simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (06/05/91)
> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) Thanks for the explanation of the development of mahayana buddhism. I've read alot of the texts, but my knowledge of the historical context from which they came is very sketchy. >You can definitly see these influences in zen literature--any type of >negation, ie, "from the first not a thing is" is madhyamikan in nature, and >references to One-mind, Buddha-mind, etc, is from vijnapti-matra. That's very interesting. It took me a long time to reconcile those two influences. At first they seemed contradictory to me. The Lankavatara Sutra was, for me, the key to discovering a synthesis of the two. > I was wondering if the school of zen you practice is related to the >chinese Tsao-tung; I recall the four stages you discussed mentioned in some >literature of the above named school. Also, who is your roshi? (I'm >assuming you have a teacher. If I'm wrong, sorry) > J.C. I don't study under a roshi. There's no need to be sorry; I'm not. My path is mostly one of independent study, meditation, and experience. That's my choice, and I'm happy with it. I guess you could say that I consider every experience as "practice" and every person I meet as a teacher, at least potentially (I don't always take advantage of the opportunity to learn from others). Most of my "practice" consists of going about my daily life. I trust in the free accessibility of reality to everyone. At least for now, I prefer to explore and experience in a free-form kind of way, absorbing influences from not just one school or system, and applying whatever techniques I come across which take me further on the path I've chosen. I know that's not the best way for everybody, but that's what's right for me. To latch onto one school of thought or one person as my teacher is, to me, a kind of attachment, which is exactly what I'm trying to be free of. I've recently had an email discussion about the pros and cons of studying under a roshi with john wheeler, who studies under a roshi in California. I can certainly understand the value in it if the roshi is truly enlightened. The danger in it, from my point of view, lies in dependence upon some external authority figure to lead you to enlightenment, instead of experiencing for yourself. You can easily fall into a habitual pattern of thinking the master is enlightened and you're not, which is sure to be self-fulfilling. If the master is skillful enough to prevent you from falling into such habits and attachments, then his/her guidance may be valuable. For a period of about two years, I studied yoga under the guidance of a teacher. I wouldn't call him enlightened, but I learned a great deal from him anyway. Not by any stretch of the imagination did I believe everything he said; but I always respected his point of view, and I'll try almost anything at least once. I've always been the kind of person who must see for myself. He was very non-sectarian in his approach, embracing bits and pieces from almost every religious tradition. His teacher was a woman who went by the name of Hilda. Supposedly, she had studied for years somewhere in India. I have no idea what school of yoga/philosophy she followed. I know that she, as well as my yoga teacher, practiced visualizations of light and aura and placed a big emphasis on love and trust in the belief that everything works toward the good. I met her once, and was not particularly impressed. I know that she had many devoted followers. I can say beyond a doubt that those years while I practiced yoga regularly were the healthiest time of my life. It gave me a continual sense of well- being and peace. I still use many of the techniques that I learned, although I don't follow a strict routine of practice, as I did then. I had already read a great deal of literature regarding zen, especially the work of D.T. Suzuki, and had already been practicing zazen on my own, when I began practicing yoga. I found the meditation on light, etc., to be useful in focusing my mind and maintaining my health; but it wasn't enough. Although it's useful in some ways, I view meditations on light or energy or other mental visualizations as the substitution of one illusion for another, and I don't think it leads to enlightenment. My most illuminating meditation experiences have not been of the visualization type. I picked up the meditation in four stages when I read a book called "Ch'an and Zen Teaching, Third Series", by Lu Kuan Yu (Charles Luk), Shambala Publications. Along with translations of the Vajracchedika and the Hridaya sutras, with commentaries by a zen master by the name of Hsu Yun, it contained a series of discourses by Hsu Yun, which were given during a week of sesshin. I don't know which school of zen it was, since I don't pay much attention to whether something is from this or that school. Maybe you can identify it from this: Hsu Yun advocated the technique of "holding a Hua T'ou" - a technique of mindfulness in both meditation and in activity, to be applied continuously - a continual "questioning into self-nature". One of his discourses was about the chapter on "Avalokitesvara's Complete Enlightenment", from the Surangama Sutra; and that's where I learned about the four stages. I don't always use that method. Sometimes I practice zazen by focusing my attention on the breath, as described by Shunryu Suzuki in "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" (one of my favorites). Sometimes I use mantras or visualization techniques that I learned from the yoga teacher (I do that when I'm having trouble keeping my mind from wandering and getting lost in thoughts or when I'm having problems with my physical health). Sometimes I just relax, let my thoughts and experiences flow freely - a "meditation without seed" technique that I also learned when I practiced yoga regularly. One of my favorite ways of meditating is "active" meditation, being attentive to the present activity without labelling it, "Being Here Now" (to borrow a phrase). Most often I practice the latter while walking, washing dishes, or some other activity that doesn't require alot of thinking. In addition to that kind of deliberate practice, I generally try to avoid buying into any particular conceptual model of "reality", except as a convenient tool for some particular use. That includes ideas about either the physical or spiritual structure of reality, hierarchies of "spiritual beings", etc. I regard experience (*all* experience) as reality, and ideas both as practical tools and as a one type of experience among many others. Even that attitude can be a block to free experience if one becomes attached to the idea of it. To me, the main point is to *be living experience*, which is not the same as thinking about being it. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))