Guest guest Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 The Story below, courtesy of the internet celebrety, Joyce Short. " Once there was a monk who specialized in the Buddhist precepts, and had kept to them all his life. Once when he was walking at night, he stepped on something. It made a squishing sound, and he imagined that he had stepped on an egg-bearing frog. This caused him no end of alarm and regret, in view of the Buddhist precept against taking life, and when he finally went to sleep that night he dreamed that hundreds of frogs came to him demanding his life. The monk was terribly upset, but when morning came he looked and found that what he had stepped on was an overripe eggplant. At that moment his feeling of uncertainty suddenly stopped, and for the first time he realized the meaning of the saying that there is no objective world. Then he finally knew how to practice Zen. " Zen Master Foyan Now, what this story points out, in my opinion, is not that there is no objective world which Buddha never denied or affirmed, but that, it is mis-interpretation of sense data which binds us to suffering. Imagination, believing our own projections sets the world on fire. To extinguish those imaginations and projections is to extinguish self. Blown out and, extinguished the flame of attachment, aversion, and fear. Cool as old ashes, blows the mind in the breeze. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 - " cerosoul " <Pedsie2 <Nisargadatta > Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:55 AM Zen Awareness > The Story below, courtesy of the internet celebrety, Joyce Short. > > " Once there was a monk who specialized in the Buddhist precepts, and > had > kept to them all his life. Once when he was walking at night, he > stepped on > something. It made a squishing sound, and he imagined that he had > stepped on > an egg-bearing frog. This caused him no end of alarm and regret, in > view of > the Buddhist precept against taking life, and when he finally went to > sleep > that night he dreamed that hundreds of frogs came to him demanding > his life. > > The monk was terribly upset, but when morning came he looked and > found that > what he had stepped on was an overripe eggplant. At that moment his > feeling > of uncertainty suddenly stopped, and for the first time he realized > the > meaning of the saying that there is no objective world. Then he > finally > knew how to practice Zen. " > > Zen Master Foyan > > Now, what this story points out, in my opinion, is not that there > is no objective world which Buddha never denied or affirmed, but > that, it is mis-interpretation of sense data which binds us to > suffering. > Imagination, believing our own projections sets the world on fire. > To extinguish those imaginations and projections is to extinguish > self. Blown out and, extinguished the flame of attachment, aversion, > and fear. > Cool as old ashes, blows the mind in the breeze. > > Pete Hi Pete, Some two barren cents....:-) The mis-interpretation of the sense-data, is really a self-created image of that arriving sense data. The self-created image of the sense-data, ......... " fashioned " by the prevailing conditioning in the moment, in the sentient object. The self-created image, to which once again the same prevailing conditioning,....... fashions a conditioned response. Aka, the famous " rope-in the dark corner of the room " , being mistaken for a " snake " . And the subsequent song and dance, in order to get rid of the " snake " . Or the subsequent song and dance that the " snake " has actually descended from the neck of Shiva and must be worshipped. Whatever, as per the prevailing conditioning of the sentient object. However, to take a step back, into the primary situation. The very arriving impacting sense-data, .............. " exists " , ............only as a co-dependency,........ with the " existence " of the sensory/sentient apparatus. In the absence of either, .........is the absence of the other. Is there an objective world, apart from the cognition of it? Is there is a rope, without a seeing/cognizing of it? The imagery brought about, ..........to what got seen,............... is a secondary phenomenon. The animated imagery of the child of a barren woman,.............is a secondary phenomenon, ....arising from the forgetting,..... that the woman is actually barren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeep@e...> wrote: > > - > " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > <Nisargadatta > > Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:55 AM > Zen Awareness > > > >> However, to take a step back, into the primary situation. > > The very arriving impacting sense-data, .............. " exists " , > ...........only as a co-dependency,........ with the " existence " of the > sensory/sentient apparatus. Hi Sandy, P:Yes, that is so. Co-dependent origination is involved in any arising > In the absence of either, .........is the absence of the other. > > > Is there an objective world, apart from the cognition of it? P:An academic question as far as I'm concerned. The Buddha consistently refused to answer such questions. Besides without one to cognize there would be no question anyway. The issue here, is that the squashing sound/feeling of an unknown object went beyond the primary cognition of just that " the squashing of an unknown object' into a loop of secundary interpretations motivated by fear. The fear of having commited a sinful act. So this loop requires the belief in an individual entity who can axquire merits and demerits due to his actions. It also requires the belief in good, and sinful acts, etc. Such loops are the tangles of suffering, the monk supposedly understood that morning, when the frog turned out to be a fruit. Enough ramblings, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Hi Pete, - " cerosoul " <Pedsie2 <Nisargadatta > Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:02 AM Re: Zen Awareness > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeep@e...> wrote: > > > > - > > " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > <Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:55 AM > > Zen Awareness > > > > > > >> However, to take a step back, into the primary situation. > > > > The very arriving impacting sense-data, .............. " exists " , > > ...........only as a co-dependency,........ with the " existence " of > the > > sensory/sentient apparatus. > > Hi Sandy, > P:Yes, that is so. Co-dependent origination is involved in any arising > > > In the absence of either, .........is the absence of the other. > > > > > > Is there an objective world, apart from the cognition of it? > > P:An academic question as far as I'm concerned. :-) Pete, ...........would not,............. an issue,............... any issue, ............reside on the assumption of the independent existence of the world, which in turn assumes the existence of a separated entity cognizing this world ,..... ......and which,...... ...... is thus held to be the subject, separate from what is cognized? Is there a single issue, a single problem, a single dilemma, ..........spiritual or otherwise, .......which has a ground to rest upon, .....without this assumption? > The Buddha consistently refused to answer such questions. >Besides without one to cognize there would be no question anyway. Sure. However I seem to recall a statement on this thread (maybe not you),.......... which while talking about the distortion of sense-data, ...... ......did not,....... it seems .......see that the very sensing of the data, .........is itself the " primary distortion " (the term distortion, so to say). The notionality of the very child of the barren woman. Whether that kid is further a brat or an angel in the church choir, is a secondary imagery. I am " this " , as an identification with a " particular " ,.....is the secondary distortion. The primary distortion being, ..............the arising of the very sense of Impersonal Presence,.......... the famous " I AM " . That's all,..... is the suggesting. > > The issue here, is that the squashing sound/feeling of an unknown > object went beyond the primary cognition of just that " the squashing > of an unknown object' into a loop of secundary interpretations > motivated by fear. The fear of having commited a sinful act. Yes. > So this loop requires the belief in an individual entity who can axquire > merits and demerits due to his actions. It also requires the belief > in good, and sinful acts, etc. Yes. > Such loops are the tangles of suffering, the monk supposedly > understood that morning, when the frog turned out to be a fruit. Sure. And yet the sense of entitification, persists, (as far as that tale is concerned) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeep@e...> wrote: > Hi Pete, > > > > - > " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > <Nisargadatta > > Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:02 AM > Re: Zen Awareness > > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeep@e...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:55 AM > > > Zen Awareness > > > > > > > > > >> However, to take a step back, into the primary situation. > > > > > > The very arriving impacting sense-data, .............. " exists " , > > > ...........only as a co-dependency,........ with the " existence " of > > the > > > sensory/sentient apparatus. > > > > Hi Sandy, > > P:Yes, that is so. Co-dependent origination is involved in any arising > > > > > In the absence of either, .........is the absence of the other. > > > > > > > > > Is there an objective world, apart from the cognition of it? > > > > P:An academic question as far as I'm concerned. > > > :-) > >S: Pete, ...........would not,............. an issue,............... any issue, > ...........reside on the assumption of the independent existence of the > world, > which in turn assumes the existence of a separated entity cognizing this > world ,..... > > .....and which,...... > > ..... is thus held to be the subject, separate from what is cognized? > > > Is there a single issue, a single problem, a single dilemma, > .........spiritual or otherwise, .......which has a ground to rest upon, > ....without this assumption? P: Hi Sandy: No I disagree. The Monk believed in co-dependent origination, and still had all those unresolved moral issues. So an assumption is not enough. There has to be direct 'apperception' (to use a term you are familiar with) of indivisibility. An incinerating flash of seeing in which all distintions of monk, frog, killing and sin evaporate. > > > > P:The Buddha consistently refused to answer such questions. > > >Besides without one to cognize there would be no question anyway. > >S Sure. > >S: However I seem to recall a statement on this thread (maybe not > you),.......... which while talking about the distortion of sense- data, > ..... > > .....did not,....... it seems .......see that the very sensing of the data, > ........is itself the " primary distortion " (the term distortion, so to say). > > > The notionality of the very child of the barren woman. > > > Whether that kid is further a brat or an angel in the church choir, is a > secondary imagery. > > > I am " this " , as an identification with a " particular " ,.....is the secondary > distortion. > > The primary distortion being, ..............the arising of the very sense > of Impersonal Presence,.......... the famous " I AM " . > > > That's all,..... is the suggesting. P: Yes. I just addressed the level of mis-interpretation at which the moral dilemma of the story arose. The first distortion is the consciousness. That's the sting of the scorpion which broght the dis-ease called life. As maharaj put it. On that, the second distortion of the " I am " appears. This sense of beingness is the son of the barren woman, as you said. Pete > > > > The issue here, is that the squashing sound/feeling of an unknown > > object went beyond the primary cognition of just that " the squashing > > of an unknown object' into a loop of secundary interpretations > > motivated by fear. The fear of having commited a sinful act. > > > Yes. > > > > So this loop requires the belief in an individual entity who can axquire > > merits and demerits due to his actions. It also requires the belief > > in good, and sinful acts, etc. > > > Yes. > > > > Such loops are the tangles of suffering, the monk supposedly > > understood that morning, when the frog turned out to be a fruit. > > > Sure. > > And yet the sense of entitification, persists, (as far as that tale is > concerned) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.