At that point, you give your Zen master an experience that will scar him for life. Share the enlightenment, I say. You wouldn’t want to be selfish and keep it all to yourself.
Snarkiness aside, why all the casual violence in some of these koans? Even as “cartoon violence”, it’s repellent, and unnecessary.
All experience of the physical is indirect, to one degree or another. Does Zen claim it can supply “direct” experiences of the world? It’s not obvious there ever is such a thing.
Assuming that’s true, that could be because western philosophy finished the job as far as was possible. Why should we expect there to be original philosophical thoughts churned out century after century, like new breeds of dog? Maybe we’re “done”, more or less, with philosophy.
That would be sweet. How do you know when this has happened?
During formal meetings between master and student in the Kamakura Zen school an unsheathed sword was placed at the centre of the interview. It was not unknown (although it was rare) for master or student to be killed by the other during the interview. Kamakura Zen was a particularly harsh style of Zen teaching and was used mainly by Samurai, who could be called upon to die at any minute, so this sort of event was never entirely unexpected. While this kind of action may seem (possible understatement here) somewhat peculiar to those brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition, with absolute morals and a dualistic approach to life and death, to a buddhist death is not something to fear or to concern themself with. If death comes, then so what? If it doesn’t, well, maybe tomorrow. Now you seem like a fairly rationalistic chap (maybe I’m wrong, in which case forgive my presumptuousness). Could you tell me rationally why you find this violence repellent?
When you are asleep at night how do you know you are not awake? And when you wake up in the morning how do you know you are no longer asleep?
That would be sweet. How do you know when this has happened?
My past is a collection of my thoughts of how my mind interpreted events that my mind thought at the time were important to itself.
My future is an imaginary state generated in the present by my memorized experiences that my mind thought at the time were important to itself.
My mental life kept replicating itself over and over and over again because of its inherited sense of self importance.
It all started out as a rehearsal for a play and I got the role I created in other actor lives and after uncountable performances I grew weary of all the repetitious acting and so I moved on to writing, directing, producing and acting in my own plays.
While putting on a performance as a Buddhist I rehearsed a few lines and came to the part where I had to practice sitting still in the middle of the stage and a very odd thing happened. I became acutely aware of the spotlight in the theater that I spent all of my life in and thought was focused on me. It wasn’t a spotlight at all but an opening in the theater of my mind.
The actor forgot all his lines and left the theater for parts unknown to actors!
Greetings Zoe, it sounds like you’ve been hanging out with “God the Mother.” I can’t remember the last time I witnessed the power of a women used so exquisitely. Ursala Lequin, one of the mothers of my mind, once knocked me on my butt with just a look when I was a smart aleck and asked her an impertinent question. She was a formidable Zen master. I treasure, to this day, the emotional scar she gave me.
It also sounds like you’re a budding Zen master. I just might stick around just to watch you flower out of yourself! You seem to be beyond the point of no return. It’s almost impossible to dumb down wisdom when it starts to flow through you. The hardest part is getting our egos out of The Way. This isn’t a compliment, it’s an observation.
Unexpected windows continue to pop up on my computer after I hit the link created by Operation Ripper in post #2 above. I’ve only had this computer 3 months and this is my first experience with these pop ups. Is it accepted behavior at SDBM to plant these ad-links here and if not how do I report it? At posting #9 above, Operation Ripper admits to doing this and he/she has 804 posts!
Since my browser is set to prevent pop up windows did his/her link do something to my browser and can I fix it or did my browser get “infected” somewhere else?
Is there a way to identify ad-link postings or other rip-off artists at SDMB? I have to admit “Beverly Hills Ninja” should have alerted me but I was curious and as he/she says in post #9 “Gotcha!”
This computer experience is a whole new reality to practice Mindfulness. In my haste I misspelt Ursula Le Guin’s name and, to top it off, in the correction I turned “you’re” into “your”, a classic mistake! :smack:
The link is to the IMDB, the Internet Movie Data Base, one of the most popular and valuable sites on the World Wide Web. It’s actually owned by Amazon. The web site is fine and not dangerous in any way.
I get one pop-up from it, pretty normal for an ad driven website. You should consider using your pop-up blocker if it bothers you. If you are seeing more windows poping up on your screen after that first one, perhaps you are having other problems.
If you’re using Internet Explorer then I would advise you get Firefox instead. It has a better pop up blocker and is all round a better browser. As Telemark says pop-ups are pretty common and imdb is a pretty harmless website, so you’ll just have to get used to that sort of thing.
As for the your/you’re thing, stay here a while and you’ll eventually stop noticing it.
I missed that you already have a pop-up blocker. Be warned, not all pop-ups will be blocked by any one tool.
There is nothing wrong with linking to sites like IMDB. It’s the best movie database on the Web, and there are links to it all over the SDMB. If you are having serious pop up problems on your computer, it’s not from the IMDB.
That’s one category of person who might find such attitudes peculiar, but certainly not the only one.
Even if you don’t fear death or concern yourself about it much, it doesn’t follow that you should or would take such a cavalier attitude toward your own lifespan. (That’s the generic “you”, not you personally.) I can understand how such a belief might have been popular among a warrior class, like the Samurai. But is the Bhuddism “for the masses” really as blasé about life and death as most people are about the weather?
I won’t restrict myself to rational causes alone, but offer these possibilities, which are not exclusive:
[ol]
[li]Simple unthinking biological instinct, that sometimes results in distaste for violence, even fictional violence directed at a fictional character. Not that I don’t enjoy a good Bugs Bunny cartoon now and again, or an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. There is context to consider. But, in the koan way above, when the violence is directed at a student who was merely asking a question, then the teacher is no longer a teacher to me, but a bully.[/li]
[li]Exasperation with what is simply bad hyperbole. If real Zen masters never slapped their students around, and real students never chopped off their own limbs to impress a teacher, I still don’t see how tossing such extreme acts into a koan helps to teach the reader anything. It’s just distracting melodrama, like a bad television drama trying to boost its ratings with over-the-top acting. In the earlier koan for example, pushing the student into a pond would have made the same point, and better, in my opinion.[/li]
[li]Conditioned cultural responses too, probably. I have grown up in a society where, in general, if one adult hits another, then the hitter ought to be prepared for a fight from the hittee, or at least a very frosty relationship from then on. In other cultures and in other eras, perhaps a bit of physical abuse from your elders was shrugged off as an ordinary part of life.[/li][/ol]
Note that I was only speaking for myself in the earlier post, and so am only speaking for myself here as well.
These questions might be rhetorical, but I’ll answer them just in case they’re not. (It seems to be that sort of thread.)
With total certainty? I don’t know these things of course. There are lots of common tell-tale differences though between the two that allow me to make some confident guesses about what is probably real and what probably isn’t. So far my system of guesswork seems to be working well, though I’ll admit it could all fall apart tomorrow, in principle. I’ll just have to deal with that when it comes.
However, your claim (I think) was that it’s possible to see the world as it truly is, whatever that might mean exactly, and to do it while abandoning “representations, analogies and all the other nonsense we use to try to understand the world”. I think this is a much more questionable claim.
Cute comeback, but as I said (sort of), we might infer that that’s the case when it’s been a long time since anyone has come up with a new and persuasive body of philosophical ideas. This might indicate that all the good ones have already been found.
Note that I’m not claiming western philsosophy is perfect, or the path to enlightenment. I’m merely saying that western philosophy might be “complete”, or getting very close to it, or is as close to complete as it’s ever going to get. This might be why there haven’t been any “original” western philosophers since Nietzsche, in your view.
Buddhism for the masses would not manifest itself in this way, but them Zen is not really for the masses. (On a side note, Kamakura Zen was very much a functional Zen and really only intended for a specific “clientelle”. It is not wholly surprising that this style of Zen fell out of favour within about a hundred years, but I merely brought it up as an unusual example.) It is for the individual. (There are plenty of styles of buddhism that could be said to be for the masses. The most popular form of Mahayana buddhism is Pure Land buddhism, which involves nothing more than chanting the name of Amitabha Buddha, who in ages past had made a vow that anyone who chanted his name would be reborn after death in the Wesern Paradise [the “Pure Land”], where enlightenment would be much easier. Zen practitioners generally seem to consider this a useful method for those not yet ready for Zen). A good teacher will respond to a specific student’s needs and not just use the same old techniques over and over again (I would say the same is true of any teacher, the techniques of Zen teaching just happen to be unusual). Not every student would necessarily be slapped. Indeed the vast majority of koans have nothing whatsoever to do with what you describe as violence. but if it gives the desired effect then why not. It could hardly be called violence in the usual sense. As for having a cavalier attitude to life Zen, as with all forms of buddhism, considers life extremely important (from what I know of Vietnamese Zen, which I admit is relatively little, it seems like a much softer, more obviously peaceful style of Zen. Of course this is a generalisation). But if one clings to life it doesn’t matter how long one lives, one will still wish for more. On the other hand if one rids oneself of the dualistic notion of life and death as opposites, with one to be clung on to and the other to be avoided at all costs, then it does not matter if one dies today, tomorrow or in a hundred years.
If one went up to stranger and whacked him in the face one could expect some retribution. If one was a Zen teacher and did this to a student who would not “get it” then maybe the same could be expected. But, as I said above, a good teacher would not do this to every student.
As for Enlightenment the point I was trying to make (albeit very poorly) was that you don’t know you were asleep until you wake up. This, of course means one cannot debate the meaning of Satori until one has experienced it oneself. This is probably the biggest problem with speaking about Zen. To quote the Tao Te Ching, a work which had a major influence on Zen “The one who knows doesn’t speak; the one who speaks doesn’t know”. As you can tell from my ramblings on the subject I am of the latter, so I’m afraid I can give no deep insight, only my interpretations of the opinions of others. Indeed even those who know better than I will emphasise different aspects of Zen - some would emphasise the spontaneity it gives, some the lack of fear, some the lack of clinging, others the loss of dualistic thinking. What is definite is that the exact meaning only exists for the individual. If any two people gave the same answer to the question “what is Zen” you could probably infer that one is copying the other. This is what makes Zen infuriating to many but also what is so wonderful for others.
As for your point about western philosophy I was being semi-serious with my comeback. If Western philosophy were ever to be complete how would we know, and what impact would it have on our lives? For that matter, what is the point of philosophy, assuming it has a point? Should it have a point?
Thank you for the info on the pop-up incident. IMDB is a great site. And as for the cyber “highwayman” Operation Ripper, he/she does help to keep me alert. The tricksters do come with the territory.
Philosophy: I want to find out about things and think/talk/argue/ about them.
BuddhaDharma: I want to put an end to my mental anguish. “I teach one thing and one thing only, the ending of mental anguish.” The Buddha
If you are not suffering, this is the end of the line. Stay away from the BuddhaDharma, your ego can’t make sense of it because it’s designed to de-structure the egotistical habit patterns that generate mental anguish when it becomes unbearable. Why would you go to a physician if you’re feeling okay? Come back to the Dharma when you’re sick of your self-suffering.
But the young monk became accustomed to monastic life and did not approach the master until his friends asked. The master knew the young monk’s ego had grown self-complacent in the monastery. The slap was an assault upon the “monastic walls” his ego built around itself restoring the mental anguish that brought him to the monastery in first place.
Enlightened beings are invisible to egos because they are simple uncomplicated beings who Understand. They stopped complicating their lives with egotistical relationships and broke through the shroud of conditioned thinking. They really are nobodies and have no need to be somebody or to prove anything, hence they “reside in the realm of no effort.” Persons motivated by their own self-suffering seek them out for assistance. The story of the man with the severed arm is a classic example used by teachers to dramatically demonstrate how much suffering you must be experiencing in order to undergo the inner transformation necessary for Enlightenment. He hurt himself when he slipped climbing over a gate in the wintertime to seek the assistance of an Enlightened being. Rather than seek medical attention he continued on for spiritual advice presenting his physical pain as an indication of his sincerity for the Teaching. The ultimate goal in life, the Pearl of Great Price, is not for the dilettante , the debater, or the squeamish. The degree of mental anguish is the only argument.
Compare the wake-up call of Jesus to those who would seek the Christ Consciousness, the Kingdom of Heaven within:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace [Complacency] on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.”
~ the words of Jesus according to Matthew 10: 34-38 Not exactly a “family values” kind of guy!
I take the slaps and general abuse in tales of this type in two ways.
It’s a bit like a magic trick. The magician taps his wand on the brim of the top hat, but the trick is already long over. The monk in the story doesn’t seek out the master for himself. He seeks him out for his friends who wait for him to bring back some message. The slap comes at the point of the story where we expect the answer. In that way, it is a game. We try and try to find some final answer where there is none. There is no message to be brought back.
Also, as a recurring motif, I think there is a general meaning. Many people (myself especially) seek out some peace and relief from the violence and general snarkiness of the world. The slap turns us around and makes us see that escape is not the answer.
Life doesn’t have problems. Life just is. Our egotistical attachment to how life “ought” to be is the only problem and generates egotistical anguish in the mind. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they started making judgments, developed egos out of their judgments, and fell out of now into what should be, could be, might be, but was not. Their egos began to live in their imagination. They became self intoxicated and reality keeps slapping them in the face to get their attention!
In order to sober up the wise all followed the same path of sitting still in meditation and observing the way their minds actually worked generating mental anguish. It was called “sinning” which meant to be going in the wrong direction. It pretty obvious that thinking depressing thoughts will lead you into a depressing life. Thinking angry thoughts will lead you into an agitated life. You do it long enough and you begin to believe you actually are a depressing person or angry person and your ego looks for evidence to prove it. Happiness is the natural state of mind once your mind stops eating those damn apples!
The mystic Vernon Howard said it succinctly: "Impartial self observation leads to self awakening which leads to self liberation."
Once you start to catch a glimpse of how your own mind generates the feelings you are experiencing and stop falsely accusing the outside world you’re on The Way Out.
Gautama went into the forest and sat still.
Jesus went out into the desert and sat still.
Moses went up a mountain and sat still.
And their minds were opened up.
As odd as it sounds Gautama is the only “religious” speaker who took the First Commandment seriously. When Moses meditated on the mountain and his mind opened his strong ego asked this mystical space he was in “Who are you?” and the Awakening response was “I am that I am and thou shall have no conceptions about ME!”
Enlightenment is a trans-rational experience that cannot be conceptualized or wrapped in words or thoughts or pictures, it is simply Understanding.
As hard as it is for your ego to do you know that you have to sit back and impartially observe the “side taking” your ego gets involved in to maintain its artificial sense of self. Like Humty Dumty your ego will sit nervously upon the wall of meditation between pro and con, right and wrong, good and evil, without choosing a side and something marvelous will happen. Your Original Nature will burst open and the shell of egotistical duality will shatter. Your “friends and family” will try to put you back together again for their ego identities are relative to your ego taking sides.
A totally open mind is sideless, even though there’s no such word as sideless!