Why do you want to tell us what terrible people we are ? is that all that matters to you?
Aren’t we all “terrible” for failing to awaken to what we’re doing?
Btw ~ sorry if I messed up with the pigeon thing , maybe you were referring to yourself and the difficulties of being an “agent provocateur”
You should be apologizing for ignoring my question to you: "Aren’t we all “terrible?”
Those of us who identify more with a false sense of self than with humanity as a whole are more terrible than those of us who feel terrible about our (the human) condition, and would sooner “die” than defend it or presume to know what to do about it.
When thought arise, my experience is not adding more. I can imagine thought like a guess I invite accidentally, so let guess do what she likes and I don’t talk to her, I don’t offer some food or drink for her. So guess feels bored and go out.
By “guess” I think you mean “guest” - as in host and guest. Which reminds me of the buddhist teaching : host and guest are one.
Have you been studying buddhism? Theravada or Mahayana?
In which case it might be interesting to look at the idea of conscious meditation practises - as in what does it mean to meditate consciously, or in response to what you say : why do you treat your thoughts this way?
Why do I treat my thoughts that way?
If I have appearance of doing something to thought, It will arise series of new thoughts. So I don’t suppress, ignore or neglect it. If I see thought one by one when it arises, I’ll be very tired, so I can’t do that. It’s like an arrow kill only a bird . But if we awake, one arrow can kill a flock of birds.
“Mediate consciously “ Do you mean practice in active of daily life? We have timetable for practice when sitting and practice in active of daily live.
I don’t know much about Theravada or Mahayana. I just like Buddhism Zen in my country. I feel it ‘s like what K says .
1 Like
Yes, I mean “guest”. Thank you for correct it.
1 Like
Zen is considered to be part of the Mahayana tradition - the main difference with the Theravada (or Hinayana) tradition being that there may be something misleading about the idea that one can obtain enlightenment for oneself through a conscious effort or practise.
I understand this is due to the fact that the processes that make up the “self” must be seen for what they are, rather than be taken for an actual entity that can be awakened.
Vietnamese zen is of course very much respected due to the popularity of Thich Nhat Hanh.
So what is it that transforms the effort of trying to meditate consciously - ie. trying to deal with each individual thought or trying to pay attention to each moment of experience - into awakening?
After reading this cumbersome question a few times, I don’t know if it’s a good question because…
…if I’m dreaming of awakening, I’m dreaming of what I imagine being awake is, which is doing nothing new or different from what I always do. Any effort I make to transform is only a gesture made to assure myself that I’m serious.
For all intents and purposes I am imagination. And when I realize I am also the side effects of imagination, i.e., confusion, conflict, fragmentation, is there anything I can do or attempt that will not sustain and perpetuate I?
The question (and preceeding discussion with Nhung) includes the suggestion that all this dreaming, imagining, and confused effort to transform can be put aside - the question put more simply is : what is the difference between “trying to meditate” and “actual awakening”?
I “try” to practice right to the way: Still and illuminate, not having any appearance of doing something. The breath being slightly and without blockage is very important because it seems that the mind follows the breath. This is simple but it’s not easy to me. At the beginning, most of us “illuminate “ on level of I can see, hear… and it’s not a problem, it’s the first step.I think when we practice if we have thoughts and thoughts can not “attack” us, at that time we are awaking. I don’t know whether it’s right to your question?
1 Like
Because I haven enlightened so I have to practice it , and it has the same meaning with “Trying to mediate”. Is that total awaken is enlightenment?
1 Like
I get it : you practise shikantaza or zazen - goalless sitting, bringing attention back to breath or posture whenever we become aware of being lost in thought.
Me too, I do the same - for me zazen is allowing for awareness of experience - sitting up straight, or the quality of my breathing is secondary.
Yes this is what we are interested in : awareness as liberation from experience.
Usually we are “attacked” - or controlled by our thoughts. Experience is normally considered fundamental, it has full authority to be the whole of our existence, it is the natural dynamic for further thoughts, emotions and action.
What is it about “awakening” that suddenly frees us from the authority of thought?
This is a big question.
I think we are asking about the difference between moment to moment awareness and insight into the total process of self.
Is that Mahakassapa practise Shikantaza or Zazen?
Yes, in the Mahayana tradition, Mahakasyapa (in Sanskrit, or Mahakassapa in Pali) was the first dharma heir after Gautama Buddha - the story is that the Buddha transmitted the dharma wordlessly to Mahakasyapa by simply lifting up a flower.
This idea of pointing directly at what is, a transmission of understanding that is not dependant words/dogma is very much part of Zen.
The words Shikantaza and Zazen are Japanese - Japanese Zen is part of the Mahayana tradition. (Shikantaza means : just sitting, and Zazen means : sitting meditation or sitting in Dhyana)
According to Wikipedia : Vietnamese Thien is very closely related to Japanese Zen - but Thien does not discriminate strongly about the differences between Hinayana and Mahayana.
Personally, I have followed somewhat the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, and stayed at his monastery here in France (about half an hour from where I live).
I did have a bit of resistance to his poetic, simplistic style - but I have become less of a snob in my old age - and he has demonstrated his solid grounding in traditional zen dharma in various talks that he has given.
1 Like
Yes, I read some books of Thich Nhat Hành many years ago.
And Vietnamese Zen I practice is in Việt Nam not in France. That is Truc Lam Zen which was found by King Tran Nhân Tông . Nowadays , Thich Thanh Tu proceed and revive it.
Isn’t this question idiotic when one does not know and can’t imagine what “actual awakening” is? It’s like asking What is the difference between cauliflower and ziginderberb?
Isn’t the conditioned, self-centered brain always “lost in thought”?
What is it about “awakening” that suddenly frees us from the authority of thought?
Why do you ask this question? Do you know the answer? Were you freed from the authority of thought? What game are you playing here?
If the question is of interest, then it would be terrible if we were dishonest. It might be best to admit that : we don’t know the answer.
If the question is of interest, then “I don’t know” might not end our curiosity.
But if the question is just silly and of no interest at all - then surely the question is just dropped?
Doesn’t K encourage us to ponder the difference between true meditation and merely following some ritual practise?
Yes - I’d say nearly always, has a continous tendancy to get lost in thought - this is how we exist in reality, or experience reality, and reinforce our reality - meditation can be defined as “awareness and transformation of experience, moment to moment”
I’m asking people who are interested whether they would like to consider this question. And if we have some ideas about it, to look at our ideas together - to see if they make sense. Are we not on a forum where these kind of questions are asked?
Are you worried that I might be trying to preach? Which would surely just mean that I have some crazy ideas - in which case we can point them out (and if I have some neurological or psychological disorder that prevents me from seeing reason - then thats surely my own problem)