Essential Zen

A dialog with a Zen newbie on IRC yielded an interesting comment. I asked her what it was she wanted to do, as in join a monastery or? She said she wanted to study Buddhism. I said Zen really had little to do with Buddhism, and related the story of the adept who was renowned as a Diamond Sutra scholar, who, when he achieved enlightenment, destroyed all his commentaries on the sutra. And then from somewhere came the comment that Zen was not about the study of Buddhism: Zen is about the study of the self. Going to have to ponder that one a bit more.

Another thing that happened in YAW chat was someone finding the following site which I found to be on point, since the author's views and mine seem to coincide nearly completely. Here's the link to his blog http://nothingsayingthis.com/blog

~

I’m still continually amazed that people, especially supposed ‘spiritually advanced people,’ don’t say what they mean, or, mean what they say. Actually this isn’t the amazing part; the amazing part is they don’t know the difference. It’s entertaining to me, none the less, so allow me to continue…

A question was posed, “Would all those who reside in non-duality be in agreement?”

This isn’t the real question, as I know quite well the person who asked it. She’s in love with the notion that everyone, ‘just needs to get along.’ Now, to buttress this, she’s also found a shiny new object, the blog G mentions above, and some ‘non-dualist’ blogging dude that talks about really cool things. Please note that we’ve still not gotten to what the question really is, from the questioner above. Yet, I’m getting there….

So, my friend is contacting the writer of the blog, perhaps to chat, perhaps to follow his ‘non-dual teachings’ as he mentions, yet, unfortunately, there’s no such thing as ‘non-dual teachings,’ nor can he assist her in any way, (this is another story in and of itself,) but whatever. Let’s continue…

I’m sure they will have a nice little chat, confirm each others beliefs, he’ll pat her on the back and ‘recognize’ her for this and that. She’s done this a dozen times before and I’m sure it will happen a dozen times again. Oh my, what did I just write? Recognize her? Oh oh, I think we’re on to something here….

This, is the true question that was posed above. The true question has nothing to do with non-duality, a group cluster-fuck of consensus with new agers, non-dualists, bible thumping cherubs of Jesus, or anything of the sort. Here’s the true question:

“Will you acknowledge me? “Will you please recognize me?” Will you please validate me and my beliefs, faiths and all the shit I’ve been doing over the past 40 years?”

This is the true issue with this individual, and with most people. In chat this discussion began, and I allowed it to be swayed towards ‘non-duality’ as it’s entertaining to discuss. But again though, it’s not really what’s on this persons mind, and that’s Ok. Almost everyone is like this.

Almost everyone wants to be validated as opposed to using whomever or whatever as the match that sparks the fire of self destruction. Oh, and as dear ole’ Gonz points out, some don’t want that, or agree with it. That’s Ok as well. Yet, this goes back to the very first paragraph of this post: Do you say what you mean, or, mean what you say?

Life or non-duality isn’t that difficult. Just stop pouring emotion into that conceptual overlay (self) which you seem to think is something other than what it is. And that’s fine as well; just don’t attempt to fool yourself into thinking that a ‘good’ dream is leaving the dream, that’s all.

We shall see what occurs with the ‘non-dual’ dude, and his interaction with this individual. If there’s a consensus, we’ll know he’s not worth his weight in salt, as what a true teacher does is hold up the mirror. True work on self isn’t pleasant, nor is it a big happy love-fest where everyone is patting each other on the back or a circle jerk with happy ending reach-arounds. Yet again though, no-one wants this. Everyone wants recognition for how precious they are.

Such it is….

K

My favorite part was... "bible thumping cherubs of Jesus".

Affinity wrote:My favorite part was... "bible thumping cherubs of Jesus".

That's mostly for my Facebook friends, but will wait and use it for the next go 'round with them and the (so called) conservatives.

It's interesting the circular thinking, the one belief that supports another belief, round and round and round we go. For most, this is called, "Life."

I'm mostly testing the waters as an experiment. I chatted with G about this the other day, but we didn't get to it all. I'm sort of looking at the 'base-line' belief system most hold, leading into coaching and such. Aikido has assisted a great deal with this, in leading another.

If I punch you in the nose, and then attempt to hold your hand and say, "let's walk together," is that really going to work? Working with people one needs to join them at their level. Not only that, but how one addresses the issues, which issue to choose, etc., etc. Peeps are very touchy and protective of their beliefs. It's a very basic, slow process.

The herd mentality is pretty much the same, so a few 'pops in the nose' will get most re-actions out. I'll expand on this further as I've gotta run.

K

You really need to watch "Fight Club" - 'punch you in the nose' takes on a profound meaning.

Some cool stuff from Kris yesterday in chat

Kristopher wrote:The term Nagual is used for those who need it as a form of 'trickery of the Spirit'. It is used for the likes of 'pieces of shit,' such as Carlos and Juan, by their own admission. It's a didactic device used to teach. It bolsters the 'self' while here on the Tonal, to temper the fixation of the warrior's way.

Thus, to say there is a 'Nagual Planet' is pure poppycock. There's only one reason one may say this, and that would be, a gathering of people in an AP position, assumed to be a special place, as well as a special title such as 'Nagual.' This also assumes that those who mention this have actually been able to hold a different AP position, which, from my experience, I seriously doubt.

Nagual, or a leader of a party, is pure ego and self importance. If you doubt me, re-read CC's work in this light. Look how don Juan uses the term. Also look at how he refers to Silvio Manuel. He clearly stated that Silvio was more powerful than everyone, he was one with Intent.

There is no need for a Nagual, a leader, a teacher, or anyone or anything else, other than to kick the shit out of you to keep you pressing on, Further! The Self needs to be overcome and understood, and that's the true teaching of CC as well as many others.

This comes straight from TOFs or The Old Farts. Within the AP position they are in, there's no Naguals, leaders, etc., etc. They are as close to each of us as our skin, and as far away from us as a distant galaxy. Nor is there any party, or Nagual Party.

Again, that’s used in the books to teach the different facets of the Self. Do warriors band together? Sure. Yet, they are not together as depicted in the books, or any other fantasy one may have in their own mind. Each individual is their own Self, with their own challenges.

The only leader, nagual, whatever, is The Spirit, which again, is explained to exhaustion in CC's work. Now, work on what The Spirit 'is' to your own perception and this unraveling will lead you further.

Kristopher wrote:Your moment of Essential Zen:: Perhaps the deepest reason why we are afraid of death is because we do not know who we are. We believe in a personal, unique, and separate identity,' but if we dare to examine it, we find that this identity depends entirely on an endless collection of things to prop it up; our name, our biography our partners, family, home, job, friends, credit cards. It is on their fragile and transient support that we rely for our security.

Without our familiar props, we are faced with just ourselves, a person we do not know, an unnerving stranger with whom we have been living all the time but we never really wanted to meet. Isn't that why we have tried to fill every moment of time with noise and activity, however boring or trivial, to ensure that we are never left in silence with this stranger on our own?

Excellent and well said, a good reminder for those who find security in discussing such captivating mythology and phenomena.

Gonzo you are taking this 'life outside of the chatroom shit' way to far. Get your ass back in there.

turin otzaki wrote:Gonzo you are taking this 'life outside of the chatroom shit' way to far. Get your ass back in there.

He SAYS he's with KG doing butterfly-ing, but we know better.

Here is what he's really doing: http://pinterest.com/pin/156359418283672621/

Feeling selfish and guilty, our great Goozle took to the road, assisting others in need of col' beer.

I read "Tales of Power", however, when this topic came up a few days ago, neither I, nor others in chat really seemed to know what the Sorcerers Explanation was. A search this morning revealed the last section of TofP is actually titled "The Sorcerers Explanation". So, I read it and came across some interesting comments that bear repeating.

(I quite enjoyed this little bit, since "thought", cogito ergo sum and "We are what we think" was also a topic in that chat.)

"Then there IS a sorcerers' explanation!"

"Certainly. Sorcerers are men. We're creatures of thought. We seek clarifications."

"I was under the impression that my great flaw was to seek explanations."

"No. Your flaw is to seek convenient explanations, explanations that fit you and your world. What I object to is your reasonableness. A sorcerer explains things in his world too, but he's not as stiff as you."

Maybe this is the definition:

"At any rate, you know now about the tonal and the nagual, which are the core of the sorcerers' explanation.

The mystery, or the secret, of the sorcerers' explanation is that it deals with unfolding the wings of perception."

This did lead to one of my favorite quotes from all of CC's works:

"Only if one loves this earth with unbending passion can one release one's sadness," don Juan said. "A warrior is always joyful because his love is unalterable and his beloved, the earth, embraces him and bestows upon him inconceivable gifts. The sadness belongs only to those who hate the very thing that gives shelter to their beings."

Don Juan again caressed the ground with tenderness.

"This lovely being, which is alive to its last recesses and understands every feeling, soothed me, it cured me of my pains, and finally when I had fully understood my love for it, it taught me freedom."

And for a finale:

"The sorcerers' explanation cannot at all liberate the spirit. Look at you two. You have gotten to the sorcerers' explanation, but it doesn't make any difference that you know it. You're more alone than ever, because without an unwavering love for the being that gives you shelter, aloneness is loneliness.

"Only the love for this splendorous being can give freedom to a warrior's spirit; and freedom is joy, efficiency, and abandon in the face of any odds. That is the last lesson. It is always left for the very last moment, for the moment of ultimate solitude when a man faces his death and his aloneness. Only then does it make sense."

What I find of special interest is a total lack of comment about sorcery.

In that same section is the following, which, when I first read it, left me quite depressed:

He paused. The silence around us was frightening. The wind hissed softly and then I heard the distant barking of a lone dog.

"Listen to that barking," don Juan went on. "That is the way my beloved earth is helping me now to bring this last point to you. That barking is the saddest thing one can hear."

We were quiet for a moment. The barking of that lone dog was so sad and the stillness around us so intense that I experienced a numbing anguish. It made me think of my own life, my sadness, my not knowing where to go, what to do.

"That dog's barking is the nocturnal voice of a man," don Juan said. "It comes from a house in that valley towards the south. A man is shouting through his dog, since they are companion slaves for life, his sadness, his boredom. He's begging his death to come and release him from the dull and dreary chains of his life."

Don Juan's words had caught a most disturbing line in me. I felt he was speaking directly to me.

"That barking, and the loneliness it creates, speaks of the feelings of men," he went on. "Men for whom an entire life was like one Sunday afternoon, an afternoon which was not altogether miserable, but rather hot and dull and uncomfortable. They sweated and fussed a great deal. They didn't know where to go, or what to do. That afternoon left them only with the memory of petty annoyances and tedium, and then suddenly it was over; it was already night."

At the time I read that, I felt certain don Juan had just describe my life..."...not altogether miserable, but rather hot and dull and uncomfortable..." and so on.

John Malkovich, as Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde in the movie "Mary Reilly", when he dies finally, he says, "I wanted the night, and here it is" - a relief, and perhaps that same relief don Juan alludes to in that comment.

I've come to a different conclusion, however, about my own existence, and about that comment of don Juan's.

First, don Juan, ala Dan in "Neither Wolf nor Dog", made use of omens and occasions presented to him, imo, by the nagual. The occasions and their meaning at the time were personal to don Juan. The way in which the story of the man and the dog is presented makes it a sad and depressing thing, made moreso by Castandeda's comment halfway through it. It's quite possible to have an entirely different interpretation of the event, iow...it just came at a convenient moment for don Juan to interpret as he wanted in order to make his point at the time.

Second, in evaluating one's own life, you can string together all negatives, or all positives, however, I think everyone has had days that were not altogether miserable, but were hot, dull and uncomfortable. Anyone who had the misfortune to live in South Glendale in the smog-filled 50's certainly knows the truth of that. But that does not make the continuum don Juan implies.

"...the feeling associated with giving up something loved-or at least something that is part of ourselves and familiar-is depression. Since mentally healthy human beings must grow, and since giving up or loss of the old self is an integral part of the process of mental and spiritual growth, depression is a normal and basically healthy phenomenon. It becomes abnormal or unhealthy only when something interferes with the giving-up process, with the result that the depression is prolonged and cannot be resolved by completion of the process." - M. Scott Peck