substantial ?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

substantial ?

Post by aza on Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:11 am

often read, on zen forums, posted seeking as though something substantial through zen as though zen is substantial...even when people post writing as though there's nothing substantial, the approach still remains as though there is

zen isn't a religious ideology...what seems to be substantial ?

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by LauraJ on Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:24 am

For you aza, is Zen a philosophy, a religion, or a way of life?

It is hard to apply words to Zen, I think. Perhaps that's why it's always interested me. Though the practice is beyond words at times, the sutras are substantial (if complex at times). There have been great masters, like Thich Nhat Hanh. I don't always understand their teachings because it's not really how my mind works.

But ultimately I agree, that it's tougher on Zen practitioners to discuss on forums.

LauraJ

Number of posts : 791
Registration date : 2008-12-24

View user profile http://www.buddhistlounge.com

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:54 am

haven't thought zen a philosophy, a religion, or a way of life...that would be thinking zen is something to think about, try to follow. try to practice, try living

great you don't understand Very Happy ...what means "it's not really how my mind works" ?

yes there's not as much discussing, but often read posted trying to write which is thought is a zen way of writing...sometimes people use that, like some people use suttas, for trying proving they're right...often there's verbal tug-a-wars, hehe...is very funny reading

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by LauraJ on Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:23 am

I see, so you practice in everything you do. That is great 😄

When I say it's not really how my mind works, I mean sometimes when I read what people write about Zen, it seems very abstract. It takes me a long time to work out what someone is saying, and it makes me feel sort of dumb sometimes! But really the concepts are the same across the traditions, it's just different approaches.

Yes, people try to express in words what can be very difficult. And some things are beyond words, I know. When people use sutras to prove their points, I respect that, but you're right that it can turn into a battle too :fight:

But I still love to read about Zen, and to listen to people who express how they live out their practice in many parts of life.

LauraJ

Number of posts : 791
Registration date : 2008-12-24

View user profile http://www.buddhistlounge.com

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by zenzen on Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:07 pm

One more Zen fool reporting in!

This is what I've noticed about Internet forums: The amount of words does not seem to be proportional to the amount of understanding of zen digeridoo.

The more one explains it the farther he is from it. Yet, it's not completely hopeless. Someone somewhere might get interested and look for himself.
avatar
zenzen

Number of posts : 52
Location : Finland
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by termite on Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:38 pm

But...Where would we be without substance? Wink

termite

Number of posts : 5
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by Dharanidhar on Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:04 pm

termite wrote:But...Where would we be without substance? Wink

Insubstantial - somewhere?

Who is the 'we' which may 'be' and yet lack 'substance'?

Any is there a 'where' to be?

If 'we' lack the substance of inherent existence then 'we' must look 'somewhere' else for 'tat tvam asi' .

I'm currently looking for it in a bag of Maltesers. Wink
avatar
Dharanidhar

Number of posts : 37
Location : Manas
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by zenzen on Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:48 pm

Dharanidhar wrote:
termite wrote:But...Where would we be without substance? Wink

Insubstantial - somewhere?

Who is the 'we' which may 'be' and yet lack 'substance'?

Any is there a 'where' to be?

If 'we' lack the substance of inherent existence then 'we' must look 'somewhere' else for 'tat tvam asi' .

I'm currently looking for it in a bag of Maltesers. Wink

Yeah, I wonder what kind of substance that would be then? Very Happy cyclops

Some have said it's not the exact directions but the search that matters.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
avatar
zenzen

Number of posts : 52
Location : Finland
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by essie on Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:52 pm

Not having practiced any other kind of Buddhism but Zen/Chan, I often wonder what it is that is so puzzling to students of other Buddhist traditions? Zen/Chan is just what it is.

My experience with it has been that at its core it teaches:

"A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to [one's] mind
It lets one see into [one's own true] nature and [thus] attain Buddhahood."

The part about pointing directly to mind is where the practice is -- and that is difficult to describe without using self-referential terms. So, Zen practitioners are caught in an apparent paradox if they refuse to use plain English (or whatever language) to discuss and describe this practice. It can get pretty funny sometimes, and frustrating.

:ufo:
avatar
essie

Number of posts : 3
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by zenzen on Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:52 pm

So I am a zennie myself if anything. I'm not quite sure about that either so let's skip that part just to be sure.

Oh yeah, I've chatted in zenguide forum for a few years and it's sometimes quite wacky. I mean, it seems that only a few of zen practitioners are interested in intellectual pursuits whatsoever. Not even in the extent that they would discuss different meditative techniques or at least chit chat for the fun of it. Zen people seem to be most interested in spending their time without conceptual knowledge whatsoever if possible. Thus, writing in forums would be something entirely useless for the practice because it's a disturbance in the quiet mind. In a way this is justified and true, at least from my point of view. On the other hand I see this to be a one-sided view, let me explain:

We may assume that conceptual, intellectual pursuits are useless folly in a sense because they always fail to grasp the real world. Okay, that's easy enough to understand. But what most of us zennies forget is that the folly may be entertaining like a good joke. Think about it: you're having a good dream and all of your desires are about to be filled. In the moment when you're about to get the reward the dream changes. This is so with waking life as well: When one chases the desires he becomes hungry again as soon as those desires are fulfilled. It's like the whole life was running to a train in a rush only to see it leaving in the front of your nose. So, if you ask me the nature of the whole conceptual world is full of slight irony. So isn't it just and fair to laugh along a little? Wink

This is simply my personal opinion so don't take it too seriously. Smile I'm an optimist you see.
avatar
zenzen

Number of posts : 52
Location : Finland
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by muni on Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:21 pm

zenzen wrote:One more Zen fool reporting in!

This is what I've noticed about Internet forums: The amount of words does not seem to be proportional to the amount of understanding of zen digeridoo.

The more one explains it the farther he is from it. Yet, it's not completely hopeless. Someone somewhere might get interested and look for himself.
Words are sometimes feeling like overwhelming and too much analytical reflection brings mind out of balance. I learn flexibility in single pointed or concentration and analytical in balance if not there is degeneration of calm abiding. And then back to analytical.
Water by water and reflection. Maybe in Zen one does something like that? And flashlights by directly pointing ( in Koans) to switch the wrong view in absorption of emptiness?

muni

Number of posts : 450
Registration date : 2009-01-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:42 am

Drolma wrote:I see, so you practice in everything you do. That is great 😄
no, no practing Smile

When I say it's not really how my mind works, I mean sometimes when I read what people write about Zen, it seems very abstract. It takes me a long time to work out what someone is saying, and it makes me feel sort of dumb sometimes! But really the concepts are the same across the traditions, it's just different approaches.
there's a dumb ? Wink

what concepts ?

But I still love to read about Zen, and to listen to people who express how they live out their practice in many parts of life.
Smile

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:46 am

zenzen wrote:One more Zen fool reporting in!
looking for 'zen fool' but haven't found

zen digeridoo.
👍

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:47 am

termite wrote:But...Where would we be without substance? Wink
hehe

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:59 am

zenzen wrote:Oh yeah, I've chatted in zenguide forum for a few years and it's sometimes quite wacky.
Very Happy yeyyyy wacky

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by zenzen on Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:07 am

aza wrote:
zenzen wrote:Oh yeah, I've chatted in zenguide forum for a few years and it's sometimes quite wacky.
Very Happy yeyyyy wacky
Oh you too? What nic? 
avatar
zenzen

Number of posts : 52
Location : Finland
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:15 am

muni Smile

muni wrote:I learn flexibility in single pointed or concentration and analytical in balance if not there is degeneration of calm abiding. And then back to analytical.
analyse what ? ...what for ?

switch the wrong view in absorption of emptiness?
switch ?

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by muni on Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:15 am

Analytical reflection or meditation is in Tibetan Buddhism used like to bring in balance insight and calm abiding. Analyze for example emptiness of all phenomena, emptiness of self. Then concentration meditation follows.
The use of both are bringing a vast mental flexibility.

Also I use it when there is a form of clinging or solid idea in moments of daily life. This as reminder of wrong view and the click in no inherent dependence -view.

I am wondering Zen has an approach like this?

Not sure switch is a good word. 🤔 The click of grasping to real existence, to insight.

muni

Number of posts : 450
Registration date : 2009-01-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:44 am

zenzen wrote:
aza wrote:
zenzen wrote:Oh yeah, I've chatted in zenguide forum for a few years and it's sometimes quite wacky.
Very Happy yeyyyy wacky
Oh you too? What nic?

lehish

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by aza on Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:32 am

muni wrote:Analytical reflection or meditation is in Tibetan Buddhism used like to bring in balance insight and calm abiding. Analyze for example emptiness of all phenomena, emptiness of self. Then concentration meditation follows.
The use of both are bringing a vast mental flexibility.
"emptiness of all phenomena"...so what's to analyse ?

"emptiness of self"...so what self ?

I am wondering Zen has an approach like this?
zen direct

Not sure switch is a good word. 🤔 The click of grasping to real existence, to insight.
Smile oh words

aza

Number of posts : 10
Registration date : 2008-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by muni on Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:02 pm

aza wrote:
muni wrote:Analytical reflection or meditation is in Tibetan Buddhism used like to bring in balance insight and calm abiding. Analyze for example emptiness of all phenomena, emptiness of self. Then concentration meditation follows.
The use of both are bringing a vast mental flexibility.
"emptiness of all phenomena"...so what's to analyse ?

"emptiness of self"...so what self ?

I am wondering Zen has an approach like this?
zen direct

Not sure switch is a good word. 🤔 The click of grasping to real existence, to insight.
Smile oh words
Analytical approach to look in detail what is meant with emptiness of the "existences". Deep reflection.

Zen direct? Absorbed in daily mandala is perfect. cheers

muni

Number of posts : 450
Registration date : 2009-01-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: substantial ?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum