Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

Sorry for the maybe stupid question but I’ve hit a bit of a rock in my understanding.

Is the following statement true? Does the Tathagata abide in Dhyana? I’ve made this claim before and other Buddhists have rejected it.

My understanding stems from reading the bloodstream sermon:

Whoever hears and believes this teaching embarks on the Great Vehicle" and leaves the three realms. The three realms are greed, anger, and delusion. To leave the three realms means to go from greed, anger, and delusion back to morality, meditation, and wisdom. Greed, anger, and delusion have no nature of their own. They depend on mortals. And anyone capable of reflection is bound to see that the nature of greed, anger, and delusion is the buddha-nature. Beyond greed, anger, and delusion there is no other buddha-nature. The sutras say, "Bu as have only become buddhas while living with the three poisons and nourishing themselves on the pure Dharma." The three poisons are greed, anger, and delusion.

The three realms are greed, anger and delusion. To leave the three realms would goes from greed, anger and delusion to morality, meditation and wisdom.

Since the Tathagata essentially has no divisions and makes no distinctions, and since it essentially doesn’t move or change when it goes from one state to another, doesn’t that mean that anger/wisdom greed(desire)/morality and delusion/meditation(Dhyana) are essentially the same thing? If I see them as separate things isn’t that delusion?

So Samsara is Nirvana, and the mind’s Dhyana is the very delusions that constitute Samsara?

Do I have a proper understanding here? Or am I crazy? Wouldn’t seeing it any other way imply there was independent existence to these concepts?

Sorry for bothering whoever reads this, this question has been nagging me.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:43 am Sorry for the maybe stupid question but I’ve hit a bit of a rock in my understanding.

Is the following statement true? Does the Tathagata abide in Dhyana? I’ve made this claim before and other Buddhists have rejected it.

My understanding stems from reading the bloodstream sermon:

Whoever hears and believes this teaching embarks on the Great Vehicle" and leaves the three realms. The three realms are greed, anger, and delusion. To leave the three realms means to go from greed, anger, and delusion back to morality, meditation, and wisdom. Greed, anger, and delusion have no nature of their own. They depend on mortals. And anyone capable of reflection is bound to see that the nature of greed, anger, and delusion is the buddha-nature. Beyond greed, anger, and delusion there is no other buddha-nature. The sutras say, "Bu as have only become buddhas while living with the three poisons and nourishing themselves on the pure Dharma." The three poisons are greed, anger, and delusion.

The three realms are greed, anger and delusion. To leave the three realms would goes from greed, anger and delusion to morality, meditation and wisdom.

Since the Tathagata essentially has no divisions and makes no distinctions, and since it essentially doesn’t move or change when it goes from one state to another, doesn’t that mean that anger/wisdom greed(desire)/morality and delusion/meditation(Dhyana) are essentially the same thing? If I see them as separate things isn’t that delusion?

So Samsara is Nirvana, and the mind’s Dhyana is the very delusions that constitute Samsara?

Do I have a proper understanding here? Or am I crazy? Wouldn’t seeing it any other way imply there was independent existence to these concepts?

Sorry for bothering whoever reads this, this question has been nagging me.
While it isn’t immediately observable, ultimately they are no different. Relatively, there is a huge difference. Don’t confuse having an intellectual understanding of that for a direct experience of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana. Screaming at another driver on the highway definitely will not make you a Buddha.

But consider the following:
When you are angry at a person or angry about a situation, what is the basis of that anger? It’s because you perceive that something is wrong and you wish for it to be right. The wish for something to be right is pure motivation. However, due to attachment and delusion, the way it cooks in the mind and is expressed as an emotion, it comes out as anger. Of course, as most Buddhists soon discover from meditation, letting thoughts go without indulging them, it is entirely possible to experience situations which ‘need fixing’ without the automatic arising of anger and stress along with it.

There is another aspect to this which has to do with all phenomena being the five Buddha families. Generally, that approach to understanding is found more within vajrayana buddhist teachings.

Another way to say this is that the kleshas are wisdoms which are obscured or distorted by a confused mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:43 am Sorry for the maybe stupid question but I’ve hit a bit of a rock in my understanding.

Is the following statement true? Does the Tathagata abide in Dhyana? I’ve made this claim before and other Buddhists have rejected it.

My understanding stems from reading the bloodstream sermon:

Whoever hears and believes this teaching embarks on the Great Vehicle" and leaves the three realms. The three realms are greed, anger, and delusion. To leave the three realms means to go from greed, anger, and delusion back to morality, meditation, and wisdom. Greed, anger, and delusion have no nature of their own. They depend on mortals. And anyone capable of reflection is bound to see that the nature of greed, anger, and delusion is the buddha-nature. Beyond greed, anger, and delusion there is no other buddha-nature. The sutras say, "Bu as have only become buddhas while living with the three poisons and nourishing themselves on the pure Dharma." The three poisons are greed, anger, and delusion.

The three realms are greed, anger and delusion. To leave the three realms would goes from greed, anger and delusion to morality, meditation and wisdom.

Since the Tathagata essentially has no divisions and makes no distinctions, and since it essentially doesn’t move or change when it goes from one state to another, doesn’t that mean that anger/wisdom greed(desire)/morality and delusion/meditation(Dhyana) are essentially the same thing? If I see them as separate things isn’t that delusion?

So Samsara is Nirvana, and the mind’s Dhyana is the very delusions that constitute Samsara?

Do I have a proper understanding here? Or am I crazy? Wouldn’t seeing it any other way imply there was independent existence to these concepts?

Sorry for bothering whoever reads this, this question has been nagging me.
Karma is habit, but your view is correct.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8881
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Astus »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:43 amDoes the Tathagata abide in Dhyana?
Dhyana usually signifies the eight levels of absorption, and in that sense it is not true that a buddha always abides in them. If by Dhyana you actually mean Chan/Zen as it is understood in the Chan school (and has practically nothing to do with dhyana as absorption/concentration/meditation), then it rather stands for buddha-nature, and of course a buddha is one who always abides in the buddha-nature.
My understanding stems from reading the bloodstream sermon:
Your quote is from the beginning of Red Pine's translation of the Wuxinglun 悟性論 he rendered as 'Wake-Up Sermon'.
Since the Tathagata essentially has no divisions and makes no distinctions, and since it essentially doesn’t move or change when it goes from one state to another, doesn’t that mean that anger/wisdom greed(desire)/morality and delusion/meditation(Dhyana) are essentially the same thing? If I see them as separate things isn’t that delusion?
The three poisons (greed, anger, delusion) do not differ from the three trainings (morality, meditation, wisdom) in the sense that their nature are buddha-nature (佛性), that is: no-nature ('no nature of their own' 無實性); in other words, they are empty.
So Samsara is Nirvana, and the mind’s Dhyana is the very delusions that constitute Samsara?
Nagarjuna wrote:

'Samsara does not differ
Even slightly from nirvana.
Nirvana does not differ
Even slightly from samsara.
The ultimate nature of nirvana
Is the ultimate nature of samsara;
And between these two, the slightest difference,
Even the most subtle, is not found.'

(MMK 25.19-20, tr Padmakara)

I do not know what you mean by the 'mind's Dhyana', but certainly it is delusion that is the source of samsara, and the nature of delusion is nirvana. Liberation is then to see the nature of one's delusion.

Again from Nagarjuna:

'One is not freed by existence;
One does not transcend samsara through non-existence;
It’s through understanding existence and non-existence
That the great beings are liberated.'

(Yuktisastika, v 4, tr Thupten Jinpa)

And Bodhidharma:

'Whoever realizes that the six senses aren't real, that the five aggregates are fictions, that no such things can be located anywhere in the body, understands the language of Buddhas. The sutras say, "The cave of five aggregates is the hall of Zen. The opening of the inner eye is the door of the Great Vehicle." What could be clearer?
Not thinking about anything is Zen. Once you know this, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, everything you do is Zen. To know that the mind is empty is to see the Buddha. The Buddhas of the ten directions have no mind. To see no mind is to see the buddha.'

(Wake-Up Sermon)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

To really see non-differentiation...it’s rather Great Samadhi.
It’s eye blinking.
Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

Thank you guys, you have been helpful. I understand that this is only intellectual understanding, I’ve just made these claims/arguments, posed my understanding to Buddhists and had it rejected which left me feeling well rather confused.

I guess confusion is the natural state when one is full of questions... I just needed to understand if I was wildly off the mark since I don’t practice with teachers nor is it a possibility. I went talking to Buddhists to see if my understanding was correct and... well... it’s just been very Samsaric. I was inundated with beliefs from a handful of different religions and practices, told I was mistaken, and generally led to question my understanding of the matter.

Do most Buddhists not see things this way? Are these views distinctly Chan/Zen? I thought Nagarjuna and the various Mahayana schools had similar insights?

Dhyana usually signifies the eight levels of absorption, and in that sense it is not true that a buddha always abides in them. If by Dhyana you actually mean Chan/Zen as it is understood in the Chan school (and has practically nothing to do with dhyana as absorption/concentration/meditation), then it rather stands for buddha-nature, and of course a buddha is one who always abides in the buddha-nature.

This might just be a matter of translation but it is important I clarify my language so that I don’t confuse myself or others when I speak to them.

Dhyana as I understand it, can be, (usually is) translated as meditation, but I think a more accurate term is probably clearly seeing, clear sight, something like that.

It’s not really supposed to be the meditative absorption that various Chan masters disparage in texts.

I also understand Dhyana to be the origin of the word Chan and therefore Zen.

Buddha, Buddha nature, yes these sort of things are what I’m talking about. the Tathagata is Buddha which is one mind, no mind, self, etc.

Buddha nature is Dhyana, which is Chan, Zen, etc.

The nature of the Buddha (Dhyana) is no different than Delusion, Samsara is the delusional conceptual world, and it’s also Nirvana.

The Buddha’s reside in Nirvana which is no different than the three fold world, Samsaric Devils are in truth Buddha’s, Buddhas are in truth devils etc. etc.

The only difference in these states lies within the Buddha itself and it’s perception of reality, not within the reality itself which is fundamentally without form and distinctions.

I’m glad I came here, Buddhists were really giving my head a spin.

If I can be so bold, can we talk about relative affairs for a bit?

Is it true that Zen Masters don’t talk about relative affairs, or teach on the basis of relative affairs?

This is part of what led to my discussion with Buddhists, was telling someone that focusing on whether their actions were right or wrong was relative affairs, and that their time would be better spend focusing on the Dharma rather than on right or wrong.

To my understanding Zen Masters taught on the basis of pointing to the mind, not positing right and wrong action and further deluding being in samsaric affairs.

If you want to be first-rate fellows, don't go around talking about the ruler or the rebels, talking about right and wrong, talking about sex and money matters, spending all your days talking idle chatter!

Or Huangbo,


Q: What is meant by 'Transcending the Three Worlds'? (Of desire, form and formlessness.)

A: Transcending the Three Worlds connotes rising beyond the dualism of good and evil. Buddhas appear in the world in order to make an end of desire, of form and of formless phenomena.


It’s my understanding that relative affairs are literally everything except the Buddhadharma.

The Buddhists I talk to disagree and claim the Buddhadharma includes relative affairs. How do you fellows see the truth of the matter?

If I talk about right and wrong, good and evil, rebirth and reincarnation, money, sex, even Buddha’s and devils, I’m not talking about the Buddhadharma am I?

Even Huangbo says that good Karma only leads to rebirth, and thus is not the Buddha path of those who transcend good and bad.


Truly the only desire I have is clarifying this issue. I want to understand the Buddhadharma to the best of my ability and to stop being misled by people clinging to beliefs.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

If you have a teacher that tells you in the Great Cessation Samadhi, there is no Buddha or anything because no distinction. You’d know your teacher has had Great Cessation Samadhi. Not annihilation though.
It’s eye blinking.
Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

LastLegend wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:58 pm If you have a teacher that tells you in the Great Cessation Samadhi, there is no Buddha or anything because no distinction. Not annihilation though.
I don’t have a teacher. I’m not sure having a teacher is good practice. It seems they are as likely to mislead as to enlighten.

And Huangbo states here in case #21:

Q: How do the Buddhas, out of their vast mercy and compassion, preach the Dharma to sentient beings?

A: We speak of their mercy and compassion as vast just because it is beyond causality. By mercy is really meant not conceiving of a Buddha to be Enlightened, while compassion really means not conceiving of sentient beings to be delivered.

In reality, their Dharma is neither preached in words nor otherwise signified; and those who listen neither hear nor attain. It is as though an imaginary teacher had preached to imaginary people. As regards all these dharmas (teachings), if, for the sake of the Way, I speak to you from my deeper knowledge and lead you forward, you will certainly be able to understand what I say; and, as to mercy and compassion, if for your sakes I take to thinking things out and studying other people's concepts - in neither case will you have reached a true perception of the real nature of your own Mind from WITHIN YOURSELVES. So, in the end, these things will be of no help at all.

It seems Huangbo is very clear that as a teacher he has nothing to offer anyone, and it seems as though he’s very clear that whatever actions he engages in cannot lead to a true understanding inside the mind of another.

Isn’t a teacher/student relationship a type of dualism? Wouldn’t it be retrogressive in my practice to accept a teacher if I see that in truth no such dichotomy exists?

These are very serious questions, I seek an earnest understanding of the Buddhadharma, but I know any such understanding can only be achieved through my own activities and not another’s.

Besides where does someone even find a Huangbo these days? Particularly in the west? Particularly in the middle of America.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8881
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Astus »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:33 pm Dhyana as I understand it, can be, (usually is) translated as meditation, but I think a more accurate term is probably clearly seeing, clear sight, something like that.
From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism:

dhyāna. (P. jhāna; T. bsam gtan; C. chan/chanding; J. zen/ zenjō; K. sŏn/sŏnjŏng 禪/禪定). In Sanskrit, “meditative absorption,” specific meditative practices during which the mind temporarily withdraws from external sensory awareness and remains completely absorbed in an ideational object of meditation. The term can refer both to the practice that leads to full absorption and to the state of full absorption itself.

For more on the general concept of dhyana, you can look into the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra's relevant chapter: he Virtue of Meditation (dhyāna)
I also understand Dhyana to be the origin of the word Chan and therefore Zen. ... Buddha nature is Dhyana, which is Chan, Zen, etc.
Better not project the idea of Chan/Zen back to what is taught as dhyana in Buddhism in general based simply on etymology.
Is it true that Zen Masters don’t talk about relative affairs, or teach on the basis of relative affairs?
Not true at all. Chan/Zen monasteries even had/have a whole extra set of rules, see e.g. Chanyuan Qinggui. Many of the famous Chan teachers were also abbots charged with leading and organising monasteries. It was their duty not only to regulate monastic affairs, but also to cooperate with the laity.
To my understanding Zen Masters taught on the basis of pointing to the mind, not positing right and wrong action and further deluding being in samsaric affairs.
That's a sort of idealised picture of a fictional 'Zen Master' based on a limited reading.
Truly the only desire I have is clarifying this issue. I want to understand the Buddhadharma to the best of my ability and to stop being misled by people clinging to beliefs.
Besides reading Zen works you should take a broader view of Buddhism, like reading about its history, and the teachings found in the sutras and treatises. Practically all Zen teachers were very knowledgeable about the whole of the Buddhist tradition. You can look at modern examples, like Sheng-yen and Shohaku Okumura.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by narhwal90 »

It is very easy to mislead onseself, to be subtly bound by grasping at ideas, preferences, perceptions not to mention habits so long engrained that one is unaware of them. A teacher can help identify such things- its true you have to do the work to free yourself, a teacher can demonstrate by example and encouragement.

I found DIY Zen went nowhere fast. Noticable changes in understanding, mental conduct occured after getting involved in weekly sangha study; following along in the readings, participating in discussion, doing the study homework- and bringing up topics, experiences relevant to the discussions.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:10 pm
I don’t have a teacher. I’m not sure having a teacher is good practice. It seems they are as likely to mislead as to enlighten.
That’s equally valid. But without an enlightened teacher, you can misidentify the ‘clear seeing’ state as enlightened. Or a samadhi of emptiness that’s mimicking Great Samadhi but not.
Besides where does someone even find a Huangbo these days? Particularly in the west? Particularly in the middle of America.
Great aspirations will lead you.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

The domain of Mahaprajna is within the realm of Great Samadhi...the inexpressible and we have to experience that for ourselves.
It’s eye blinking.
Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

That’s equally valid. But without an enlightened teacher, you can misidentify the ‘clear seeing’ state as enlightened. Or a samadhi of emptiness that’s mimicking Great Samadhi but not.


That’s true. That’s why I’m here I suppose. It probably would be better to speak directly with someone with experiential understanding.
Great aspirations will lead you.
Thank you for the words. I’m not sure I have aspirations other than being an ordinary man and pondering the Buddhadharma.
Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

Better not project the idea of Chan/Zen back to what is taught as dhyana in Buddhism in general based simply on etymology.
Ok I’ll refrain from using Dhyana if I’m misapplying it and confusing people as to my meaning.

Not true at all. Chan/Zen monasteries even had/have a whole extra set of rules, see e.g. Chanyuan Qinggui. Many of the famous Chan teachers were also abbots charged with leading and organising monasteries. It was their duty not only to regulate monastic affairs, but also to cooperate with the laity.
Yes I’m aware the Masters has to deal with laity who might have no desire to ponder the deeper mysteries, and that they necessarily had to engage in relative affairs such as running a monastery and overseeing the education of at times hundreds of monks.

Still I’m talking about how they taught when people made serious inquiry into the Buddhadharma. When Emperor Wu questioned Bodhidharma he was told “No Merit.”

This isn’t a teaching on the basis of right and wrong.
That's a sort of idealised picture of a fictional 'Zen Master' based on a limited reading.
Ah that’s sad to me.

You didn’t answer perhaps my most pressing question. Does the Buddhadharma and discussion of it, include relative affairs?

If I speak of sex, right and wrong, money, karma, reincarnation, Buddha’s and devils, anything at all in the realm of relative affairs, am I still expressing the true Buddhadharma?
Owlsd
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:26 am

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by Owlsd »

narhwal90 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:21 pm It is very easy to mislead onseself, to be subtly bound by grasping at ideas, preferences, perceptions not to mention habits so long engrained that one is unaware of them. A teacher can help identify such things- its true you have to do the work to free yourself, a teacher can demonstrate by example and encouragement.

I found DIY Zen went nowhere fast. Noticable changes in understanding, mental conduct occured after getting involved in weekly sangha study; following along in the readings, participating in discussion, doing the study homework- and bringing up topics, experiences relevant to the discussions.
Ah, if you have experience in an IRL sangha, what is your understanding of the questions I’ve raised?

Your points are fair enough, but set aside the matter of teachers and sanghas for a moment, and how do you see these topics I’ve raised in various posts.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

My guess why Great Samadhi is inexpressible itself is because there is no such thing to express. What expresses anything?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:32 pm
That’s equally valid. But without an enlightened teacher, you can misidentify the ‘clear seeing’ state as enlightened. Or a samadhi of emptiness that’s mimicking Great Samadhi but not.


That’s true. That’s why I’m here I suppose. It probably would be better to speak directly with someone with experiential understanding.
Great aspirations will lead you.
Thank you for the words. I’m not sure I have aspirations other than being an ordinary man and pondering the Buddhadharma.
You’d need a cause to bear fruit.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:43 pm
Better not project the idea of Chan/Zen back to what is taught as dhyana in Buddhism in general based simply on etymology.
Ok I’ll refrain from using Dhyana if I’m misapplying it and confusing people as to my meaning.

Not true at all. Chan/Zen monasteries even had/have a whole extra set of rules, see e.g. Chanyuan Qinggui. Many of the famous Chan teachers were also abbots charged with leading and organising monasteries. It was their duty not only to regulate monastic affairs, but also to cooperate with the laity.
Yes I’m aware the Masters has to deal with laity who might have no desire to ponder the deeper mysteries, and that they necessarily had to engage in relative affairs such as running a monastery and overseeing the education of at times hundreds of monks.

Still I’m talking about how they taught when people made serious inquiry into the Buddhadharma. When Emperor Wu questioned Bodhidharma he was told “No Merit.”

This isn’t a teaching on the basis of right and wrong.
That's a sort of idealised picture of a fictional 'Zen Master' based on a limited reading.
Ah that’s sad to me.

You didn’t answer perhaps my most pressing question. Does the Buddhadharma and discussion of it, include relative affairs?

If I speak of sex, right and wrong, money, karma, reincarnation, Buddha’s and devils, anything at all in the realm of relative affairs, am I still expressing the true Buddhadharma?
It’s not matter of right and wrong but it’s matter of karma hindering our mind. But’s good to engage less in daily affairs if that’s possible.
It’s eye blinking.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by narhwal90 »

Owlsd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:51 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:21 pm It is very easy to mislead onseself, to be subtly bound by grasping at ideas, preferences, perceptions not to mention habits so long engrained that one is unaware of them. A teacher can help identify such things- its true you have to do the work to free yourself, a teacher can demonstrate by example and encouragement.

I found DIY Zen went nowhere fast. Noticable changes in understanding, mental conduct occured after getting involved in weekly sangha study; following along in the readings, participating in discussion, doing the study homework- and bringing up topics, experiences relevant to the discussions.
Ah, if you have experience in an IRL sangha, what is your understanding of the questions I’ve raised?

Your points are fair enough, but set aside the matter of teachers and sanghas for a moment, and how do you see these topics I’ve raised in various posts.
The teacher offers 30+ years of experience in diverse formal ordained practice, and experience with many group and student issues. He doesn't do my practice for me, but we discuss the study topics; he asks the difficult questions and if I say something silly I get a homework assignment. I don't depend on him for personal advise- he is not a shrink or counsellor- but I do stay accountable with him wrt homework (reading assignments) and if I need to be absent from the weekly meetings.

Questions of satori and so on arise sometimes- this sangha treats them as experiences to note and promptly let go of; they are not considered to be the goal of practice. Several of the sangha members are in the ordination track, there are other lay folks like me; all participate.

He and I don't have a formal "zenny" relationship as such, there have been no ceremonies- he is content with me showing up and participating. His ordination students do have ceremonies, they've done sewing, painting etc- formal practice things. There is an interesting question about why the student approaches the teacher; what does the student want out of the relationship; instruction probably good, validation probably not- he is careful about his student relationships. He likes his students to keep up with the reading and to understand enough to have pertinent conversation.

I'm not sure how to address your other points- you seem to have a particular idea of how things are supposed to be in Zen. In my experience the relationship takes the form it takes. My guy likes formal zen painting, I couldn't care less- same with tea ceremony stuff. He likes going on hikes/walks, his local students often go with him- this seems like an opportunity for practice also. OTOH we have had several productive exchanges of essays and stories. At some point when I can visit face-to-face I wouldn't mind doing a dokusan-ish session- he has blown my mind a couple times making clear some of my own mental habits and assumptions.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Does the Tathagata reside in Dhyana?

Post by LastLegend »

narhwal90 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:41 pm

Questions of satori and so on arise sometimes- this sangha treats them as experiences to note and promptly let go of; they are not considered to be the goal of practice. Several of the sangha members are in the ordination track, there are other lay folks like me; all participate.
It’s so difficult to know where we are stuck.
It’s eye blinking.
Post Reply

Return to “Zen”