simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (01/04/91)
>From: mpc@mpccl.ksu.edu (Michael Campbell) >Subject: Are Zen enlightened people superior than others? >along the lines of (not exact words) "I'm not a Korean Picasso. I'm >better than Picasso, because of my Zen enlightement." >My question is, would someone who has acheived Zen enlightenment make >such a boast? Definitely not. First of all, it sounds like ego talking, and Zen aims to abandon egoistic ideas. Secondly, value judgments are a result of delusion, according to most of the Zen literature I've read. If your quote reflects what he really said, I'd say he's a fraud. "There are no inferior bamboos in the forest." (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) >Do people who have acheived enlightenment think themselves >better than other people? Do they consider themselves lower or even >equal? Zen enlightenment requires the abandonment of the concept that there is some "self" or ego-substance. That being the case, it would not be possible for an enlightened Zen Buddhist to think that his "self" is better than, worse than, or equal to some other "self" without instantly plunging into delusion. According to the Vajracchedika Sutra, a text very heavily quoted by Zen Buddhists, a Bodhisattva who becomes attached to the idea that he has attained something, or who clings to the idea of an ego, a person, a being, or a soul, is no longer a Bodhisattva. In addition to that, the same sutra and others assert that all sentient beings are, by nature, already in Nirvana, and it is only delusion that prevents them from realizing it. When delusion is eliminated, what is already there is self-evident. There is nothing attained, since it has been there all along. There is nothing gained, and no reason to feel that something has somehow become better. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
tilley@ssd.Kodak.Com (David Tilley) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.010410.2482@nas.nasa.gov> simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) writes: > > >Zen enlightenment requires the abandonment of the concept that there is >some "self" or ego-substance. I hate to bring up Karma again and Re-birth again, but I will. This has always been a problem for me. There being no self, exactly who is reborn? Who has any karma that goes between lives? If there is no Self, how can "I" be reborn? There is no "I". Is this "I" no more than a ripple in a stream? Dave
tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price) (01/05/91)
>>along the lines of (not exact words) "I'm not a Korean Picasso. I'm >>better than Picasso, because of my Zen enlightement." >>My question is, would someone who has acheived Zen enlightenment make >>such a boast? >Definitely not. First of all, it sounds like ego talking, and Zen aims to >abandon egoistic ideas. Secondly, value judgments are a result of >delusion, according to most of the Zen literature I've read. If your >quote reflects what he really said, I'd say he's a fraud. Perhaps I misunderstood my copy of Shunryu Suzuki's "Living By Zen" which tells the following tale: (from memory) A student asks the master what his enlightenment consists in. "In eating when I am hungry, sleeping when I am tired." "But do not common people do the same? Why are they not Zen Masters?" "Because they are ignorant and do not realize the importance of these actions." Or, John Cage's story about Suzuki giving a lecture: Suzuki: Before studying Zen, men are men and mountains are mountains. After studying Zen, however, men are men and mountains are mountains. Q: What's the difference? Suzuki: (smiling) Afterwards your feet are a little bit off the ground. I think the difficulties here are in confusing the Korean, Japanese, and American concepts of "better" or "superior". Tom Price tp0x@cs.cmu.edu Disclaimer: (You've got to be careful what I mean vs. what I say. -- Bill McCracken)
david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) (01/06/91)
This is just a note to clear up a common confusion between two well-known personalities in American Zen. In article <1991Jan5.015335.1058@nas.nasa.gov> tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price) writes: Perhaps I misunderstood my copy of Shunryu Suzuki's "Living By Zen" and later, Or, John Cage's story about Suzuki giving a lecture: I am pretty sure that John Cage's story is about D.T. Suzuki. D.T. Suzuki was a student of Rinzai Zen who wrote many books about Zen and "Zen Culture" in the first half of the twentieth century and who lectured and taught (in the academic sense) widely in the United States. He was at Columbia U. for some time. His writings were very influential in bringing Zen to the attention of Western intellectuals and played a major role in the so-called "Zen boom" in the fifties in the U. S. He was not a roshi and I don't think that he ever taught anyone how to do zazen. In fact, he somehow managed to avoid the topic almost completely in his books. Maybe he thought that Westerners just weren't up to it. D.T. Suzuki died sometime in the mid to late fifties (he was in his nineties). Shunryu Suzuki was someone else. He was a roshi in the Soto school who came to the U.S. in 1959 to minister to a immigrant Japanese Zen congregation in San Francisco. He attracted many (non-Japanese) American students and eventually settled in the U.S., establishing the San Francisco Zen Center and Tasajara Monastery. He taught zazen and Zen practice to hundreds or thousands of students and his teaching line in the U.S. may include as many students as all other lines put together. His only book that I know of is "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" (highly recommended if you are practicing zazen). Perhaps "Living by Zen" is a recent compilation of talks and stories? Shunryu Suzuki died in 1971 when he was in his mid sixties. -- David Sigeti david@star2.cm.utexas.edu cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price) (01/07/91)
David Sigeti: >This is just a note to clear up a common confusion between two >well-known personalities in American Zen. Me: > Perhaps I misunderstood my copy of Shunryu Suzuki's "Living By Zen" > >and later, > > Or, John Cage's story about Suzuki giving a lecture: > >I am pretty sure that John Cage's story is about D.T. Suzuki. >D.T. Suzuki was a student of Rinzai Zen who wrote many books > >Shunryu Suzuki was someone else. He was a roshi in the Soto >school who came to the U.S. in 1959 to minister to a immigrant Quite right. I have a copy of S.S.'s "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" right next my copy of D.S.'s "Living by Zen" on my shelf. I mixed them up. Tom
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (01/10/91)
> tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price) >Subject: Re: Are Zen enlightened people superior? >Perhaps I misunderstood my copy of ... Suzuki's "Living By Zen" >which tells the following tale: (from memory) > >A student asks the master what his enlightenment consists in. "In eating >when I am hungry, sleeping when I am tired." "But do not common people do >the same? Why are they not Zen Masters?" "Because they are ignorant and do >not realize the importance of these actions." What is your understanding of this? You seem to imply that it somehow contradicts what I wrote about the transcendence of such concepts as better, worse, superior, inferior, etc. in enlightenment. The words "common" and "ignorant" don't necessarily imply "inferior". Is a rose less of a rose for not knowing that it's a rose? Is a daisy less beautiful for being common? Nansen said, "If you want to find the true path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as sky. You name it neither good nor not-good." >Or, John Cage's story about Suzuki giving a lecture: >Suzuki: Before studying Zen, men are men and mountains are mountains. After > studying Zen, however, men are men and mountains are mountains. >Q: What's the difference? >Suzuki: (smiling) Afterwards your feet are a little bit off the ground. Which is "better": Feet off the ground or on the ground? Suzuki made a statement without adding a judgment about it. Even in doing that he may have gone too far: "An assertion is not Zen unless it is itself an action and does not refer to anything asserted in it." (D.T. Suzuki) "He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." (Lao Tzu - another fellow who did an awful lot of speaking) >I think the difficulties here are in confusing the Korean, Japanese, and >American concepts of "better" or "superior". I think that concepts, regardless of their origin, have little to do with zen. The essence of zen is to experience without attachment to concepts. The original post that I responded to was about an artist with a condescending attitude who claimed to be enlightened and who seemed to be attached to the idea that, because of his alleged enlightenment, he is superior in some way to other artists. From a Zen point of view, it doesn't matter what his definition of "superior" is; it is his attachment to that idea and to egoism that reveals his ignorance. If he really thinks he's a better artist than Picasso, his claims about enlightenment are false, and would be so even if Picasso had never painted. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
lpdjb@brahms.AMD.COM (Jerry Bemis) (01/11/91)
I have posted this here to see if you have records that come close to to my christian views. It has been recorded by prophets of old that there will be signs in the sky befor our Lord comes again. What kind of sins do you think there will be? This is an open question. To a prophet of 2000-6000 years ago would airplanes and space ships be a sign in the sky? And what about the moon turning to blood? Clarence LPDJB@brahms.amd.com ~
tp0x+@CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Price) (01/11/91)
Tom Simmonds seems to have demonstrated a better understanding of Zen than I have in a recent post. (not surprising!) Can we even say that it is preferable to study Zen? Or was your point that those who have studied it should not be concerned with concepts of better or worse? I suppose then that those who have not studied it do well to conceive of it as "better", and to be spurred on to studying it. If, though, Zen masters are not concerned with concepts of better or worse, can they encourage unenlightened people to study Zen? How then do they manage to communicate the benefits of enlightenment to unenlightened people if, being enlightened themselves, considerations of "benefit" or "loss" are alien to them? Help me, please, I'm wallowing in my inbred dualism here. Tom Price tp0x@cs.cmu.edu Disclaimer: All my friends like me.