simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (05/23/91)
I know that most of the religious traditions from the East emphasize the importance of an enlightened teacher. Even Zen has a tradition of the "mind seal", which is supposedly passed personally from master to student. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've never been able to believe in that. First of all, it seems to me that, if there is some Truth or Reality to be seen, I should be able to see it for myself. I don't believe that any person is superior to others in that respect. It there is a Reality, it's there for all to see. If you want to see it, you will; and nobody can see it *for* you. Secondly, the belief in the need for someone to guide me to the Truth/Reality implies that reality is some secret and mysterious thing, hidden behind a dark veil, very difficult to find, and revealed only with the aid of the best experts. That just doesn't make sense to me. What reason is there to believe that reality is such a mysterious and difficult thing? After all, it's right here, all around and everywhere, right now and always - so, what's the big difficulty? There's nothing else to see. All I have to do is look at it. What could be simpler? I think that the only thing that stands in the way of seeing reality is preconcieved notions of what it is or isn't, how it should or shouldn't behave, etc. All a teacher can really do for you is to help you expose, and dispose of, the conceptual artifices that you get stuck on. It is you who must drop the attachments to those ideas; and it is you who must do the seeing. The teacher can't give it to you, like some kind of zap from a magic ray-gun. Sure, a teacher can help you get unstuck, but if you're serious and persistent you can do that yourself. Maybe some guidance is necessary in the beginning, so that you learn to recognize when you're stuck and what to do to get unstuck; but it seems to me that, as long as you're relying on someone else to do the seeing for you, you'll never see for yourself. You'll never be free until you realize that the teacher can't give you anything. I don't think you can get enlightenment from some external source, even if it's Buddha himself. The only place to find reality is in your own experience. If you can't find it there, you can't find it anywhere. It's not necessary to sit on a mountain somewhere. The sun shines just as brightly here as it does in Tibet. There's no more reality in an ashram or a zendo than there is in your own living-room. You don't need any magic words, secret rituals, mystical zaps, "mind seals", or other forms of snake-oil. You already have all the reality you need, right here and now. Just sit back and let it go. "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) "There aint no guru who can see through your eyes." (John Lennon) -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) (05/29/91)
A few words in response to Tom Simmonds:
-- A teacher is important in Buddhism, not because she is
necessary in order to lead you by the hand from ignorance to
enlightenment, but because an enlightened teacher is able to help
you avoid falling into error.
-- It is very common to find people who, having begun
practicing some form of meditation or other "spiritual
discipline", describe in glowing terms some profound experience
they have undergone. More often than not, people justify their
attribution of "genuineness" to such experiences on the basis of
the ineffability or uniqueness of the experiences (e.g., "There's
no way to describe it in words," "It defied rational thought,"
"It was unlike anything I had ever felt before," etc.).
Experiences of this sort may, indeed, even have transforming
effects. Nonetheless, it does not follow that the experience, no
matter how powerful or (seemingly) profound is an experience of
enlightenment. One function a teacher can perform in the
Buddhist tradition is to identify such experiences for what they
are -- and for what they are not.
Notice, too, that it is not the EXPERIENCE of enlightenment
that is of importance in the buddhist tradition, but the STATE of
being enlightened.
(Sub-note: In some important respects, enlightenment is not
completely beyond words. It is possible to attribute a "content"
to the enlightenment "experience", viz., the realization /
understanding of the essencelessness / emptiness / dependently
originated "nature" of phenomena. But understanding these words
or descriptions of enlightenment is not, automatically, to
understand reality AS essenceless / empty / dependently
originated, and it is this latter sort of understanding that
makes possible the transcendence of grasping / attachment.)
-- A teacher is not, indeed, necessary in order to make one see
Reality "as it really is." The enlightened sage perceives the
very same reality as the ignorant person. What is different is
the WAY in which (one and the same) reality is perceived. Again,
a function of an enlightened teacher is to lead one away from
ways of seeing reality which are colored by one's pre-existing
cognitive structures in such a way that they (the cognitive
structures) interfere with one's leading a life of liberation.
The Buddha taught an anti-metaphysical middle way, i.e., a middle
way between the extreme of (various forms of) absolutism, on the
one hand, and the extreme of (various forms of) nihilism on the
other. The Buddha was not a metaphysician who was concerned to
defend some particular philosophical / metaphysical view. On the
contrary, the Buddha taught that holding any metaphysical view,
even one prescribing ways to eliminate afflicitons, could easily
become an affliciton in its own right. A function of a Buddhist
teacher, therefore, is to help the student / seeker avoid
becoming attached to a metaphysical view.
-- The buddhist path is often characterized, in the mahayana
tradition at least, as having two facets, viz., wisdom and
compassion. Enlightenment, as such, is traditionally associated
with the attainment of wisdom. But Buddhist wisdom is useless
unless it finds expression in the exercise of compassion.
Compassion, on the other hand, must be exercised in the right
way. In other words, compassion must be informed by wisdom, and
wisdom must manifest itself in compassion. Only by balancing
each against the other is the buddist path manifested.
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | "No absurdity is too fantastic
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to gain support"
| - Antoine Arnauldwalsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/01/91)
In article <1991May22.193018.17384@nas.nasa.gov>, simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) writes: > I know that most of the religious traditions from the East emphasize the > importance of an enlightened teacher. Even Zen has a tradition of the > "mind seal", which is supposedly passed personally from master to student. > Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've never been able to believe in that. > it's possible that this truth is not accessible to cranial belief but only to gut belief, something you understand when it touches you, since it's not part of normal reality in our society. > First of all, it seems to me that, if there is some Truth or Reality to be > seen, I should be able to see it for myself. whoa... we *should* see a lot that we normally don't see. in fact, maybe even the most enlightened people don't see anymore than 0.00001% of Truth or Reality. perhaps it's that vast. face it, there are Truths and Reality we just never trip over in our normal day-to-day lives. > I don't believe that any person > is superior to others in that respect. It there is a Reality, it's there > for all to see. If you want to see it, you will; and nobody can see it *for* > you. maybe they can point it out to you from amidst the clutter of details and words and thoughts in our lives. > It's not necessary to sit on a mountain somewhere. The sun shines just as > brightly here as it does in Tibet. There's no more reality in an ashram or > a zendo than there is in your own living-room. You don't need any magic > words, secret rituals, mystical zaps, "mind seals", or other forms of > snake-oil. You already have all the reality you need, right here and now. > Just sit back and let it go. > > "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) > "There aint no guru who can see through your eyes." (John Lennon) all very nice and rational. but if they day ever comes when you meet such a person, all these well-thought-out words and reasons might drip away like ice cream melting off your stick. don't step in it. ando.
sanjay@eng.umd.edu (Kumarasamy Sanjay) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.195225.15107@nas.nasa.gov> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >> >> "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) >> "There aint no guru who can see through your eyes." (John Lennon) > >all very nice and rational. but if they day ever comes when you meet >such a person, all these well-thought-out words and reasons might >drip away like ice cream melting off your stick. don't step in it. > > ando. Would somebody explain me the statement If you meet the Buddha, kill him thanx regards sanjay
dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.220051.16886@nas.nasa.gov> sanjay@eng.umd.edu (Kumarasamy Sanjay) writes: >In article <1991May31.195225.15107@nas.nasa.gov> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >>> >>> "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) >>> "There aint no guru who can see through your eyes." (John Lennon) >> >>all very nice and rational. but if they day ever comes when you meet >>such a person, all these well-thought-out words and reasons might >>drip away like ice cream melting off your stick. don't step in it. >> >> ando. > > Would somebody explain me the statement > If you meet the Buddha, kill him >thanx >regards >sanjay > > The main point of this saying is, I think, threefold. First, the buddha, though enlightened, should not be the object of veneration, worship, etc. If he has any purpose it is to point to 'truth'. Secondly, he is not in a position of spiritual authority; from its inception, buddhism has emphasized that we be a light unto ourselves. Wise people are considered "friends" not "gurus", i.e., it might be be beneficial for one to be in contact with awakened ones, but in the end as one zen teacher told me, "ultimately you learn by doing." And, following all this, the buddha cannot give you 'truth', you must realize the buddha already in you. (see ZEN MIND< BEGINNER'S MIND by S. Suzuki.) (My divisions are arbitrary, and they overlap) Obviously this statement is not to be taken literally. Also, it should not be considered a 'maxim' for all schools of buddhism, only zen(?). -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" *******************************************************************************
walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/06/91)
In article <1991May31.220051.16886@nas.nasa.gov>, sanjay@eng.umd.edu (Kumarasamy Sanjay) writes: > In article <1991May31.195225.15107@nas.nasa.gov> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >>> >>> "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) >>> "There aint no guru who can see through your eyes." (John Lennon) >> >>all very nice and rational. but if they day ever comes when you meet >>such a person, all these well-thought-out words and reasons might >>drip away like ice cream melting off your stick. don't step in it. >> >> ando. > > Would somebody explain me the statement > If you meet the Buddha, kill him my own interpretation of this saying is that for a buddhist there is no infallible pope who is the source of all truth. any person's opinion is only a very dim reflection of ultimate truth. don't deify any one person or dogma. don't chain yourself to conceptions that might need to be changed tomorrow. however this seems to me to be different from the concept of a guru, a person on a spiritually different plane who can zip you through years of trial and error towards your spiritual goal, whatever that goal may be. these people exist, i suspect. this doesn't mean they're perfect. they, too, are very fallible and might even have a glaring weakness or two. perfection is not necessarily a pre-requisite of anything. any path has its "buddhas" to be avoided. some might even make a buddha out of a saying like "kill the buddha." the ruts in which our minds choose to travel are stubborn, not to mention tricky. ando.