just-sitting is the meditation practice.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

I think there is more life without exchange in dialogue than the other way around. Buddhism means walking the path of enlightenment and I don’t think that can be equated with endless debating and bickering and forming of opinions and concepts although discussions and exchanges of ideas certainly has its place. Shikantaza is not really meditation practice since we don’t spend the time we’re sitting neither pondering ideas and concepts, nor visualizing things with the goal of achieving something.

SatToday

[nknibbs]

I think there is more life without exchange in dialogue than the other way around. Buddhism means walking the path of enlightenment and I don’t think that can be equated with endless debating and bickering and forming of opinions and concepts although discussions and exchanges of ideas certainly has its place. Shikantaza is not really meditation practice since we don’t spend the time we’re sitting neither pondering ideas and concepts, nor visualizing things with the goal of achieving something.

SatToday

Well said. The deeper you go into the philosophy, the further you can find yourself from practice (though not always of course).

Gassho,
Nick

Sat

[Geika]

I am very interested in this research that has been ongoing for a few years now, and it seems that psilocybin experiences in a clinical setting have been shown to have very positive effects on the mental health of those with terminal diseases. I am not opposed to such uses at all. Here is one example:

Johns Hopkins Study of Psilocybin in Cancer Patient
https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patien ts

For point of reference and self-disclosure, I experimented "back in the 70's" :) with a bit of this and that, although never to the point that it took over my life or seemed to cause me any harm. I value the experiences, which were lessons on the power of the mind. I am not opposed to some experimentation at certain points in life. But, as you say, that is not Zen practice, which is also "mind eye opening," but also totally down to earth and ordinary in our day to day living. We do not need any mind altering substances apart from Zazen and our practice.

And speaking of the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol ... Trungpa is a case study. I think that he was a sociopath and narcissist (all while teaching lessons on "non-ego"), in addition to being a sex and drug addict. He had some brilliant insights, and he was charismatic, but his behavior did not match the words. His successors in that organization, right down to current times, have exhibited like behavior. I risk violating the Precept on not criticizing other Buddhists in their failings, but I mean to do so as a lesson on what can go wrong in a Buddhist group. The following is worth reading:

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/encounter-shadow-buddhist-america/

Gassho, J

STLah

I can personally attest to the benefits of a supplement of very small, unnoticeable doses of psilocybin, but I do not recommend anybody doing anything illegal, or for the sake of "enlightenment." I can only hope that when good medicine is discovered, it is used to help people that need it, whatever the societal or religious norms dictate.

Gassho
Sat today, lah

[A.J.]

I think there is more life without exchange in dialogue than the other way around. Buddhism means walking the path of enlightenment and I don’t think that can be equated with endless debating and bickering and forming of opinions and concepts although discussions and exchanges of ideas certainly has its place. Shikantaza is not really meditation practice since we don’t spend the time we’re sitting neither pondering ideas and concepts, nor visualizing things with the goal of achieving something.

SatToday

That's fine, but I happen to disagree and consider that a spiritual form of cop-out that isn't quite healthy in it's own way.
Also, there are different forms of meditation and some forms are more formless than others, but they are still basically meditation.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Well said. The deeper you go into the philosophy, the further you can find yourself from practice (though not always of course).

Gassho,
Nick

Sat

Ironically, this sounds like a radical form of dualism to me. Also, this kind of thinking is no better than the anti-intellectual ignorance of a fundamentalist Christian.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I even think there is more value in discussing differences than similarities. When there is a difference in thought or feeling it provokes encounter and whether you feel disgruntled by it or not is your choice. If all that is happening is everyone is echoing everyone else then you may just as easily be talking with yourself- I prefer to encounter.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[nknibbs]

Ironically, this sounds like a radical form of dualism to me. Also, this kind of thinking is no better than the anti-intellectual ignorance of a fundamentalist Christian.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah
Hopefully, you are not responding in this way because you are feeling attacked. If you are, I am sorry and I meant no harm in the statement you are replying to. And with respect to that statement I believe you have read too much into it. You mention the idea of the encounter. When Buddha twirled a flower in front of his followers and only Mahakasyapa smiled, Buddha named him as his dharma successor. He did so not because this man grasped the intellectual intricacies better than the others. He reacted authentically to the reality of the situation with embodied wisdom. There was no duality, there was oneness, clarity.

Furthermore, Buddhism is largely about conduct. To embody the philosophy. To react authentically and with compassion to the world around us.

I acknowledge the use of philosophy and enjoy studying Buddhism from that angle but I don’t get bogged down by it. I appreciate your steadfast devotion to the intellect and to practice, my friend. I leave you to your thoughts.

Gassho,
Nick
Sat

[A.J.]

Hopefully, you are not responding in this way because you are feeling attacked. If you are, I am sorry and I meant no harm in the statement you are replying to. And with respect to that statement I believe you have read too much into it. You mention the idea of the encounter. When Buddha twirled a flower in front of his followers and only Mahakasyapa smiled, Buddha named him as his dharma successor. He did so not because this man grasped the intellectual intricacies better than the others. He reacted authentically to the reality of the situation with embodied wisdom. There was no duality, there was oneness, clarity.

Furthermore, Buddhism is largely about conduct. To embody the philosophy. To react authentically and with compassion to the world around us.

I acknowledge the use of philosophy and enjoy studying Buddhism from that angle but I don’t get bogged down by it. I appreciate your steadfast devotion to the intellect and to practice, my friend. I leave you to your thoughts.

Gassho,
Nick
Sat

Never felt attacked at any point. Just stating my opinion on Buddhist anti-intellectualism point-blank. And keeping to three sentences.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Risho]

....
When Buddha twirled a flower in front of his followers and only Mahakasyapa smiled, Buddha named him as his dharma successor. He did so not because this man grasped the intellectual intricacies better than the others. He reacted authentically to the reality of the situation with embodied wisdom. There was no duality, there was oneness, clarity.
...,,
Gassho,
Nick
Sat

This is a total sidetopic but an interesting one; that story, while very romantic, may be a big ruse; in fact, it may be more political in nature; apparently Mahakyasapa had quite a large following; if you haven’t read it, check out Stephen Batchelor’s “After Buddhism”. I have a feeling dharma transmission is sometimes more about a teaching or way to keep the dharma alive rather than about the individual receiving what they already have: Hui Neng (6th patriarch) may be another example of this.

gassho

rish
-st

[Kokuu]

The deeper you go into the philosophy, the further you can find yourself from practice (though not always of course).

I think Nick makes a good point here, and clarifies by saying "not always so".

While we do not want to endorse anti-intellectual Zen, which sadly I have seen too much, as if Dōgen and other teachers didn't leave us a virtual Mount Sumeru of written teachings, we also do not want to encourage over-intellectualising either. There is a time to study and discuss and a time to sit.


As far as Chögyam Trugpa goes, I sometimes practice with a sangha that is led by one of Trungpa's students and, in my opinion, Trungpa left us with some of the clearest and most insightful writing on practice in the last hundred years of Buddhism. However, he clearly violated many precepts and his "Crazy Wisdom" was not just for the benefit of others. But as I say he gave us some great written teachings and several excellent students such as Pema Chödrön and Reggie Ray. But, none of that excuses his behaviour and harm.

This short piece summarises some of his life: https://boulderbuddhistscam.wordpress.com/chogyam-trungpa/


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[nknibbs]

This is a total sidetopic but an interesting one; that story, while very romantic, may be a big ruse; in fact, it may be more political in nature; apparently Mahakyasapa had quite a large following; if you haven’t read it, check out Stephen Batchelor’s “After Buddhism”. I have a feeling dharma transmission is sometimes more about a teaching or way to keep the dharma alive rather than about the individual receiving what they already have: Hui Neng (6th patriarch) may be another example of this.

gassho

rish
-st

Risho,

I am aware of that aspect to the story but I will definitely check out the text you mentioned!

Though a ruse, it can still be a rose of a teaching. Isn’t everything a bit of a ruse?

Gassho,
Nick

SatLah

PS: I always love a good reading recommendation!

[Risho]

Though a ruse, it can still be a rose of a teaching. Isn’t everything a bit of a ruse?

yes, I think that’s true! hahahaha

[Kokuu]

apparently Mahakyasapa had quite a large following


Hui Neng (6th patriarch) may be another example of this.

Mahākāśyapa was clearly an important figure in early Buddhism, and is believed to have led the early sangha following the Buddha's death. However, many scholars feel that his qualities were considerably embellished in later records in order to instill within him the ideal qualities of Buddhism and the sangha itself. I imagine this would have been necessary to show that there were individuals of a comparable stature to the Buddha able to continue the tradition.

In Ch'an and Zen, the story of the holding up the flower is likely to be apocryphal but displays something important about about tradition and way of teaching which is, to my mind, more important that whether it is literally true or not.

This is also the case with the Sixth Patriarch, whose story in the Platform Sutra now seems to be near total hagiography rather than biography, written by one of his students in order to cement the place of his lineage as the true line of Zen against that of the 'Northern School'.

In the development of Ch'an (Zen) in China, there were many different Buddhist schools vying against each other for position so being able to establish a clear lineage dating back to the Buddha was important, and also establishing the authenticity of your own lineage.

However, I do think that dharma transmission is not a bad way of authorising new teachers and providing some degree of legitimacy, even if we know that can be abused sometimes. It also is, to me, a very lovely symbolic way of a teacher recognising the fact that you have grasped the great matter of life and death.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Risho]

Damn Kokuu - that was awesome thank you! I absolutely didn't want to disparage the idea of dharma transmission; I'm just trying to be terse (hint, hint :D) it is an important facet and hopefully provides some modicum of QA against bad teachers; no system is infallible but still.

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

[Kokuu]

I'm just trying to be terse (hint, hint )

Ha! Yes, I totally acknowledge my failure on that front!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[nknibbs]

Kokuu and Risho— wonderful back and forth between you, much knowledge gained.

Sticking to 3 lines and saying that one feels one needs to say is a tough but humbling experience.

Thank you both,

Gassho,
Nick

SatLah

[Shōnin Risa Bear]

Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi can be summed up, one might say, as right action, a program of compassionate co-existence, underpinned by the right actions of mindfulness/samadhi.

When I noticed that while I am sitting in "silence" harm toward others seems to be reduced, I began to sit more. :buddha:

Selfish/not selfish. _()_

gassho
shonin sat today and some lah

[Tairin]

However, I do think that dharma transmission is not a bad way of authorising new teachers and providing some degree of legitimacy, even if we know that can be abused sometimes. It also is, to me, a very lovely symbolic way of a teacher recognising the fact that you have grasped the great matter of life and death.

Dharma Transmission is as close to a teaching certificate as one can get. Personally I don’t care whether Jundo can trace his creds all the way back to Shakyamuni Buddha or not. I do care that he has put in the time and that there is some recognition that he knows what he’s talking about.

gassho2
Tairin
Sat today and lah

[A.J.]

This is a total sidetopic but an interesting one; that story, while very romantic, may be a big ruse; in fact, it may be more political in nature; apparently Mahakyasapa had quite a large following; if you haven’t read it, check out Stephen Batchelor’s “After Buddhism”. I have a feeling dharma transmission is sometimes more about a teaching or way to keep the dharma alive rather than about the individual receiving what they already have: Hui Neng (6th patriarch) may be another example of this.

gassho

rish
-st

Lot's of scholars think Bodhidharma was legendary as well. With the ancient motivations around such legitimization I tend to take it for granted that official lineages are fabricated when you go back far enough. That's not to say that the stories and writings connected with legendary figures are not of value though.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I think Nick makes a good point here, and clarifies by saying "not always so".

While we do not want to endorse anti-intellectual Zen, which sadly I have seen too much, as if Dōgen and other teachers didn't leave us a virtual Mount Sumeru of written teachings, we also do not want to encourage over-intellectualising either. There is a time to study and discuss and a time to sit.


As far as Chögyam Trugpa goes, I sometimes practice with a sangha that is led by one of Trungpa's students and, in my opinion, Trungpa left us with some of the clearest and most insightful writing on practice in the last hundred years of Buddhism. However, he clearly violated many precepts and his "Crazy Wisdom" was not just for the benefit of others. But as I say he gave us some great written teachings and several excellent students such as Pema Chödrön and Reggie Ray. But, none of that excuses his behaviour and harm.

This short piece summarises some of his life: https://boulderbuddhistscam.wordpress.com/chogyam-trungpa/


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

I basically don't trust any anti-intellectual tendencies in religion. I only meant to be clear and terse that it always smells to me like the beginning of a bad recipe. When formally sitting there is no need to be thinking critically all the time but it it is an invaluable tool in the hands of monkeys with the apparatus of thought.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Risho,

I am aware of that aspect to the story but I will definitely check out the text you mentioned!

Though a ruse, it can still be a rose of a teaching. Isn’t everything a bit of a ruse?

Gassho,
Nick

SatLah

PS: I always love a good reading recommendation!

Imo most Buddha stories are a-historical so whatever we may gain from them isn't from their historical veracity or even their pure lack of political motivation.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Mahākāśyapa was clearly an important figure in early Buddhism, and is believed to have led the early sangha following the Buddha's death. However, many scholars feel that his qualities were considerably embellished in later records in order to instill within him the ideal qualities of Buddhism and the sangha itself. I imagine this would have been necessary to show that there were individuals of a comparable stature to the Buddha able to continue the tradition.

In Ch'an and Zen, the story of the holding up the flower is likely to be apocryphal but displays something important about about tradition and way of teaching which is, to my mind, more important that whether it is literally true or not.

This is also the case with the Sixth Patriarch, whose story in the Platform Sutra now seems to be near total hagiography rather than biography, written by one of his students in order to cement the place of his lineage as the true line of Zen against that of the 'Northern School'.

In the development of Ch'an (Zen) in China, there were many different Buddhist schools vying against each other for position so being able to establish a clear lineage dating back to the Buddha was important, and also establishing the authenticity of your own lineage.

However, I do think that dharma transmission is not a bad way of authorising new teachers and providing some degree of legitimacy, even if we know that can be abused sometimes. It also is, to me, a very lovely symbolic way of a teacher recognising the fact that you have grasped the great matter of life and death.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Ideally dharma transmission would not be the equivalent of something like apostolic succession although it is funny that the ancient rationale seems similar. Given that there probably isn't an unbroken line of dharma transmitters anywhere that may put a monkey wrench in the notion that anyone today has such a derived authority. The idea of learning from someone who knew because they learned from someone who knew seems basically good nevertheless.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi can be summed up, one might say, as right action, a program of compassionate co-existence, underpinned by the right actions of mindfulness/samadhi.

When I noticed that while I am sitting in "silence" harm toward others seems to be reduced, I began to sit more. :buddha:

Selfish/not selfish. _()_

gassho
shonin sat today and some lah

gassho2