If…yet…then what a waste 2
February 22, 2008
One difference I take note of in regards to Master Jinul’s quote as opposed to what the apostle Paul says is that Master Jinul uses the pronoun “they”. If they aspire to the path of the Buddha while obstinately holding to their feeling that the Buddha is outside the mind…
Paul, on the other hand uses the pronoun “I”. If I speak with the toungues of men and of angels yet have not love, I am but a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
I’m just curious as to what that implies. I mean, it seems to me that Master Jinul “has arrived”; that he cannot fall back into that state of ignorance of seeking the Buddha nature outside himself. Paul, on the other hand, seems to be implying that he is capable of doing something which is not in love.
Granted these two men are speaking of two entirely different topics. One love, the other, aspiring to the path of the Buddha.
But are they really entirely different topics? How is aspiring to the path of the Buddha different from posessing love through acts of patience, kindness etc. ?
I also understand that Master Jinul is just one man and he doesn’t speak for all of Buddhism, so I am not trying to use my observations as a criticism to Buddhism. I’m just stating what stood out to me this morning.
They…
hmmm…
I…
The subtext of the quotes seems the same. How is it one of them can speak without a self? Is that your question?
Think fo identity. It’s all about identity
They…
hmmm…
I…
The subtext of the quotes seems the same. How is it one of them can speak without a self? Is that your question?
Think of identity. It’s all about identity. One is sublimated to Love, one is not different from it. ‘They’ can speak to a state where Jinul sees what once was, where ‘they’ are clothed in “I” and cannot see past the outward appearance. ‘I’ speaks to a state of self, dressed in approved clothing.
“One is sublimated to Love”
What do you mean by that?
Sublimate: divert or modify (an instinctual impulse) into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity
Paul as ego “I” is sublimated to Love, to Christ.
Jinul without ego “I” is not separate from it.
Where is the difference?
“Jinul without ego “I” is not separate from it.”
Is not separate from what?
I
even more:
Clothed in “I” you are not “They.”
As long as there is “I”, identity, external appearance for approval, as long as “I” is sublimated to “Love of Christ” or even dressing to fit someone’s idea of what you should be, as long there is a need for external authority, you will not understand “They”.
would you consider being separate from “I” to be a type of salvation?
what is the opposite of “a need for external authority”?
“would you consider being separate from “I” to be a type of salvation?”
no, that’s madness.
“what is the opposite of “a need for external authority”?”
not needing external authority.
Why is madness about being separate from “I” as a type of salvation? That it would be called salvation?
give an example of not needing external authority
1) I never said being separate from self was salvation.
2) ever tasted an orange?
1)Oops. That first question needs to be
rephrased. When I asked you:
“would you consider being separate from “I” to be a type of salvation?”
your response was:
no, that’s madness.
My question is, what do you mean in saying “no that’s madness?”
2) Sure I’ve tasted an orange, but it was always either one that I bought or one that was given to me.
The only fruits I ever recall taking without buying or being given are the grapes from the fruit ailse at the grocery store when my mom would take my older brother and me shopping with her. Even at the age of four to seven years old, I would never have popped grapes in my mouth it in the presence of the store manager.
I just wrote this after seeing the video and thinking again about this discussion.
http://dougrogers.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/an-approach-to-emptiness/
I don’t want to sound glib but, Buddhism says there isn’t a self to be separate from. Investigation of this idea with experience shows it to be a functional model.
and I didn’t mean to suggest taking, I said tasting
By what authority did you decide how it tasted? External authority?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/edwards/#2
2.2 paragraph 5 and 6.
also suggests that there isn’t a self to be separate from
an external authority designs mechanisms of my so called self which allow for the experience of the taste.
“an external authority designs mechanisms of my so called self which allow for the experience of the taste.”
Did you watch the Dawkins video I posted? His idea is that external parameters of scale, essentially, confine our sensibility to that scale.
And there is a recent Digg of an old article from Wired about Persinger:
http://dougrogers.wordpress.com/tag/science/
from the Wired link in the Resonate post:
“Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use – Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit.”
You and I don’t disagree on the process, just the label. We believe what we want to believe. You will continue to believe that there is an external authourity.
Still, isn’t it you, in whatever combination of cells, sensibility, or design mechanisms which tastes?
“Still, isn’t it you, in whatever combination of cells, sensibility, or design mechanisms which tastes?”
Did you just acknowledge the existence of a self? I thought about what started this conversation and it was this comment you made:
“[...] How is it one of them can speak without a self?[...]
Think of identity. It’s all about identity. One is sublimated to Love, one is not different from it. [...]”
Why then, do you say,
“Still, isn’t it you, in whatever combination of cells, sensibility, or design mechanisms which tastes?”
If Master Jinul identifies with love, then what about the act of tasting an orange? Would he also identify with the taste?
Yes. I did see the Dawkins video. I might need to see it again to grasp all of what he’s saying though.
As to “you”. Sorry to be bound by language.
As to Jinul, I can’t speak for him.
A while back, I hadn’t eaten all day. It was evening by now, and I was too lazy to go out and buy something. So, I started eating the soybean paste I had in my fridge. Normally, this stuff is too salty for me to handle eating on its own. This night was different. I almost detected a sweetness in it.
“Still, isn’t it you, in whatever combination of cells, sensibility, or design mechanisms which tastes?”
Yes. But,
There are stipulations which I am bound to which allow/disallow for the level of sweetness which my brain can detect in the food.
He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet.
Why? Where did these stipulations originate?
This makes me think of Buddha’s story of the man shot with an arrow.
http://www.everydayzen.org/teachings/talk_endsuffering.asp
“There are stipulations which I am bound to which allow/disallow for the level of sweetness which my brain can detect in the food.”
Everything physical changes in every instant, still, the Miso tasted sweet. When you taste, is it physical?
It’s just a process.
“It’s just that I know for sure that speculating on these questions does not help to live the life that we want for practice.”
I beg to differ.
Consider these words from St. Paul (vs. 10-12). Would you agree that this “secret of contentment” Paul has found is comparable to
“the life that we want for practice?”
perhaps for the person brought up to see the world from an agnostic perspective the arrow story could apply.
But what of the one who has been told that the arrow was crafted and delivered by Lucifer/Satan/the Devil/Mara ect.? Would the Buddha not compassionately adopt the Christian’s/Hindu’s etc. language to deliver his teaching through?
I have several aquaintances who, like myself, identify as Christian, but, who would die by the arrow before consenting to practice Zen.
I’d rather pull the arrow out and stop the dukkha.
have you seen this?
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/buddhist-christian/
No, I hadn’t seen it. Thanks. It rings true that most Christian churches (at least among what I’ve come across) don’t teach methods of meditation. I hope this becomes a more widely accepted practice among Christians.