greentara wrote:The above is a simple list and one could ask is this the taste of enlightenment? It's tempting to say yes. Upon scrutiny one can say it's looking at the menu but not eating the food.
Astus wrote:kirtu wrote:I see your wordy Yanshou and raise you just sitting.
They say that just sitting is practice-enlightenment and there's nothing beyond that, nothing to achieve at all. On the other hand, you sit silently till the end of your life. And if we scratch the rhetoric of just sitting a little bit we find that there's a lot more going on. So it can be that it is not Yanshou who talks too much but certain teachers say too little about what Buddhism is about. Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.
They say that just sitting is practice-enlightenment
and there's nothing beyond that, nothing to achieve at all.
And if we scratch the rhetoric of just sitting a little bit we find that there's a lot more going on.
...but certain teachers say too little about what Buddhism is about.
Astus wrote:Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.
lobster wrote:Astus wrote:Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.
It is easy enough to answer the above question for oneself. Post the answers and everyone is an expert on delusion . . . And ready to offer unqualified advice . . . Thanks for providing . . .
It is actually quite easy to connect Yongming's Buddhism with Dogen's, although their general appearance is quite different, partly because Yongming lived just before the Song dynasty changes in Chan. Chinul for instance combines the teachings of Yongming and Dahui quite well.
If it is true that just sitting equals seeing the nature (見性) then giving positive answers to all ten questions should be fairly simple. Let's see how it goes.
 Seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go.
 When there is no proliferation of ideas there is no attachment.
 There is no other meaning of the Buddhadharma but seeing nature.
 Compassion comes with seeing nature, they are not two.
This kind of reductionist approach that is undoubtedly the Zen style can easily appear as a negation of the complexities of the path.
In fact, it was one of Yanshou's primary goal to show that the teachings (教) harmonise with Zen (宗). That's why Albert Welter gave the title to his book "A Special Transmission within the Scriptures".
kirtu wrote:Why did Yanshou feel a need to show that the teaching harmonize with Zen exactly?
Seeing nature is beyond thoughts coming and going but that is a start.
Astus wrote:Zongmi writes (Zongmi on Chan, p. 88; same quoted by Chinul in Collected Works, p. 290):
"If you find a good friend to show you [the path], you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices. With respect to understanding, it is to see that all characteristics are non-characteristics. With respect to practice, it is called the practice of nonpractice. When the depravities are exhausted, the rebirth process will cease; once arising and disappearing has extinguished, calmness and illumination will become manifest, and responsive functions will be without limit. It is called becoming a buddha."
kirtu wrote:Right, this is the classic reversing the 12 links. But jumping (seeing) the Tathagata nature directly is faster and better (IMHO). Combining the two is Zen's own above and below practice/realization.
Did Zongmi or Yanshou teach about this? Chinul of course did.
Astus wrote: Seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go.
oushi wrote:Is there one person that thinks that thoughts come and stay? This very nature of thoughts is the cause of the problem. Because thoughts come and go, people do all they can to initiate them and sustain them. The main influence society does on a person is "you have to know!" and "you have to remember!". "We all know that thoughts come and go, that is why we have to deal with it".
catmoon wrote:It's a trap.
Astus wrote:The error we can make with thoughts is to regard them as real, as meaningful, as true and thus identify with them and create attachments.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Meido and 13 guests