my past life

I guess thats true, but on the other side of the coin, knowing that its there, you can try to take some control over it (not sure what you mean with corrupted, perhaps our primal instincts we are born with?), and not let it have as much control over you, as when you would not be aware of them. There are alot of theories about the existance of 'the source'. people often speak about a universal subconsciouness, perhaps there is a energy around us, think about what life is, what gives life, could there be a substance like 'life energy'? is there something more then just biological and genetical science? all very intresting to think and speculate about.

 

Like which one? And which latest buddhist teachings? (i'm not aware of any 'latest' buddhist teachings) And why bring me into it anyway?

But anyway, in my experience, beyond those illusionary opposites of 'good' and 'bad' is peace and acceptance and love (< is that what you meant by feelgood?)... and none of those things are either 'good' or 'bad' in themselves.
And i also think 'the source' doesn't exist in terms of corruption or not corruption; The source is spirit or the unmanifest, hence there's nothing to corrupt or be corrupted ... and corrupt by what standard or who's definition anyway?

 

Like one you spoke about.
And by "latest" i mean our contemporaries, often seen on TV, youtube, internet and etc.
I didn't bring you into it (even noted that it was nothing personal), but your comments on the subject were there and i made reference to one of your posts in the context of writing my own comment.

And I can't seem to be observing much of "peace and acceptance and love" when watching Animal Planet on TV. Isn't it nature ? Or is it an iluusion created by the camera ?

 

Again i ask ...which one? please refer to it, quote it.

Look, just refer to the comments or post i made.Quote them. Your just being a bit vague about these posts and teachers.

I think before talking more about nature we need to define what 'nature' actually is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/Adyashanti

To be precise you posted the link and comments on it under the parallel thread (lostmintys'), which was about meaning of the life.

When I say "Nature" I mean things that exist and surround us, in totality.
And its' observable part, in particular.

 

Well if there is such a thing as latest buddhist teachings i don't really know what they are; i have a very scant knowledge of buddhism at best an am unfamiliar with it's teachings and indeed it's well known teachers.

I like Adyashanti because he speaks well, in a language that would appeal and be understood by most, and because i understand him personally because he speaks of things i have understood myself and he helps me clarify those things i find it hard to clarify on my own. And if he's a modern teacher ... well, we don't have any old ones; they're all dead.
Maybe you could cite the name or names of modern teachers that you think teach well that you actually agree with? I'd be really interested in what they say and it would give me a mutch better idea of your personal angle on buddhism and reality generally because you've not said mutch so far about what your own understanding actually is. You've said that you observe that nature is corrupted and that's about it.
Have you had a personal experience of death and spirit or of 'dying before you die'? Because until one actually gets to that point, one still only has the observable part ... which is largely the illusory part, the part that tends to make the human mind believe everything is separate and struggling for survival. Nature, to the average human may indeed look like a huge battleground but to experience the spirit and the life within it; ... that life which animates the whole, one realises that nature is not in conflict with itself.
- And that's not from Adyashanti, that's from me, from my own experience of dying and deathlessness.

 

I am too old to argue or be eager to prove my point
Years ago I would go into lenghty discussions and effectively outlay my position ,with tons of references, quotes, and what not...
But what did I know years ago!?

Here is one old song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jy4tMySp5o

:cheers2:

 

Well i can't blame you for not wanting to argue about it. There is little point i agree, ... i feel the same often. But i'm genuinely interested in your understanding of zen buddhism particularly because i'm fairly eager to see what else is out there in that respect ... to learn, ... to get different angles. Zen buddhism is a fairly new to me. And you've raised some interesting points, particularly what you said about the Japanese martial arts masters; one thing that's been on my mind recently is 'surrendered action' ... action without conflict in the mind ... without resistance in the mind so that one can commit oneself fully to the moment or their task at hand. And following from this is how one may choose to do something conciously, yet at the same time unconciously undermine that choice. So it's being aware of what is in our mind and our thoughts and beliefs. ie, we may think we believe we are this or that and that we think a certain way ... but do we? What are our unconcious beliefs and thoughts? Are we even aware of what we really think and believe? - So it's about the concious mind ane the unconcious mind in conflict ... or not.

Maybe a whole lot! As i said i'm interested in you and your understanding. And i am trying to remember things i knew years ago, to put it briefly, i woke up and fell back to sleep again. My waking up was rapid and at present i feel i am waking up more slowly. ... and thanks for the song, i enjoyed the sentiment. :cheers2:

 

Zen can not be explained verbally.
It is a state of awareness, a flash in mind that must be experienced .
Anyone who claims to be able to explain Zen teachings in mere words is either doesn't know what Zen is or misleading you, which is in effect the same thing.

Greatest Zen Masters taught their students by creating the state of awareness, either by single gesture, circumstance, silence or contemplating on Koans, never claiming they could teach Zen to those who were incabale of grasping it on their own.

I was always amused by hypered youngsters, mouthfull of exotic terms from Buddhism, so "knowledgeable" about all kinds of teachings, who in close look knew nothing of what they spoke about. They knew nothing of Zen , nor they knew anything of Buddhism.

Zen ,as experienced on my own, can be compared to a Sour Drink without artificial or any kind of sweeteners or flawors added , as opposed to Buddhism in general.
It is like four shots of espresso coffee, no sugar added.

As to conflict in mind, there are two stages really.
First is mental, and that's the easiest one.
You realize that you are in the tunnel, there is no turn to left or right, you can either back down or go forward.
You also realize that the only way to Live is to go forward, with all risks involved, for if you turn back you are broken and are dead alive for certain.

And here comes the toughest part. It's not enough to know, but you must be capable of acting on your knowledge.
You can be 1000 times as wise as the wisest of the Zen Masters yet your knowledge is worth next to nothing if you can't act on it.
And that is the most difficult part of it:
It takes a will power, a healthy body, a perfectly functioning organism, something that you can't bring into existence by mere wish but something that is the combination of inherited genetics and years of dedicated training.

As to unconscious... it's for dishonest or intellectually cowardly to worry about. If you are neither you can face it and recognize it as is, just need some stamina and mental discipline to force you see it as is.

Wish you the best.

And here is one for the sentiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWjWy287Y4s&NR=1

:cheers2:

 

Ok now i understand your understanding of zen, and buddhism. Suffice to say i don't actually think the same way about it.

 

You are free to think about it as you do, and so am I

Suffice it to say, as far as understanding and essence of Zen is concerned, I made it clear it is not something that can be relayed be mere words.
You either experience it or you don't.

 

Sure i understand that ... about words. Yet i'm sure all those unnamed old zen masters used words, as well as actions and gestures and example ... anything at their disposal, to point towards their meaning. And i also think it doesn't neccesarily take years and years of study, contemplation and meditation to 'wake up' ... it just takes as long as it takes for any individual to realise; Indeed Eckhart Tolle is one who tells us not to seek salvation (enlightenment ...whatever one wants to call it) in the future, that there is nothing one needs to 'do' to find it, ...that you already are what you are seeking, so to stop seeking; to look within to what is already there.
A shamanic/spiritual councellor once told me ... "Some people search their whole lives for spiritual enlightenment, yet some find it in a day, and the one who finds it in a day is actually a mutch purer shaman."
- Basically i don't go with this whole thing about it taking years and years of arduous, painful and 'sour' experience. That's really what i don't agree with. For someone in the grip of an extreme egoic conciousness it may well be a very long and horrific ordeal, yet at the same time any huge ego can fall quickly if one can just 'get it', if one can just realise.
Jesus said "Take up my yoke, it is light."

 

Good

That's exactly what i wrote

Neither do I.
Someone could spend whole life and never "wake up"

Sure.

I don't know about Eckhart Tolle.

Where did "seeking salvation in future" come from ?
Did I say anything about "seeking salvation in future" ?

What are you talking about?

Very good

I think you are a little bit confused or perhaps there was a misunderstanding of what you have read in my post.
You mixed up my responses in three separate paragraphs which I wrote in responce to what I divided into three separate comments and questions you raised.
You lumped all into one and now you are obviously confused about it.

We can have a lengthy discussion about it.
You see, there are many nuances and angles and even definitions of one or another word in the context of its' usage when speaking of this aspect of Buddhism and Zen (about Ego, the consciousness, perception), as well as what they have envisioned to be ways of overcoming the ordeals of life.

It is really easy to get confused or to mislead intentionally, by mixing up all these diffirenet nuances and ideas into one, when discussing a complex subject such as this one, and then to claim to have a valid point [in effect shifting the essence of discussion from what is substantial to what is nothing but an ordinary game of perception].

I am not discussing Christianity, nor am I a Christian or adherent of any known Religion for the matter of discussion.



P.S. Cheer up, dude :cheers2:
As I said I have no interest in arguing or proving any point to you, I couldn't care less what you think about what, it is your own busienss.
If you want to comment on my replies, feel free to do so, just make sure you are not confused about its' content and are not battling non-existent ghosts while writing in responce

 

Wow! Well thanks for the effort.

Look, i'm not trying to be some zen guy here, i'm just interested in zen among many things and i don't think zen has any single monopoly on truth ... which is why i quote Jesus sometimes and anyone really who makes any sense. ...and by the way when i quote jesus i don't quote him in any christian context but simply as an enlightened master ... a master who no doubt to me would have known all about what zen means even if that understanding went by a different name to him.
Christianity by it's modern definition is something else entirely.

You've not heard of Eckhart Tolle? I'd certainly suggest reading his books 'The power of Now' and 'Silence Speaks'. But be warned, they are full of words!

Like you said yourself earlier, i now cannot be bothered taking this any further, this disagreement of ideas is getting old (remember the 'feel good aspect'?). I'm gonna talk about spirit guides or past lives and other things mind boggling.

Cheer up? Don't be concerned, i'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm not arguing with you, just your ideas ... or at least a few of them anyway.

 

Didn't take much effort, just clarifications were in order , to eliminate any distortions.

Nobody claims Zen has monopoly on truth.
My remark was about being focused on topic of discussion and not mixing in something either irrelevant or not directly related to subject matter.

I just don't think Zen or Buddhism can be related to Jesus and his original teachings when considering both in the context of different objectives and grounds out of which they arose.

I heard of Jesus' method of teaching being compared to Zen-like prables in the followng book:

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Je...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237503523&sr=1-7

and I think it is a good book for anyone interested in scientific way of studying an existing evidence and drawing conclusions about Jesus, his time. historical context of his life and birth of Christianity.

But I don't think you can relate Buddhism or Zen to what Jesus really taught, because Buddhism and Zen were the philosophy that came into existence among the higher classess of society who were pretty much going beyond "worldly perception" in a sense that an adolescent grows out of taking childhood toys as the real valued objects. And these were people of authority and power, the elite who envisioned and adhered to these principles.

Historical Jesus, on the other hand, was a rebel against established authority who was in effect directly undermining the said authority, whose teachings were popular among oppressed people and which, in the long run, ultimately brought Roman Empire to annihilation.

Of course Christianity, by it's modern definition, is something else entirely.

Just as it was something else before IVth century while in rise in Eastern Roman Empire, or after establishment of Frankish Kingdom in Western Europe, or as envisioned by Emperor Charlemagne of France, or Cesare Borgia of Italy or Henry VIII of England during the renaissance, and etc.

As to your pun (intended or not) about "words", I have nothing against "words" , and as you can see I am at ease when in need of spelling them , besides I was an avid reader in the past (not something you would expect from a person with word-phobia).

I just stated the obvious when I said that words are not means of relaying teachings of Zen Buddhism. That it is a state of awareness that must be experienced.
It's not likely that anyone who has even the most basic idea about what Zen is will ever argue with it.

So I agree that you should not take this any further.

Best Regards.

 

Well, also, just to clarify and eliminate distortions ....

That's not what i said. I said single monopoly on truth. - 'single' being the operative word in this sense ... which you ommited.

Back to words ...

I think words are one of many means of relaying zen teachings ... as we plainly see with koans. But to rely soley on words is limited. One soon realises the shortcomings of words, yet used cleverly ... like the many koans out there, they can come some way towards explaining something, of describing something.
Those old zen masters were not without tongues to speak, and they did speak. They used words....among other things.

Lastly, there is mutch we don't know about the historical Jesus. Some would say there isn't even enough historical evidence to say he existed at all.
If you have enough historical evidence to categorically say;

... then i'd like to hear of this evidence so i may enquire for myself.

Personally i just listen to some of the obviously wise things we are told he said, and it doesn't even matter if Jesus said them or someone else said them. It's the teaching imparted by them that's more important than who said them.

 

I thought you meant it when you wrote "i now cannot be bothered taking this any further, this disagreement of ideas is getting old.." , and that our discussion was over

Well, anyway...

And is there such a thing as double or multi monopoly, so that the word single, used next to monopoly, would have a meaningful weight to justify your remark?

FYI: Monopoly - from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell

Sure, what else we've got when interacting on public forum?

If you read my original post, I stated that Zen can not be relayed by mere words.
I didn't ever say that Zen Masters were deaf and dumb or that they never spoke a word about anything.
Koan itself consists of words, but it's not words that relay their meaning, it is the experience of "awakening" moment that does.

See above

Sure

They don't describe or explain anything.
Zen can not be explained or described, it can only be experienced.
It is up to student to grasp, to attain the state of awareness , Koan is just one of many doors to the path. But it is not a path, nor is it a destination.

And where did I say old zen masters were deaf and dumb?

I am not in personal possession of any historical evidence nor am I an expert in studying the life of Jesus, but I did provide a link above (not sure if you noticed) to the book that might be of use to someone interested in scientific way of studying an existing evidence and drawing their own conclusions along the way.

Your beliefs and choice of what things you listen are entirely up to you.
I thought it was obvious.

Of course

 

Oh i was just clarifying ... to eliminate any distortions. remember?

To be honest i think you're just being contrary and pedantic now. Which is no fun for me.

 

Oh, don't worry, no judgement here

Now it's about me
Well, if you have nothing of substance to add on the subject then feel free to shift it to my persona, no comments on it.

:cheers2:

 

.........