Lagniappe
posted by MudderPugger @ Thursday, March 15, 2007
10 comments
Flapping Mouths
Four Zen monks were meditating in a monastery. All of a sudden the prayer flag on the roof started flapping. The younger monk came out of his meditation and said: "Flag is flapping" A more experienced monk said: "Wind is flapping" A third monk who had been there for more than 20 years said: "Mind is flapping." The fourth monk who was the eldest said, visibly annoyed: "Mouths are flapping!"
10 Comments:
I was following that story for a while. I don't buy it. Of course he leaves from time to time. He's a growing boy... gets hungry!
thanks for changing that, atman.
Yet another good example of why I don't want to be known as a "Buddhist" to friends and family.
Buddhism schmoodism, those lables and cultural accoutrements that we just love to dress ourselves and our speech and our image in alienates a lot of people from the central message, which they might find quite helpful were it not to be dressed in freaky old asian religious superstitious nonsense.
Atman, were you guys ever discussing that article Zm sent about this some time back? If not, it's definately a good topic, I'll have to dig up that email...
FYI "thanks for changing that, atman.", in case the others didn't read the post in time, I had used the wrong URL, and so had linked to the wrong story, and had asked atman to change it, which he did, cuz he's that way.
Labels are useful in the phenomenal world. They are harmless in and of themselves and contribute to conceptual communication.
It is the attachment to a label that causes difficulty, for in doing so the attachment simply supports the definition of one's self. This is rather paradoxical behavior (and amusing as well!) if one is attempting to see through the self. It seems to merely enhance the entification which is held to be the primary "problem."
I'm a Buddhist. I'm a Hindu. I'm a Catholic. I'm a Jain. The primary directive: me me me me me...the only rebirth:
I
I am
I am a man
I am a man with a wife
and on and on...
In a more humorous vein, attaching to labels recalls the words of Tom Lehrer's caustic 60's song, "National Brotherhood Week":
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule...
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews!
I teach. So I represent (and hold) the label "teacher." There is no attachment to that however and so it isn't an issue. I see members of the department I work in very attached to the department itself ("What will others think of our department if we do such-and-such?" said with anxiety and concern). Their sense-of-self is defined and supported by their belonging to a department. Without that, no anxiety, no distress. Just a functional label.
So...if you find yourself attached to a label, you may want to examine that attachment and see what is the motivating factor.
You missed my point, endo.
If I meet a Christian, and the situation is such that I find myself recommending sitting meditation, for whatever reason, to them, they might possibly not be open to hearing about it if it were presented as "Buddhist".
These lessons collectively known as Buddhism are also tied to ancient religious practices that they don't have to be. In Asia, people burn incense to Buddha, and ask Buddha for all kinds of favors, in Tibet, they spin prayer wheels and have a pantheon of what could be called dieties.
This is a big turn-off to a lot of people and a hindrance to the spreading of these techniques, which here I will refrain from calling dharma.
Are you familiar with the teachings of either Toni Packer, or Charlotte Joko Beck? There is a movement afoot that is secularizing key Zen teachings and practices, and I am a strong supporter of that movement, believing that it is the key to turning more people on to the teachings , techniques and truths contained in dharma.
I don't want to get into the attaching to lables thing here, but I don't call myself a Buddhist because I don't like to be associated by ignorant people, who are the vast majority here in this town and probably in America, with shaved heads (hard, cuz I have long hair) orange robes, the Dalai Lama and/or reincarnation.
Or with this kid in Nepal.
Buddhism just arrived in this country in the middle of the 20th century, yesterday in historical terms.
Historically, as Buddhism moved into a new culture, it was changed and adapted to the new culture.
That process is just beginning here in America and elsewhere in the West, with the secularization movement.
You missed my point, endo.
A not-uncommon trait on my part. :-))
If I meet a Christian, and the situation is such that I find myself recommending sitting meditation, for whatever reason, to them, they might possibly not be open to hearing about it if it were presented as "Buddhist".
Why should sitting meditation be presented as "Buddhist" or any other "ist"? It isn't. Even some Christian sects practice some form of meditation. I see no reason for attaching a non-secular label to a meditation technique. Is there such a thing as a "Buddhist meditation"? Is that a meditation that a Buddhist does? Or is it a meditation that if one is doing it, one automatically is or becomes a Buddhist?
See how silly such labels are? If a Buddhist practices "the relaxation response" meditation taught by Herbert Benson, the Harvard cardiologist, is that Buddhist meditation? And if a non-Buddhist person just sits down and does nothing, watches thought come and go, is that person (who is technically doing shikantaza), now a Buddhist because she is "doing" a "Buddhist meditation"? What makes a meditation "Buddhist" or any other "ist"?
These lessons collectively known as Buddhism are also tied to ancient religious practices that they don't have to be. In Asia, people burn incense to Buddha, and ask Buddha for all kinds of favors, in Tibet, they spin prayer wheels and have a pantheon of what could be called dieties.
This is a big turn-off to a lot of people and a hindrance to the spreading of these techniques, which here I will refrain from calling dharma.
And these collective practices are also a big turn-on for many Westerns who are drawn to the exotic, "sexy," enlightenment-related aspects of some Eastern religions and practices.
Are you familiar with the teachings of either Toni Packer, or Charlotte Joko Beck?
Yes, I have studied with both. They are wonderful. (As is Joan Tollifson - see her writings and insights at http://home.earthlink.net/~wakeupjt/index.html). She has two books out. Her first, Bare Bones Meditation: Waking Up From the Story of My Life was very powerful for me. Several doors were opened during the readings of that work.
Are you familiar with Steven Harrison (www.doingnothing.com)? He goes even further than Joko and Toni, following the type of open-ended exploration that J. Krishnamurti was well-known for.
There is a movement afoot that is secularizing key Zen teachings and practices, and I am a strong supporter of that movement, believing that it is the key to turning more people on to the teachings , techniques and truths contained in dharma.
I know what you're talking about. We'll have to wait and see how this movement evolves. Yes, I too am more inclined towards the secular approach (what Toni refers to as "meditative inquiry"). But I know of others who feel it is too "bare boned," too sparse, not lacking enough pizzazz. Each to his own, eh?
I don't want to get into the attaching to lables thing here, but I don't call myself a Buddhist because I don't like to be associated by ignorant people, who are the vast majority here in this town and probably in America, with shaved heads (hard, cuz I have long hair) orange robes, the Dalai Lama and/or reincarnation.
Why would anyone who was not raised in a Buddhist household want to call herself a Buddhist? What conscious and unconscious things motivate the drive to take on such external (and foreign) trappings? What imagined benefits are perceived to follow from such adaptations? The answer is simple: security and a sense of belong-to-something-greater-than-me.
And there is nothing wrong with that. It is quite...human. But it may be useful to recognize and be aware of the motivation factors.
"Is there such a thing as a "Buddhist meditation"? Is that a meditation that a Buddhist does? Or is it a meditation that if one is doing it, one automatically is or becomes a Buddhist?
See how silly such labels are?"
Well, yeah. That was my point, Endo.
"Why would anyone who was not raised in a Buddhist household want to call herself a Buddhist?"
For the same reason a person who learns how to fly a plane calls themselves a pilot. It's a descriptive term, and useful for communication. A label has a function in our society, and we can't just eliminate them.
However, the word "pilot" is (or might be) pretty straightforward compared to "Buddhist", maybe I should have used "Postal Employee" instead.....
"Are you familiar with Steven Harrison (www.doingnothing.com)? He goes even further than Joko and Toni, following the type of open-ended exploration that J. Krishnamurti was well-known for."
No, I haven't heard of him. Maybe I'll check him out someday.
I like Krishnamurti's writings a lot. A friend of atman and myself turned me onto him. the one beef I have with his stuff, and it's a minor one, is based on the fact that as presented by K., there is no emphasis on any kind of practice, and as such, it might seem like idealistic philosophy to guys like Dan, who are approaching all this from a strictly philisophical or conceptual angle.
The friend who turned my onto K. was under the impression that K. didn't sit or do any kind of zazen, when in fact K was a master Yogi who both taught and practiced Yoga for many hours every day.
When I first started reading K. I just couldn't believe those insights came without hard and long practice. I just couldn't believe the guy didn't sit, but my friend is seldom wrong about shit like this, so I believed him until I learned otherwise, from sources outside of K's own writings.
"Why would anyone who was not raised in a Buddhist household want to call herself a Buddhist?"
For the same reason a person who learns how to fly a plane calls themselves a pilot. It's a descriptive term, and useful for communication. A label has a function in our society, and we can't just eliminate them.
However, the word "pilot" is (or might be) pretty straightforward compared to "Buddhist", maybe I should have used "Postal Employee" instead.....
Yes, that was exactly the point.
Certain terms (labels) are descriptive and useful in a functional way. They don't contribute to a sense of entification (being a separate entity). You are nailing a picture onto a wall so you say "Hand me a hammer" not "Hand me a wrench." Neither term adds to the egomind which is incessantly asserting "I am MEEEEEE!"
But being a "Buddhist" or any other "ist" does. As does being an "American." Or a "Democrat."
There's the working mind (which is functional and allows us to operate as apparently separate individuals in the phenomenal world), and there's the thinking mind (which upholds and perpetuates the illusory sense of self). The mind is always in one of these two modes with the following exceptions:
certain meditative states, a coma, deep sleep, or a drug-alcohol-induced state.
Habitual use of "ist" only more deeply entrenches the sense of separation and the confusion that arises therefo.
Now, as to whether or not you can actually control the language you use.......
You see? It's so pointless!
No one captures this...comic insanity....more grandly than the great Irish writer/poet/playwright, Samuel Beckett.
Here is our predicament neatly wrapped up in the final sentences of Beckett's novel, The Unnamable. Throughout the novel, the central character, "the unnamable," spins and spins stories, trying to "find the words that will define me." Using a torrent of words, the unnamable tries to reach the great silence of the Self, by explaining, in words, the silence of the infinite spaces of time. This is where his search (and any seeker's search) brings him:
You must go on.
I can't go on.
You must go on.
I'll go on. You must say words, as long as there are any - until they find me, until they say me. (Strange pain, strange sin!) You must go on. Perhaps it's done already. Perhaps they have said me already. Perhaps they have carried me to the threshold of my story, before the door that opens on my story. (That would surprise me, if it opens.)
It will be I? It will be the silence, where I am? I don't know, I'll never know: in the silence you don't know.
You must go on.
I can't go on.
I'll go on.
Post a Comment
<< Home