Everything Is Created By Mind
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 бер 2014
- Dharma Talk from 3/12/2014 with Zen Master Bon Soeng. We have Dharma talks every Wednesday evening at the Empty Gate Zen Center.
Website: www.emptygatezen.com
Facebook: / emptygatezen
Twitter: / emptygatezen
Thank you for this teaching.
Beautiful teaching
"Courage and effort are mirrors of each other."
Very profound.
I really enjoy all of this teaching, Thank you so much!
You are welcome!!
I play piano and the description of chanting as practice of experiencing the moment is exactly what I like about playing music. Sometimes, when I am playing piano, I am really in the moment. THAT is when the music is most alive and most fun.
You are it!
Thank you for posting these Dharma talks. This is an invaluable resource and important part of my practice that I have come to look forward to.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed listening. He has a soothing and comforting voice. And today it is nice to hear the message. I am experiencing many difficulties in my life right now and it helps to get positive ideas of any kind to help me through them.
He is a Zen Master all right. Yet scores from off side. Like in famous Dżem band song: “Na wszystko masz co trzeba, tylko WOLNOŚCI tobie nikt nie sprzeda.”
24m in is "How to meet the moment when you don't want to meet the moment" where self is intersected by unpleasant walls - how to restrain the attack of panic/tyranny of the urgent
Love you sir. I am from mendo. :)
Deep bow
I haven’t listened to the talk but, as a realist, I can’t believe that “everything” is created by our mind. I believe our mind is the fruit of our brains.
If I’m correct, doesn’t this title violates the Buddhist maxim of right speech?
I'm trying to balance my understanding of Zen with my penchant for politics. I understand there's an attachment to view and perception there, but I feel like it's a perspective that's weighed against a worse alternative. I can talk myself into circles for hours on this predicament, knowing that it's created by mind, but also feeling like I'm being non-genuine to myself if I'm passive to it all. Even though there's no actual "I" to be passive - more mind, more story lines. I'm having a hard time moving past this. People have genuinely told me to understand it's all from mind, but that doesn't necessarily keep them out of the voting booth.
I would suggest joining a sangha to get a more daily understanding of zen as a practise, or way of life even, and then ask a teacher :)
The Buddha was sitting under a tree talking to his disciples when a man came and spit on his face. He wiped it off, and he asked the man, “What next? What do you want to say next?” The man was a little puzzled because he himself never expected that when you spit on somebody’s face, he will ask, “What next?” He had no such experience in his past. He had insulted people and they had become angry and they had reacted. Or if they were cowards and weaklings, they had smiled, trying to bribe the man. But Buddha was like neither, he was not angry nor in any way offended, nor in any way cowardly. But just matter-of-factly he said, “What next?” There was no reaction on his part.
Buddha’s disciples became angry, they reacted. His closest disciple, Ananda, said, “This is too much, and we cannot tolerate it. He has to be punished for it. Otherwise everybody will start doing things like this.”
Buddha said, “You keep silent. He has not offended me, but you are offending me. He is new, a stranger. He must have heard from people something about me, that this man is an atheist, a dangerous man who is throwing people off their track, a revolutionary, a corrupter. And he may have formed some idea, a notion of me. He has not spit on me, he has spit on his notion. He has spit on his idea of me because he does not know me at all, so how can he spit on me?
“If you think on it deeply,” Buddha said, “he has spit on his own mind. I am not part of it, and I can see that this poor man must have something else to say because this is a way of saying something. Spitting is a way of saying something. There are moments when you feel that language is impotent: in deep love, in intense anger, in hate, in prayer. There are intense moments when language is impotent. Then you have to do something. When you are angry, intensely angry, you hit the person, you spit on him, you are saying something. I can understand him. He must have something more to say, that’s why I’m asking, “What next?”
The man was even more puzzled! And Buddha said to his disciples, “I am more offended by you because you know me, and you have lived for years with me, and still you react.”
Puzzled, confused, the man returned home. He could not sleep the whole night. When you see a Buddha, it is difficult, impossible to sleep again the way you used to sleep before. Again and again he was haunted by the experience. He could not explain it to himself, what had happened. He was trembling all over and perspiring. He had never come across such a man; he shattered his whole mind and his whole pattern, his whole past.
The next morning he was back there. He threw himself at Buddha’s feet. Buddha asked him again, “What next? This, too, is a way of saying something that cannot be said in language. When you come and touch my feet, you are saying something that cannot be said ordinarily, for which all words are a little narrow; it cannot be contained in them.” Buddha said, “Look, Ananda, this man is again here, he is saying something. This man is a man of deep emotions.”
The man looked at Buddha and said, “Forgive me for what I did yesterday.”
Buddha said, “Forgive? But I am not the same man to whom you did it. The Ganges goes on flowing, it is never the same Ganges again. Every man is a river. The man you spit upon is no longer here. I look just like him, but I am not the same, much has happened in these twenty-four hours! The river has flowed so much. So I cannot forgive you because I have no grudge against you.”
“And you also are new. I can see you are not the same man who came yesterday because that man was angry and he spit, whereas you are bowing at my feet, touching my feet. How can you be the same man? You are not the same man, so let us forget about it. Those two people, the man who spit and the man on whom he spit, both are no more. Come closer. Let us talk of something else.”
No adjective that I can think of is enough to descibe how that story hit me.
Thank you for the lessons. I'm new to Zen and your videos have been a big help. Do you have or know of videos showing your chants?
We have a few here ua-cam.com/play/PL722CFC2AE62358C2.html
Is it Jhana from Linji tradition or from TaoDong/Soto tradition?
How can the understanding of having minds trapped by one-sided, partial perspective views (one-sided because we are simply one person) help in the case of mathematics and the sciences? That is, how can this assist someone who spends their whole life in mathematics alone? I ask this because this teaching of Buddhism makes a lot of sense to me when we are thinking about conventions and opinions alone (or even more so: emotions, political/economic ideologies, and so on an so forth), but what about pure abstractions (such as mathematics) that deal with so called "objective truths" about world/universe? Perhaps one could say that that is, itself, just another perspective but again, I'm unsure about this. Even more so, what about a person who's a professional philosopher, someone who deals with abstract thought every day of their life? Please let me know if you have any insights into this. Thank you.
+nicholas sismil Before he started practicing, the Buddha was attached to name and form. Then he attained enlightenment and was no longer attached to name and form. Then he used name and form for 49 years to help other people. So, attachment and using is the key here.
May I ask what is said in reply at 31:22? A 'sharped armor question'? As in, the question is asked to be reassured one already knows the answer?
He said, "sharp Dharma question" meaning a kind of question usually found in Dharma combat in the Zen tradition.
Thank you.
I have a question about ethics in Zen Buddhism. I have heard it said that there is no logical basis for a moral code of ethics without the existence of a authority such as a all powerful creator or god who provides rules to live by. So the question here is what is the basis for value judgments about right and wrong behavior for a Zen Buddhist? If everything is created by mind and we are encouraged to transcend the mind which makes good and bad then why would there be a doctrine of ethics attached and what would it’s basis be?
I have been practicing Zen for about a year. I have been engaged in such contemplation for decades. I have the understanding that the ethical guidelines for Buddhists arise from practical considerations. I have been told to act appropriately and to follow my situation. I have been encouraged to practice Zen in order to attain realization and help all beings do the same.
I would like to know though if there is some foundational teaching or principle that authoritatively informs our activity in the world. It seems that historically Zen practitioners often distance themselves from society and are in strict monastic settings which impose ethical guidelines in a way which makes them easier to follow.
I am aware that when full realization occurs all these questions are answered. So the heart has its own doctrine which is something like radiant love and acceptance of all that is manifests compassion naturally as a result of profound and total Union with all that is. I have not answered my own question however because the society which we exist does not operate according to this truth and actively denies or contradicts this truth of unity. So the question remains as a philosophical principle, why should a apparent individual live by the Buddhist ethical code and what is the authoritative basis for such a assertion?
I am not a zen master but my response would be to not trust someone who claims to have the answers to your questions, follow the person who can help you realize that it ok not to know. Sometimes not knowing is the closest thing to to the truth we can get. After understanding we dont know we look down and notice the truth was in our hands the whole time. If we took someone else truth we might have set down the one we already had and needed to accept it.
This is a very useful question. The foundation of what Buddha taught is the 'four noble truths'. Here's a version: We all suffer, there is a cause for our suffering, the cause of suffering can be removed, there is a method or path for removing it. Buddhism at the ethical level is very interested in causes and effects (you could research 'dependent arising' or 'dependent origination'), not so much in 'right and wrong' like you're offending Someone. So even without a supreme deity or lawgiver, it can still make sense to say something like, stop doing xyz because it's going to have a painful result, or do ABC because it will have a happy result. You don't need 'God' to understand 'look both ways before you cross the street' or 'eat healthy foods to be healthier'. Hope this makes sense.
How can I ask anything when I'm asleep?😑 I am rather confused on this point...
ZZZZzzzzzzz
I would like to go to zen-classes/center, but I wouldnt want to go chant. Isn't it just drifting away from the essence of zazen?? I wouldn't even know what I was saying.
Chanting meditation is no different than sitting meditation except that we're using sound to return to this moment, using sound to return to this original clear nature. That fact that you wouldn't know what you are saying is good! Otherwise it will just bring up extra thinking. Look at this link www.cambridgezen.com/index.php?c=practice&p=chanting
the chanting is quite fun !
reminds me too much of religion. I shun all (kinds) of group activities.
Take away "I" then everything is no hindrance.
+zimonslot who is this "I"
They say everything is created by mind! It is not ture. If you fully understand Prajna Paramita it says there is no mind no coming nor going no ignorance etc. It is the wrong view. Mind doesn't create anything and everything cannot be the mind. Some famous Zen master said and I quote "no mind no problem".
not his best talk by along way, bogged down in the "mind" cliche
Originally no mind, what can be bogged down?
originally mind, cliches ! :o)
Empty Gate Zen Center @20:40 Did you watch your reactivity to Andrew's comment ;) It's okay, I still adore you :)
AngelOne11 Deep bow! :-)