GENIUS FORUMS

Or, to be more obvious: what the hell does that mean?

It means God Bless You, Dan ! :D

Elizabeth wrote:

Why is kow's sexuality important to you, [snip]

kow’s philosophy is of interest to me, which is the purpose of this board. Sometimes, information about an individual’s activities helps to understand their philosophy. Other times, you may find that there is no philosophy, just a set of doctrines.

…and how is it relevant to this discussion?

Each participant in a discussion, one hopes in all their optimism, is an individual.

Sometimes I reflect on and respond to the topics in particular. Other times I spend much more time reflecting on the overall contributions of the posters themselves.

.

unwise wrote:Trevor,
One is brought here by god.

Dude, you are god, or speaking more acurately, growing up to be god. Its all coming out of the same pool, check out god's picture at http://www.spaceimages.com/hubdeepfiel.html

But my question was directed at David. It looks like Hakuin is strongly in favor of practice.

Iolaus - excellent point, good to see a well read text :)

Beebuddy wrote:

Hakuin: An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.

DQ: Absolutely spot in. Hakuin couldn't describe the sorry state of modern Buddhism any more clearly if he tried.

Beebuddy: Except that Buddhism, as an institution, does not exist in this country the way it does in Japan. I assume you aren't speaking to Japanese people.

Hakuin was talking about the situation in Japan, but his words can just as easily be applied to Buddhism in the West as well. The two situations seem to be more or less identical.

Look at what Hakuin wrote here:

The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.

This accurately describes every Buddhist community that I have ever been to, and to almost every Buddhist I have ever met.

-

Iolaus wrote:

The problem is, it sounds like [Hakuin] is strongly advocating practice - sitting zazen.

His focus was not so much on sitting zazen, but rather on deep meditative concentration on the nature of God in all situations, no matter what one is doing.

How did Hakuin propose people obtain kensho?

He emphasized the importance of studying koans, meditating on them and resolving them - which essentially means focusing one's attention on the core riddle of existence, resolving it and, in doing so, stimulating one's consciousness into enlightenment.

His main criticism of the Buddhism around him was its dismissal of the intellectual aspects of the path in favour of trying to make the mind as blank as possible in the mistaken belief that we are already enlightened and there is essentially nothing to do. This has always been a very common misconception (one that is eagerly lapped up by the ego because of the lack of demands it makes), which unfortunately afflicts Buddhism in our era as well.

-

Bo wrote:

Iolaus: The problem is, it sounds like he is strongly advocating practice - sitting zazen . How did Hakuin propose people obtain kensho?

Bo: I do not know if it's 'obtained' but it happens. One Roshi said 'enlightenment is an accident and practice makes you accident prone'

But really, even kensho is just one part - it can be helpful but not always.

On the contrary, kensho is absolutely vital.

If one's mind is still being distorted by attachments and false views, and thus being prevented from seeing into the nature of things clearly, then one's perceptions and judgments about the spiritual path, the nature of the ego, people's psychology, one's own character and levels of wisdom, etc, will also be distorted.

There will be no real understanding of what is important in life, what needs to be done, how to achieve further progress, how to best promote wisdom in the world, and so on. One will still be following other people's formulas and making guesses in the dark.

Some students who think they have had kensho start becoming the biggest ego megalomaniacs and no service is done ie. they become even more unconsolable, delueded and start vomitting around causing a nuisance.

I would far rather have an arrogant megalomaniac who is serious about attaining kensho, than a kind, humble priestly type who is content to have minor insight and do all the "right" things by society's standards.

But yes, practice is the path. Fortunately that is always possible for everyone, though not everyone opts for it.

So what is "practice", in your view?

I'm not sure that I like the words "practice", to be honest. It creates the impression that one is trying to procrastinate from playing the actual game.

-

David Quinn wrote:[Hakuin's] main criticism of the Buddhism around him was its dismissal of the intellectual aspects of the path in favour of trying to make the mind as blank as possible in the mistaken belief that we are already enlightened and there is essentially nothing to do. This has always been a very common misconception (one that is eagerly lapped up by the ego because of the lack of demands it makes), which unfortunately afflicts Buddhism in our era as well.

The idea that we are already enlightened is an aspect of the Dzogchen form of Buddhism but when it is said that there is 'essentially nothing to do' you have to understand that this relies on another idea: that we create duality or samsara ourselves with our distorted & deluded patterns of thought. If we could stop doing this, we would experience nonduality, which is the natural state. Nice work if you can get it.

If you can't, there is 'practice', with its myriad methods of unraveling the distortions. 'Practice' in the sense of 'practicing medicine' rather than 'practicing the piano'.
.

Shardrol wrote:

David Quinn wrote:[Hakuin's] main criticism of the Buddhism around him was its dismissal of the intellectual aspects of the path in favour of trying to make the mind as blank as possible in the mistaken belief that we are already enlightened and there is essentially nothing to do. This has always been a very common misconception (one that is eagerly lapped up by the ego because of the lack of demands it makes), which unfortunately afflicts Buddhism in our era as well.

The idea that we are already enlightened is an aspect of the Dzogchen form of Buddhism but when it is said that there is 'essentially nothing to do' you have to understand that this relies on another idea: that we create duality or samsara ourselves with our distorted & deluded patterns of thought. If we could stop doing this, we would experience nonduality, which is the natural state. Nice work if you can get it.

If you can't, there is 'practice', with its myriad methods of unraveling the distortions. 'Practice' in the sense of 'practicing medicine' rather than 'practicing the piano'.
.

The Buddha taught heedfulness, not method which shapes outcome. The word practice commonly implies repetition, but your 'practicing medicine' rather than 'practicing the piano' is very astute. One last point: there is no such thing as an experience of non-duality. If anyone says that they experienced non duality, you can be certain that they're either deluded or full of shit. The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual.

golden kow,

So, you're the non-dual, eh?

kowtaaia wrote:The Buddha taught heedfulness, not method which shapes outcome.

The Buddha taught a lot of things, i.e. different methods.

It's also useful to remember that 'The Buddha' was not the only buddha. If he were, it would certainly be a lousy testament to the effectiveness of his teachings.

One last point: there is no such thing as an experience of non-duality. If anyone says that they experienced non duality, you can be certain that they're either deluded or full of shit. The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual.

I'm assuming you're making a semantic distinction between an ego 'experiencing nonduality' & nonduality 'visiting'. When I say that a person could experience nonduality, I just mean that that experience could be there, not that they are experiencing 'me' & 'nonduality' simultaneously.
.

Shardrol wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:The Buddha taught heedfulness, not method which shapes outcome.

The Buddha taught a lot of things, i.e. different methods.

Well, obviously that's being challenged. Over 2500 years, alot of words have been put in the Buddhas mouth. The inauthentic teachings pervert the Theravada and Mahayana (especially Pure Land and Nichiren) and form the basis as 'practice' (and it does mean 'repetition' in this instance) for what is known as Vajrayana. Chanting as a 'means' of liberation, for instance, is silly beyond belief.

One last point: there is no such thing as an experience of non-duality. If anyone says that they experienced non duality, you can be certain that they're either deluded or full of shit. The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual.

Shardrol wrote: I'm assuming you're making a semantic distinction between an ego 'experiencing nonduality' & nonduality 'visiting'. When I say that a person could experience nonduality, I just mean that that experience could be there, not that they are experiencing 'me' & 'nonduality' simultaneously.
.

What then, does "experience could be there" mean and what is the "they" that doesn't experience 'me' & 'nonduality' simultaneously? The non-dual is not an experience. The subjective state (psychological phenomenon/conditioned state) cannot be there and the body, although there, has no awareness, because non-dualty is non-sensate.

.

kowtaaia wrote:

One last point: there is no such thing as an experience of non-duality. If anyone says that they experienced non duality, you can be certain that they're either deluded or full of shit. The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual.

I was just about to agree with you that there is no such thing as "an experience of non-duality" (which is a contradiction in terms), when you suddenly threw that last bit in there.

What does it mean to say that the non-dual may visit? Visit who or what? This too is a contradiction in terms.

-

David Quinn wrote: kowtaaia wrote:

One last point: there is no such thing as an experience of non-duality. If anyone says that they experienced non duality, you can be certain that they're either deluded or full of shit. The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual.

I was just about to agree with you that there is no such thing as "an experience of non-duality" (which is a contradiction in terms),

Gee. :)

David Quinn wrote: when you suddenly threw that last bit in there.

What does it mean to say that the non-dual may visit? Visit who or what? This too is a contradiction in terms.

Really now? It's clear by everything else that was said, that there is no who or what that is visited. The phrase "The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual." means that you (being the conditioned), cannot meet, experience, undergo, go to, cannot be when the non-dual is manifest, because it only manifest when you are not.

.

Admittedly though, the phrase was a little flowery. It's the poet 'kow'. :)

Shardrol wrote:

DQ: [Hakuin's] main criticism of the Buddhism around him was its dismissal of the intellectual aspects of the path in favour of trying to make the mind as blank as possible in the mistaken belief that we are already enlightened and there is essentially nothing to do. This has always been a very common misconception (one that is eagerly lapped up by the ego because of the lack of demands it makes), which unfortunately afflicts Buddhism in our era as well.

Sh: The idea that we are already enlightened is an aspect of the Dzogchen form of Buddhism but when it is said that there is 'essentially nothing to do' you have to understand that this relies on another idea: that we create duality or samsara ourselves with our distorted & deluded patterns of thought. If we could stop doing this, we would experience nonduality, which is the natural state. Nice work if you can get it.

Yes, I consider this to be a very poor teaching. If you tell a bunch of people whose minds are still very deluded and riddled with mental blocks, even though they have made some interesting altered states and insights into Reality, that they are already enlightened and only have to put an end to their dualistic thought-processes, they will only misunderstand it and become side-tracked down a blind alley.

This is because, being deluded and riddled with mental blocks, these people will have no real understanding of what non-duality means, nor what it means to put an end to dualistic thinking. The won't have the levels of wisdom to accurately distinguish between the two.

Also, being deluded and riddled with mental blocks, they will lack insight into their own psychology and the workings of their own mind. They won't be able to judge accurately whether minds are still engaging in thought or not. Their mental blocks will hide a lot of their thoughts, which can easily cause them to think they are advancing nicely along the path to enlightenment, when in fact they are not even on the path at all.

Moreover, it's almost a guarantee that most of the people who hear this teaching won't have potential for wisdom in any case. Most people attracted to Buddhism are not there because of a hunger for the highest wisdom, but rather because they want mental peace, blissful experiences, a new set of rituals, a different lifestyle, a new community, new relationships, new sexual partners, or whatever. They are not there for truth. And whatever slim potential a few of them might have will be completely washed away by these useless Dzogchen-type teachings.

I don't even like the term, "Dzogchen form of Buddhism". I hate those sorts of terms. They legitimize false teachings and practices through an illusion of semantic authority. This idea that there are different schools of Buddhism, each one a legitimate path to enlightenment, is complete rot. There is only true Buddhism and false Buddhism. There is only one true path to enlightenment, and countless false ones.

If you can't, there is 'practice', with its myriad methods of unraveling the distortions. 'Practice' in the sense of 'practicing medicine' rather than 'practicing the piano'.

Nevertheless, if one is "practicing" something, it means that one is still engaging in formulas and ritual, rather than engaging consciously in understanding.

-

kowtaaia

The phrase "The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual." means that you (being the conditioned), cannot meet, experience, undergo, go to, cannot be when the non-dual is manifest, because it only manifest when you are not.

You are still engaging in a contradiction here. How can non-duality manifest in any way? Manifesting is, by definition, a dualistic act.

-

David Quinn wrote:kowtaaia

The phrase "The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual." means that you (being the conditioned), cannot meet, experience, undergo, go to, cannot be when the non-dual is manifest, because it only manifest when you are not.

You are still engaging in a contradiction here. How can non-duality manifest in any way? Manifesting is, by definition, a dualistic act.

Not at all. It simply means "is" as opposed to "is not". Don't fall into the Dzogchen trap.

David Quinn wrote:I consider this to be a very poor teaching. If you tell a bunch of people whose minds are still very deluded and riddled with mental blocks, even though they have made some interesting altered states and insights into Reality, that they are already enlightened and only have to put an end to their dualistic thought-processes, they will only misunderstand it and become side-tracked down a blind alley.

This is because, being deluded and riddled with mental blocks, these people will have no real understanding of what non-duality means, nor what it means to put an end to dualistic thinking. The won't have the levels of wisdom to accurately distinguish between the two.

Also, being deluded and riddled with mental blocks, they will lack insight into their own psychology and the workings of their own mind. They won't be able to judge accurately whether minds are still engaging in thought or not. Their mental blocks will hide a lot of their thoughts, which can easily cause them to think they are advancing nicely along the path to enlightenment, when in fact they are not even on the path at all.

That's why they need a guru :)

Most people attracted to Buddhism are not there because of a hunger for the highest wisdom, but rather because they want mental peace, blissful experiences, a new set of rituals, a different lifestyle, a new community, new relationships, new sexual partners, or whatever. They are not there for truth.

I agree with you about that.

But someone who started out just looking for a 'spiritual' girlfriend & something to do on weekends might develop an interest in truth through being exposed to enlightened teachings.

I don't even like the term, "Dzogchen form of Buddhism".

Yeah it's kind of awkward. I phrased it that way because I wanted to reference the source in case anyone found it interesting enough to pursue. If I just said 'Buddhism' I'd end up in a long boring argument about what Buddhism means among people who will never agree. Dzogchen is a very particular form of Buddhism.

I hate those sorts of terms. They legitimize false teachings and practices through an illusion of semantic authority. This idea that there are different schools of Buddhism, each one a legitimate path to enlightenment, is complete rot. There is only true Buddhism and false Buddhism. There is only one true path to enlightenment, and countless false ones.

Yes I know you believe this. However, I don't personally recognize your authority to make this kind of definitive statements.

S: If you can't, there is 'practice', with its myriad methods of unraveling the distortions. 'Practice' in the sense of 'practicing medicine' rather than 'practicing the piano'.

D: Nevertheless, if one is "practicing" something, it means that one is still engaging in formulas and ritual, rather than engaging consciously in understanding.

Oops another disagreement. It all comes down to what the word 'practice' means. I meant it as in 'practice what you preach', with 'practice' meaning engaging in purposeful behavior. It does not have to include formulas & ritual - though it could.
.

Shardrol wrote:

David Quinn wrote: There is only true Buddhism and false Buddhism. There is only one true path to enlightenment, and countless false ones.

Yes I know you believe this. However, I don't personally recognize your authority to make this kind of definitive statements.

It's an (apparently) unpopular stance with Buddhists; especially those that partake in some of the sillier so called 'practices', but nevertheless, it's true.

Kowtaaia: The word practice commonly implies repetition

Not for the 'Buddhists' around my part of town :)

Shardrol wrote:

David Quinn wrote:[Hakuin's] main criticism of the Buddhism around him was its dismissal of the intellectual aspects of the path in favour of trying to make the mind as blank as possible in the mistaken belief that we are already enlightened and there is essentially nothing to do. This has always been a very common misconception (one that is eagerly lapped up by the ego because of the lack of demands it makes), which unfortunately afflicts Buddhism in our era as well.

The idea that we are already enlightened is an aspect of the Dzogchen form of Buddhism

Not only Dzogchen but most of the Mahayana school. Even the highly regarded Thai Forest (Theravadan) tradition, does not talk about so much 'attainment' as the act of waking up here and now - brought by heedfulness, paying attention.

The teaching is subtle, many incorrect interpretations can occur and we have sideway lanes like David or those whom say 'Nothing need be done!' or those that sit for days blankly and with no prajna.

kowtaaia wrote:Chanting as a 'means' of liberation, for instance, is silly beyond belief.

Dear kow

If you are talking to someone and they are sprouting around various beliefs etc, and you say 'there, that is delusion'. And in a continued discussion, they go around acting like they have a personality to be enlightened etc. and you say 'That's just ignorance, just pay attention - *CLAP*'.

I imagine for most people it would not be a fruitful discussion. How many people can recognise delusion for what it is - they are riding on it and cannot see it, and as we say in our lands, mistaking the thief for his son. For those with some openings, gaps, "little dust in their eyes" perhaps there is an opportunity but otherwise...

The different means and forms and guidances that generations of Masters have taught and used are for the purpose of liberation, and as with many dispositions, perhaps it all has its place within an overall framework.

In your example, chanting is part of the various traditions but they can be used for reasons of faith, for concentration and for calm. I cannot fault its use. And imagine that it is oft PART of an overall practice, rather than the only activity that is being done.

What leads each person a certain way, and when can one open an eye, I don't know. For example, in the discussion above, there are people who chase/have an experience of kensho and think they are now crash hot when it is not that rare an occurrence from what I have seen. There are so many dispositions and not every one is able to see things so quickly. So forms and means used to guide are oft required. Chanting can be part of that process, and when chanting is just another activity done with mindfulness, it is OK in itself.

The sideways avenues can indeed be attachment to emptiness, thinking that one is enlightened, sitting with a blank mind for days, there are so many really. (One Tibetan Lama said 'To have attainment is the yelp of a jackal. To have no attainment is the lion's roar')

By the way, I see where you are coming from and do not disagree with where you are coming from - but I guess I am more inclined to support the range of forms and techniques used to guide. And if different ways/lengths of time are required to guide different people then that is also how it works.

Finally, if someone could understand the very good instruction that you point out, of course that would be just as appreciated. (and has been appreciated I can say)

Well wishes,
Bo