Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
If you asked a Hinayana Buddhist to teach you what a watermelon is...
To a Hinayana Buddhist, a watermelon has the same quality as all things, namely, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & empty of self. There is no need to taste the watermelon to understand it.
But because the mind of Seung Sahn had not realised the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned things, including watermelons, he had to taste them
Seung Sahn is referring to the superficial characteristics of the water melon, just as Taiyaki is referring to a superficial kind of liberation
If you asked a Hinayana Buddhist to teach you what a watermelon is...
To a Hinayana Buddhist, a watermelon has the same quality as all things, namely, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & empty of self. There is no need to taste the watermelon to understand it.
But because the mind of Seung Sahn had not realised the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned things, including watermelons, he had to taste them
Seung Sahn is referring to the superficial characteristics of the water melon, just as Taiyaki is referring to a superficial kind of liberation
when it comes down to it you have to experience impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self. that is the whole idea of zen. experience these in your life and in your meditation.
thus experience the watermelon, instead of theorizing about them.
don't get caught in words/concepts, neat little frameworks. EXPERIENCE life for yourself and then let the insights pour in.
when it comes down to it, i agree with everything you say.
about gurus, true nature, words/concepts being truth.
language brings about an isolated view point. to write/speak is a grave mistake in that sense. once you speak, one can interpret was is written or said in an infinitely amount of different ways.
my intention is not to convince you. i don't even have an intention really. lol i am just trolling you hard.
these concepts are as much truth as emptiness itself. as all things are empty.
all zen says is you cannot access truth by an intellectual manner. you must realize that consciousness is. then you must see that is marked with emptiness. so again it's steps towards liberation.
depending on where you are on the path, different pointers or concepts are needed. but when it comes down to it all that matters it experience and insight.
and even that doesn't work out because insights are just insights. we must realize the dharma at every moment of our lives. i am using subjects such as i, my, me, ours, etc because such is the nature of language.
All you've done so far is let us know you hve no interest in Zen practice, and we already know that.
hi Cinorjer
you may have not noticed but this thread is about comparative Buddhism & Seung Sahn's (Zen Master, lol) ridiculous opinions
anyone who agrees with Seung Sahn, like him, has no idea, because each school of Buddhism has meditation or direct knowing at its heart
Seung Sahn is not speaking what is true
No, it's about a very standard use of a metaphor for illustrating the difference between Zen's direct experience practice and Theravada scholarly wisdom practice. You're centainly intelligent enough to know it's not really about watermelons or any kind of fruit. If you insist on pretending that you are not the highly intelligent person I know you to be, eating the fruit is a metaphor for directly experiencing True Reality, Dharma, Buddha Nature, or whatever name you want to call it. Nor is this about Master Seung Sahn, really, since he taught mainstream Zen.
So you reject Zen's direct experience approach? Big deal. You have lots of company. If your own practice works, that's what is really important. So again, how does your own practice eliminate suffering in the world?
The watermelon is not sense objects, the watermelon is enlightenment.
the ego always wants to believe it is enlightened
trust me, eating & delighting in water melons will not bring nor is it enightenment
:sawed:
You fail to see that the "watermelon" is an analogy of "personal experience" of the three marks of existence, not a literal account of eating a watermelon... The point was that enlightenment does not ultimately come from reading books. You can get enlightenment from just reading a book? Really? That is highly unlikely. It comes from personally experiencing, for oneself. A book can not give you this experience, it comes from experience of actual practice of what the book says. If you don't actually practice what the book says, then the book is useless. Is it not? The "watermelon" is not referring to an actual watermelon that is a round greenish fruit that grows on a vine. The watermelon is an analogy of personally experiencing for oneself. Instead of reading about others experiences, and explanations of them, in a book. In order to truly understand those experiences, they must be experienced for oneself. Is that not true?
There is a focus on sense impressions because sense impressions is all that there is. Is there something else besides (saḷāyatana) the 6 senses and what is perceived by them? What else is there? Is there something that exists that is not part of the 5 aggregates? Is there something beyond the 5 aggregates that is to be perceived or understood? If so, what is it? Is is not true that incorrect perception, with the six senses of the sense objects, is what causes suffering? If there is not incorrect perception using the 6 senses, then where can suffering come from? The intellect is also product of senses, is it not? The mind is the 6th sense and intellect and thought are also just a sense impressions, are they not? You say focus on the sense impressions is incorrect but then you say intellect is, which itself, is a sense impression as well, is it not? That is direct contradiction. Is the mind and mental objects, which includes the intellect, not part of the senses and sense impressions? You said the Buddha is wisdom. What is wisdom besides correct perception with the 6 senses?
are you saying the mind of SS abided free from self-views?
all minds do not have a real self but many minds fall under/into the illusion of "self"
the illusion of "self" leads them to act out inappropriate cravings
the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self"
regeards
:-/
Seung Sahn was accused of carrying out sexual relationships with students secretly while supposedly celibate. The first accusations of sexual relationships between Seung Sahn and students came about in 1988. Sonia Alexander, former director of Cambridge Zen Center, has claimed that Seung Sahn had carried out long-term sexual relationships with a number of his female followers. Journalist Rick Fields confirms this, writing “the supposedly celibate Korean Zen master Seung Sahn (Seon-sa-nim) revealed long-term relationships with two students.” One former student claims that when confronted with the issue, Seung Sahn stated that he engaged in such behavior to find people he could trust and that he was beyond lust. These alleged relationships caused Alexander to end her involvement with the Kwan Um School, believing in retrospect that she had been used over the years only to help build more Zen Centers for the lineage. Notwithstanding, Alexander still has reverence for Seung Sahn and feels her time spent in the school was to her benefit.
According to author Timothy Miller, “the Kwan Um organization has had to struggle with disclosures of controversial sexual conduct on the part of its leader; Seung Sahn was generally understood by his followers to be a celibate monk, and the revelation that he had had affairs with female students caused some members to leave the movement.”
Comments
trust me, eating & delighting in water melons will not bring nor is it enightenment
:sawed:
you may have not noticed but this thread is about comparative Buddhism & Seung Sahn's (Zen Master, lol) ridiculous opinions
anyone who agrees with Seung Sahn, like him, has no idea, because each school of Buddhism has meditation or direct knowing at its heart
Seung Sahn is not speaking what is true
But because the mind of Seung Sahn had not realised the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned things, including watermelons, he had to taste them
Seung Sahn is referring to the superficial characteristics of the water melon, just as Taiyaki is referring to a superficial kind of liberation
that is the whole idea of zen. experience these in your life and in your meditation.
thus experience the watermelon, instead of theorizing about them.
don't get caught in words/concepts, neat little frameworks. EXPERIENCE life for yourself and then let the insights pour in.
lol
when it comes down to it, i agree with everything you say.
about gurus, true nature, words/concepts being truth.
language brings about an isolated view point. to write/speak is a grave mistake in that sense. once you speak, one can interpret was is written or said in an infinitely amount of different ways.
my intention is not to convince you. i don't even have an intention really. lol i am just trolling you hard.
these concepts are as much truth as emptiness itself. as all things are empty.
all zen says is you cannot access truth by an intellectual manner. you must realize that consciousness is. then you must see that is marked with emptiness. so again it's steps towards liberation.
depending on where you are on the path, different pointers or concepts are needed. but when it comes down to it all that matters it experience and insight.
and even that doesn't work out because insights are just insights. we must realize the dharma at every moment of our lives.
i am using subjects such as i, my, me, ours, etc because such is the nature of language.
lol have fun bro
samadhi or naked seeing is developed in order to enlighten the intellect
it follows truth can be accessed by the intellect
impermanence can be accessed by the intellect
not-self can be accessed by the intellect
but the silence mind you regard as "truth" cannot be accessed by the intellect
nor can "no self"
this is why silence or no-self is not truth
all the best, stuck in non-being
different traditions emphasize different things.
they are just different styles pointing to the same realization.
if you see it otherwise, then that is your projection bro.
YU PROJECT BRO?
but we agreed there is no small/great vehicle & zen
y u project bro?
but we agreed there is no small/great vehicle & zen
metta to you brother
So you reject Zen's direct experience approach? Big deal. You have lots of company. If your own practice works, that's what is really important. So again, how does your own practice eliminate suffering in the world?
You fail to see that the "watermelon" is an analogy of "personal experience" of the three marks of existence, not a literal account of eating a watermelon... The point was that enlightenment does not ultimately come from reading books. You can get enlightenment from just reading a book? Really? That is highly unlikely. It comes from personally experiencing, for oneself. A book can not give you this experience, it comes from experience of actual practice of what the book says. If you don't actually practice what the book says, then the book is useless. Is it not? The "watermelon" is not referring to an actual watermelon that is a round greenish fruit that grows on a vine. The watermelon is an analogy of personally experiencing for oneself. Instead of reading about others experiences, and explanations of them, in a book. In order to truly understand those experiences, they must be experienced for oneself. Is that not true?
There is a focus on sense impressions because sense impressions is all that there is. Is there something else besides (saḷāyatana) the 6 senses and what is perceived by them? What else is there? Is there something that exists that is not part of the 5 aggregates? Is there something beyond the 5 aggregates that is to be perceived or understood? If so, what is it? Is is not true that incorrect perception, with the six senses of the sense objects, is what causes suffering? If there is not incorrect perception using the 6 senses, then where can suffering come from? The intellect is also product of senses, is it not? The mind is the 6th sense and intellect and thought are also just a sense impressions, are they not? You say focus on the sense impressions is incorrect but then you say intellect is, which itself, is a sense impression as well, is it not? That is direct contradiction. Is the mind and mental objects, which includes the intellect, not part of the senses and sense impressions? You said the Buddha is wisdom. What is wisdom besides correct perception with the 6 senses?
i just used it for my own word play on SS who did not taste the watermelon which is universal to all buddhist schools
with metta
keep trolling harder bro.
all minds do not have a real self but many minds fall under/into the illusion of "self"
the illusion of "self" leads them to act out inappropriate cravings
the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self"
"no self" is not the mind of enlightenment
regards
:-/