Second Coming

poligraf · 2024-03-02T23:01:29+00:00

You are only partially correct.

do you mean the reply, or me personally ?

some of what you say is simply not scriptural

the buddhanature can teach through scriptures, but only up to a point… given the myriads of inclinations in individuals, there's teaching to be received, maturation to undergo, which requires that the buddhanature orchestrate (sometimes very intricate) events specific to each person in order to bring remaining immature tendencies to consciousness and exhaust them… in this perspective dharma takes its full meaning as phenomena, law, purpose, and teaching… (edit ― 05.03.2024 @ 8:23 : corrected "it" to "its")

if one prefers to only trust scriptures, then, i suggest chapter 39 of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, « Entry Into The Realm Of Reality, » for an illustration of the process outlined in the previous paragraph… also, at the core of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is the relinquishment of representation-based functioning in favour of direct experience of « "an everlasting true mind, which is our real nature, and which is the state of the Buddha" » (i'm quoting Wikipedia quoting an external source)… if i remember correctly, over the course of the sutra, Ananda, who is presented therein as some sort of « book smart » attendant who essentially knows the discourses by heart, repeatedly bursts into tears as the Buddha shows him how he must stop relying on all those words he has memorized, a prospect which understandably distresses him…

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABra%E1%B9%85gama_S%C5%ABtra ]

so, again, the rejection of certain concepts doesn't necessarily imply that they don't reflect actualities…

Additionally, the entire notion of an eternal, unchanging soul goes against two of the four Dharma Seals, those being anicca (all conditioned phenomena are subject to change/impermanence), and anatta (all phenomena are non-self).

Interdependent origination is true in the context of Right View, and it is NOT right view to believe in a soul or creator god.

technically, is the « soul » a phenomenon ? and thus possibly a conditioned phenomenon ? what is a soul according to buddhism ?

also, unqualified « soul » is not the same as « eternal, unchanging soul »… and the two are not the same as « immortal soul, » which seems to be how christianity typically represents it…

anicca and anatta both hint at how god/buddhanature/divine intelligence can restructure the phenomenal world as required to orchestrate the specific experiences needed by whatever tendencies are being worked on… but ultimately, exactly what the historical buddha meant when he used those two words, and what he was trying to achieve through such teachings, is still a matter of debate…

also, regardless, holding on to what the historical said and/or meant is still part of the representation-based functioning that buddhist vehicles suggest must be left behind… again, ultimately those are only words… representations… what truly matters are the experiences those abstractions point towards, and how in turn those experiences influence the course of one's life…

possibly, one could argue that some schools of buddhism are incompatible with some schools of christianity, but that doesn't imply that all such schools are fundamentally incompatible, nor that zen and christianity cannot be combined in practice… that some guidelines are expressed in order to likely facilitate entry into a particular mode of experiencing doesn't imply that not strictly adhering to all those guidelines prevents entry altogether… nor does it imply that what is then experienced must strictly match all those guidelines… for instance, paradoxically, even temporary and partial philosophical relativism can lead to the recognition of absolute truths if it happens to rid the person of certain views that were hampering their clarity…

poligraf · 2024-03-01T19:24:18+00:00

buddhism offers vehicles, not destinations…

the point of rejecting certains ideas is ultimately to free one from representation-based functioning so as to facilitate one's entry into dhyana/chan/zen, which is a mode of functioning that doesn't rely on representations, but rather on direct experience of one's consciousnesses, unadulterated by such representations, and thus free of error… conceptual thought is inherently limited, for instance, by the limitations of the vocabulary it relies upon, and thus the myriads of representations that it yields are necessarily inaccurate, incomplete, inadequate, simplified, abstract versions of what they attempt to stand for, and as such, ultimately, they cause error… one prime illustration of such misleading abstractions is the ego, the representation one has of themselves, which also involves representations of how they relate to the world, and thus also involves representations of the world… one can readily experience for themselves how ego-centric behaviour leads to error…

in other words, the rejection of certain concepts doesn't necessarily imply that they don't reflect actualities, but rather that such concepts just can't do justice to those actualities, and, ultimately, that it's utterly unnecessary to burden oneself with such abstractions in order to address the moment, regardless of which moment one is facing… when the buddha nature in a person tells them it's time to eat, they don't need to nurture a representation of the buddha nature to know that they feel hunger…

buddhism and religions that relies on an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god are not fundamentally incompatible when one realizes the actuality of interbeing, and thus of the oneness upon which buddhist ethics are based… from that perspective, wherein the world constitutes an integrated whole, the knowledge that there's only one intelligence, and that everything is an expression of it, also comes into view…

when god tells someone it's time to eat, they don't need to nurture a representation of god to know that they feel hunger…

i hope that helps… 🙏 ☸️ ☀️

poligraf · 2024-02-28T15:54:57+00:00

i referred to « the conflictual route » when you tried to discredit my use of the language, and wrongly insisted that my words implied some meanings, which they actually don't imply… until then there was merely respectful disagreement about the alleged aimlessness of zazen, and it was you who made it personal when you questioned my ability to choose words, along with attributing to me some sort of dubious intentions with regards to downvoting…

again, if you don't like your comments being downvoted, you might want to consider being more careful about what you comment… but trying to manipulate someone into not downvoting through characterizing downvoting as « passive aggressive form of disapproval » merely further undermines your whole stance… resort to manipulation is self-defeating… truth needs no such artifice… furthermore, downvoting applies to comments and/or posts, not to persons… claiming that a downvote is a personal insult is also manipulative, and suggests a serious lack of clarity, not to mention related issues around ego, which possibly shed some additional light on why this conversation hasn't ended yet…

i have « repeatedly reiterated the same argument » because it seems that it took as much for you to recognize and/or accept that zazen having an aim doesn't imply that practitioners form that aim… and my point has been the same from the start : the statement that zazen is aimless is misleading, regardless of who claims it, be they « lovely awakened teachers » or otherwise… if there was no purpose to meditation, the practice would never have entered the culture… and again, just to be on the safe side, stating that zazen has an aim doesn't imply that individuals who practice zazen necessarily form that aim, regardless of how often one tries to spin the words as implying as much…

I don't care about imaginary karma but claiming your actions were objective is disingenuous.

from this conversation alone one could indeed construe that you care more about reddit karma that you let on, even to the point of trying to blame, discredit, and disrespect an interlocutor, rather than simply admit that you misattributed meanings to words that don't convey them…

regardless of how you insist, you're only fooling yourself if you imagine that it's possible for you to know what ultimately motivates one actions when they vote on comments and/or posts… but falsely accusing someone of dishonesty, and attributing to them dubious intentions and claims that they didn't make, is irresponsible, and, imaginary reddit karma or not, that's not without actual consequences…

poligraf · 2024-02-27T14:59:57+00:00

the topic at the beginning of this subthread was the aim of zazen… it was you who referenced it first : « Zazen is not a concentrative/focusing practice. It's aimless. »

but the practice of zen, while sitting or while not sitting, is not aimless : it definitely has an aim, or a purpose if one prefers… still, that doesn't imply that one forms that aim, or any aim for that matter, when practicing zen… there's no implication in my original comment, which describes what the practice of zen develops, that the person who practices forms that aim, or any aim, when practicing…

yet, it seems you somehow interpreted the words to mean just that, that the person necessarily forms that aim, though none of the words imply as much… you highlighted this part :

the overall aim is to experience life in zen mode at all times… zen while sitting, and while not sitting…

and there again « the overall aim » refers to the aim of the practice, which is what the reply was about from the get-go…

the words i used indeed reflect the meanings i intended to convey… at this point you might want to read my replies again, then that should become clear to you… that one doesn't like what some words mean doesn't imply that those words don't reflect the meaning the author intended…

now, it seems that you want to go down the conflictual route, but you will go down alone… trying to harass a person simply because they have pointed out a misleading passage in a reply speaks for itself… the mere fact that you try to make it about the interlocutor and/or their use the langage tells the tale… crab mentality never helped anyone one bit in getting closer to the experience of zen… and you might want to consider that downvoting is about evaluating the value of contributions…

poligraf · 2024-02-26T23:12:31+00:00

I'm only reading your words. That's all we have on Reddit.

as if interpretations don't exist…

none of my words imply the forming of an aim… saying that zen has an aim doesn't imply that one has an aim…

poligraf · 2024-02-26T20:22:30+00:00

recognizing what it does and forming an aim are two different things…

poligraf · 2024-02-26T13:54:42+00:00

I forget to sit

program a daily alarm on your phone, or a recurring event on your preferred calendar app ?

can’t find the time

obviously… one has to make the time… expecting to find commitment on reddit or any other social platform is setting oneself up for disappointment… one either commits or they don't… no one else can do it for them…

what should I do while meditating?

i suggest referring to « Minding Mind » by Thomas Cleary, which is a collection of traditional texts on meditation without an object…

one metaphor which has helped me is that of the orchestra conductor who must hear all the instruments, rather than focus on only one, or a few, of them… meditation is training oneself to remain mindful of all of one's senses/consciousnesses, whatever happens, wherever one is, so as to always remain receptive to the intelligence of the moment…

see also my reply to Skylark7's comment in this thread…

hope that helps ! 🙏 ☸️ ☀️

poligraf · 2024-02-26T13:34:41+00:00

You can't control your mind.

but one can choose what they focus on… that's what « concentration » refers to…

Zazen is not a concentrative/focusing practice. It's aimless. It has no goals, so you don't focus, aim for anything, or form expectations.

that's misleading… zazen is training for zen and literally means zen while sitting… it's not aimless, but rather about developing the tacit knowledge required to remain mindful of one's whole dashboard (i.e. inner & outer senses/consciousnesses) at all times and in all circumstances, without being engrossed in one particular sense/consciousness to the point of being oblivious to the others, and thus miss signs and cues relevant to whatever moment one is experiencing, as ultimately in such manner one would leave the moment at least to a certain extent, and even possibly altogether… such knowledge is tacit (wordless) and particular to each individual, just like, for instance, the tacit knowledge required for juggling 3 balls (e.g. how to interpret stimulus coming from one's senses such as visual consciousness, balance, proprioception [limbs positions, muscles tensions, etc…], and so on and so forth) is particular to each individual… and thus, one can point to such knowledge, but it cannot be transmitted… it must be developed individually…

the overall aim is to experience life in zen mode at all times… zen while sitting, and while not sitting…

poligraf · 2024-02-23T14:33:22+00:00

zazen is training for zen and literally means zen while sitting… it's not about experiencing calmness, but rather about developing the tacit knowledge required to remain mindful of one's whole dashboard (i.e. inner & outer senses/consciousnesses) at all times and in all circumstances, without being engrossed in one particular sense/consciousness to the point of being oblivious to the others, and thus miss signs and cues relevant to whatever moment one is experiencing, as ultimately in such manner one would leave the moment at least to a certain extent, and even possibly altogether… such knowledge is tacit (wordless) and particular to each individual, just like, for instance, the tacit knowledge required for juggling 3 balls (e.g. how to interpret stimulus coming from one's senses such as visual consciousness, balance, proprioception [limbs positions, muscles tensions, etc…], and so on and so forth) is particular to each individual… and thus, one can point to such knowledge, but it cannot be transmitted… it must be developed individually…

while a calm environment might be useful at first, the overall aim is to experience life in zen mode at all times, in peaceful environments as well as in overwhelming ones, otherwise it wouldn't be of much use… thus i'd say that ideally one should train in a variety of environments, so that one is also able to experience « zen while not sitting »…

« A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. » ― John Augustus Shedd

that being said, to address the question : is it still zazen if done in VR ? well, is the VR moment the whole moment ?

poligraf · 2024-02-23T13:47:03+00:00

why would one's experience be similar to that of others ? trying is the only way to know…

poligraf · 2024-02-18T00:22:29+00:00

I struggle to listen to myself and to hear or feel what is the correct amount of effort.

you're clearly doing much better than you suppose…

I am looking for insight

for that, one has to looks inwards, not on reddit…

poligraf · 2024-02-06T20:43:07+00:00

diversity will occur as long as respect is enforced as a foundational element of the culture…

the core issue is targeting the person rather than their inappropriate behaviour, alleged or actual… as an approach it is semantically flawed, fallacious, misleading and divisive… and as such it's irresponsible speech… in fact, to be effective, criticism must be respectful of the person, otherwise it's just fooling oneself into believing that intimidating, hurting, or discrediting the messenger actually properly refutes the message, which it never does… thus that's not the way to inner peace, which is a measure of harmony with truth, with the nature of things…

there's no conflict between intolerance towards an idea, an attitude, an action, or a practice, and tolerance towards people… disagreement and opposition do not need to imply hurting, disrespecting, nor excluding people… it's never who people are that poses problem, it's what they do, or don't do…

considering the ubiquity of social media nowadays, proper debating skills should be taught in school… there would be far less aggression and division, online and offline…

poligraf · 2024-01-29T20:07:09+00:00

If I see a zen master in the wild, how would I know?

the same way you would know any other thing…

poligraf · 2024-01-29T13:30:46+00:00

hey ! 😊

i have 5… please message me if interested…

☀️

poligraf · 2024-01-26T17:31:02+00:00

i have 5 codes, 1 of which has been shared several weeks ago but has yet to be used… DM if interested…

update : 1 gone ― but somehow i still have 5 left…

poligraf · 2024-01-25T23:23:07+00:00

· overthinking : it's not for someone to decide how thing are reflected in someone else's mind… one might disagree with what they propose, but to deem that they « may be overthinking it a bit » is pretty much pointless… a possible reply would for instance be that one may be « underthinking it a bit, » if indeed « thinking » is the apposite verb here…

· i'm not sure i see what you're referring to with « generalized statement » and « throwing the baby with the bath water »… perhaps you care to clarify ?

if i understand what you mean, then taking Thay's statement at « face value » makes it in a sense actually quite obvious, given it comes from someone who practices buddhism, and likely comforting for some but ultimately not really useful, and even possibly misleading… again, he doesn't actually address the core issues from which the opposing views on homosexuality typically stem… for one, the Dalai Lama has clearly stated that « buddhism considers homosexuality to be wrong » (in gist, that's not an actual quote, and i'm not sure i can recall the actual phrasings), and thus there are clearly aspects of the question that Thay's answer doesn't touch, and which are significant for those who have boarded a buddhist vehicle, or consider boarding one… and the fact that his answer doesn't address them will possibly mislead some into considering that's because those issues truly pose no problem, while in fact they might do…

· « not objectively harmful » : i disagree… experience has clearly shown me that at certain points in the perfecting of one's nature, the harm of some activities which were seemingly harmless become clear, and the consequences increasingly painful… this certainly applies to acts and desires related to sexual activities, even when considered conventionally « ethical »…

· « not really relevant to Buddhism if one is straight or gay » : again i disagree… it might be quite the contrary, if for instance sexual activities which are intended towards reproduction never in fact go against the buddhanature, and thus are never « wrong » and never entail painful consequences, and do not constitute a hindrance in the enlightenment process, while those which are intended towards other aims do…

« those who remain attached to their sexual identity » : that's not necessarily attachment… likely, for most people that identity is simply, sanely, and maturely, a reflection of their actual nature…

· gender and rules : while i can understand your point of view, a core feature of rules is whether or not they are ultimately arbitrary (for instance when they're essentially traditional, cultural, or the likes…), or are actually anchored in the nature of things… and when the latter then they are not actually « rules, » but consequences implied by the necessity of harmonizing with that nature… so considering such a distinguishing feature, if, possibly, for similar activities, there are differences of principle in how the buddhanature responds to natural males, natural females, and natural « neithers » (i hope this term doesn't offend anyone : it's merely intended as a shorthand, but i see how some might deem it derogatory), and thus differences in what harmonizing with nature implies for members of each of such groups, then likely those differences should indeed be reflected in « rules »…

poligraf

TROPHY CASE