One of THE best books ever. It cuts to the bone. If you want to get real about locking into your awareness, both Nisargadatta & Ramana Maharshi will get you there.
It is a book that no will ever feel they have ''read'' (past tense, ''done with that''). I re read it every year. For me, (a practicing Theravada Buddhist) it is the greatest single spiritual collection (101 stand alone dialogues) I have ever encountered. Jack Kornfield (also trained in Theravada Buddhism) quotes from him often. His native language was Marathi. And yes, your experience of being nonplussed at first, is normal. The dialogues are not cumulative (you could read it from the last dialog to the first just as readily as the ''normal'' way''. He talks a great deal about Love and says the most important quality in the seeker is ''earnestness''. It has been translated into many languages, but reading it in English is almost as good as in Marathi. This is because M. Frydman, the trans. spoke English and Maharaj knew him VERY well, reviewed the English trans, AND said Frydman was a realized jnani!
Best spiritual book ever published--yet it seems our reviewer wants to seek the authority of a system----which will become mechanical and produce a second-hand person.
Yes! Thanks Brad. So glad you see parallels with Dogen. I find Advaita to be the Zen of Hinduism like Zen is of Buddhism. I am also on my 2nd reading, and decided to dedicate to the practice of "I am" during a 7 day solo walking retreat with some Zazen thrown in. Walking is done, and now will sit at home for 7 more days; more Zazen and staying with "I am." In deciding to stay with "I" I see no difference with it and Shikantaza as the practice goes on-everything is just content of zazen/awareness. Full time dedication is required for both paths. My mind (not awareness) is thoroughly effed atm ☺️.
@@wladddkn1517 I think "Who Am I" cuts to the quick a bit more, because the "I am" is the most elaborate story we have, the closest story we have, the earliest story we have, and the most empty story we have as well. There is one "I am" to work with rather than the infinite "What is This-es." With "who am I" one quickly learns that everything seen is not "I." So we are left with...... THIS! lol
Sorry to intrude, but Just a little light, on Zen etc you posted. Meditation in Sanskrit is falled _Dhayana_ ध्यान When the practice of Meditation (Dhayana) reached China, it was called as _Chan_ 禪 When _Chan_ 禪 reached Japan, it came to be known as _Zen_ 禅 Hence _Zen_ 禅 has its roots in Sanskrit's _Dhyana_ ध्यान Just sharing the roots.
Zen is just another version of original mediation or dhyana which originated in India. People are ignorant because lack of knowledge. Also in modern times east Asian countries being so developed in everything,people have kind over appreciate there things when it is actually just a version of something which originated in poor country modern times It's same for Buddhism as we know it originated in India.
"I Am That" and "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" are canon to this "modern-classic" self-enquiry Advaita. Ramana is the soft touch, Nisargadatta the kyosaku.
@@belaespinosa5892 gees I wrote a big reply yesterday. But it's not posted. I'll aim it like this: impossible for the witness to see the witness, like it's impossible to shake your own hand. So by seeing the non-answers we learn this fact. We infer truth (the answer) but we can never experience it because we ARE the the One who experiences.
Agreed. I was wondering if Brad was familiar with Ramana... Btw, did you know that Talks is not all Ramana's words or accurate? If you enjoy Ramana, check out Michael James. He has excellent free translations of Ramana's actual writing (of which there is very little) and words.
There's something I don't understand. The fact that "everything is one", for me, doesn't mean that there is no soul for example. The same way that you and me are one, and yet if you cut yourself I don't experience pain. We're separate in that sense. Same with Buddhism. It's still not clear to me if the Buddha said there is no soul, or, simply that the soul is not our absolute self, and is itself part of the whole, therefore all is one. The two views are very different. The first view sees things are contradictory. Everything is one so there can be no soul. The second view sees the absolute reality of oneness and yet the relative reality of multiplicity. Many souls, many bodies, you, me. Any help on that ? To help me clarify it ?
I have been practicing exactly the prescribed "method" of this book for 7 days I am taking a day break and will continue for another 7. I can say in my current practice of "being the 'I-am'" I am definitely attached to this practice in a conceptual sense, and I am struggling with it and it is causing/surfacing frustrating suffering. I can only call this Zen sickness, but perhaps not so much because I know I'm not seeing the whole picture just yet. So I continue to practice and look patiently and as gently as I can, but not running from anything (like the shit feeling). Ironic? Idk. But Nisargadatta often says in the beginning with such a practice one will struggle and fight and get beat up by it, because even "I am" is just a mind creation/creature. As Brad quoted from the text it is a practice to see what is NOT. So this struggle definitely brings what is not, and idk... the attachment to this non-real thing brings suffering ie. Zen sickness perhaps? I have great faith from multiple experiences that the way knows no difficulty, so a zen-sickness doesn't deter me, as there is really nothing else to do... My mind is attaching, I think I'm doing the right thing, it is all happening as it does. I am encouraged by this to stay with it patiently and gently but only settling for the real, knowing this desire is also blocking what Is. Zen sickness does suck. Sweet, sweet irony.
@@JordanREALLYreally I would seek advice from an experienced teacher. I don't know about Advaita, but in the zen tradition, it is said that a teacher is very important. Simply because he or she can help with things like that along the way. Clearing doubts, encouraging one direction, or telling you no this is not the way to go, etc. Best.
I am aware of the concept that zazen is both the way and the goal, but essentially doing zazen is a preparation, no ? Could you do a show on that subject, please ? However, I magine you have already delt with that subject.
Brad Warner, seems to me that Sri Nissargadata as many other vedantic teachers didn't realize the union between convention and ultimate reality (two truths), what do you think?
They did realize it... Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi, as well as other true advaita sages like Ramesh Balsekar, Wayne Liquorman all say the same thing. Here's a famous quote by Ramana Maharshi. "The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman." This is the same thing as the Zen saying "there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, and then there is a mountain again."
I'm pretty sure (at least in the traditional advaita tradition), that a clear distinction is made between paramarthika satyam (ultimate reality) and vyavaharika satyam (transactional reality) and that has been been well established. I had some association with Swami Dayananda and then later I knew Ramesh from the mid 90s to early 2000s. Ramesh certainly understood the advaita tradition, he had a very traditional teacher before he met Nissargadatta and that association lasted for 20 years, an AdvaitaVedanta teacher. At that time Ramesh was practising mantra meditation i believe. Anyway, its Implicit in his teaching that the world of appearances and duality is a convention that has to be accepted and respected (as if) its a reality, while also recognising that the truth is one without a second. So pretty much equivalent to the two truths of Buddhism. I agree it's probably less emphasised with some advaita teachers. For example, Guadapada and other more renunciate types. This is particularly true of that aspect of advaita that holds more to the Ajatavada.. rather than the Vivartavada.
I appreciate KK's quote below: I'm not sure if she is suggesting to dismiss I AM THAT all together, so i won't put words in her/his mouth. But, personally -yes, i recognize there is no person ;) - i have found reading and rereading chapters or passages very useful over the years (years and years!!!) for greater understanding of where 'i am at' in practice and life. It has been a constant guide and support. I feel that quotes like that reported by Jean Dunn can undermine the value for, what i feel, is a profound and immensely important collection of teachings- for anyone on the path. Simply, i feel, it is not helpful to take quotes such as these, especially when we are unaware of the context in which the statement was made (Plus, we are presumably getting an interpretation of a translation of what was said.)......My 2 cents.
Thanks Brad. It sounds as an inviting book to read and have. I like the language simplicity expression style used on it. Reality empty from self expresses itself through every one who has had that kind of awakening within and around regardless of any spiritual form tradition.
This video is not a book review, but rather a person's attempt to understand and contextualize a teaching that he hasn't -as of yet, anyway- been able to grasp. I humbly suggest for HZ to continue inquiring-continue reading this book or other wisdom teachings -then, maybe, in 5- 10 years post your commentary. And remember.... ;))) “To escape from the world means that one's mind is not concerned with the opinions of the world.” ― Dōgen, A Primer Of Soto Zen
If we have the Budha nature there is no need for a thing called ethics. every thing is inherent good and perfect before the ego, before the self before yin and the tent and sometimes yang. Its nice the words you use to make things out of your mind and I enjoy your perspective.
I have a question, does anyone know the video Brad did when he talks about the different paths to become a zen teacher? I wanted to find it to share with a friend. I remember it talked about finding a teacher that you could work with one-on-one versus going somewhere where there is more structure to the path and how long it would take. And if I remember the video he didn't talk about the name of the monastery explicitly, but he did say Oregon, so I assume it was Great Vow Monastery. If I remember correctly it was last year between May and June, I have been trying to find it with no luck. Perhaps I was thinking of one of his books as I was listening to a lot of them during that time as well.
Hmmmm... I don't know if I did a video like that. Maybe I did. I did a blog about that, though. You can find it in the FAQ section at hardcorezen.info. Actually, there are a couple of FAQ questions that relate to that issue (How can I become a Zen priest/monk/nun? and How Do I Join a Zen Monastery in Japan? and Do I need a Zen teacher? and How do I find a Zen teacher?). I doubt that I mentioned Oregon or Great Vow Monastery in them, though. I have been to Portland a couple of times but never to Great Vow. I probably mentioned Tassajara and Green Gulch monasteries, because they do teacher training and I know a little tiny bit about the process they follow.
There's an advaita vedanta teacher guy on youtube called Rupert Spira. At least he "studied" it for about 20 years. He doesn't really mention it much in his talks, so I don't know if you could call him an official teacher of it, but I'm sure lots of people watching this channel would appreciate his stuff.
I noticed some comments saying this (Hindu thing) seems so much like "taken" from Zen. This is akin to saying, the Mother took features from daughter. Is it possible? Or we have upturned the relationship upsidedown. Meditation in Sanskrit is falled _Dhayana_ ध्यान When the practice of Meditation (Dhayana) reached China, it was called as _Chan_ 禪 When _Chan_ 禪 reached Japan, it came to be known as _Zen_ 禅 Hence _Zen_ 禅 has its roots in Sanskrit's _Dhyana_ ध्यान Just sharing the roots, and thence we can say which is the precedent to which.
you wonder, when all is said and done, doesJapan really add anything to what developped in India ? Looking at how Ramana was, it seems that it comes down to just realizing anew how things are. But thanks for looking at the roots of buddhism.
When the Japanese began to a c c u l t u r a t e "Ways" from the "West" (i.e. the Asian mainland), they, of course, did it their way, because, for a long time, direct contacts, especially to Central Asia and India, were nearly impossible. People, like Eisai and Dôgen, were really pioneers, who sought for more authentic teachings---inlcuding Zen-meditation, as a special aspect of the Buddha-teachings---in (Southern) Sòng-China. Master Dôgen, at several places in his writings, states this explicitly (paraphrased): He was unsatisfied with the teachings from the Hiei-Montain (Tendai, Kegon), where he had been an apprentice, and thought it being a good idea to travel to mainland China, which then was quite an dangerous adventure.
@@gunterappoldt3037 Thank you Günter. But for us today, do we need to look at Japan ? For the lesson to penetrate each one of us it is probably good that there exists a variety of methods (teachers) even though they are essentially saying exactly the same thing. But when no particular venue strikes one as being more interesting, should we not turn to India where it all began ?
@@andrederomer1629, as Henri Bergson and others quite rightly observed, i.m.o., a big part of our remembering is "intending backwards". The Past speaks to us, we speak to the past. How much transcendent or immanent is the past (or are manifold pasts) relative to us, here and now (as standing-fleeting time-"bubble or -"arrow") ... and in the future ...? I am interested in the history of the Far East (and thereby following certain reality-principles, like calendar- and clock-time), so I try to do some hermeneutics to understand the "voices from the past", coming from different life- and sense-worlds. Now, Dao-Zen is sinicized Buddhism, grossly speaking. Therefore, I also, among other things, "intend backwards" by studying sinitic cultural history, and am at the same time looking for a kind of "philosophia perennis". This is my way to approach the "particular universals" of Dào-Zen. Other people follow other approaches.
This made me think of the Khemaka Sutta from the Samyutta Nikaya: “Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.”
Hey Brad great video, one thing I always wonder is the disagreement between buddhists over the concept of Brahmen and the Buddhist concept of no self, to me they always appear to be the same thing and it seems the disagreement lies in semantics. It seems like they are both describing the same thing.
@@HardcoreZen I also think that. And yet, it's always strange to me that Zen people will most of the time try to make Zen very different by saying WE Buddhists don't believe in self, unlike the Hiiinduus...who believe you are a soul that is in the body and is reincarnated. While they clearly say that Brahma is the absolute, the no-self. Or the Self with a capital S. It just confuses me, even though I practice Zen I don't understand why teachers want to make Zen really different, by exaggerating the difference with Hinduism, which doesn't seem that big when you get that it's semantics.
@@ytonaona all religions tend to posit themselves (sic!) as "unique" or, at least, "supreme". That`s what makes "them"---caveat: Try to prevent or, at least, control, simplifying generalizations!---human, all too human. That`s one possible taxonomy, if you take a foremost sociological perspective, especially if you go with E. Durkheim, one of the founding-fathers of the academic discipline of sociology: "Religion" (as an institution) is that, what fundamentally makes human societies conscious of themselves (via rites and myths and so forth). --- And it`s part of the "play of differences" (P. Bourdieu), which helps to structure communities and societies via symbolic interactions (Garfinkel, Strauss, Psathas et.al.).
Thanks for the review! That book sounds really interesting. I had no idea that there was a Zennish "no self" tradition in Hinduism. (Or I should say one sect of Hinduism.) I think I will buy the book and read it.
Yeah. It's funny. Some of the Advaita Vedanta guys will use the word "atman" and "self" a lot. But when you look at what they say about it, they mean "no-self." And loads of Zen guys (Kodo Sawaki, for example, and Dogen) use the word "self" a whole lot too.
The Zen and Advaita treaties by Leesa something-or-other references that these differing points are only a mirroring of sorts to each other, and that both Atman and no-self are leading to non-duality anyway. Makiyo.
@@HardcoreZen a short philologist remark: Seen from the Daoist sources, namely Master Zhuang, the understanding of this vital matrix, called "human being" (人) is quite complex, operating, on the semantic level, with signifiers, like: 自，己，吾， 我， 凡夫， 本人，至人，仙 , and, last not least, the "primordial self" (which, paradoxically, is quasi-locaated near to, but not identical, with the Great Dào) of the "nature" (性), later taken up by Chán/Sôn/Zen as the "Buddha-nature" (佛性)。
@@HardcoreZen: With special reference to the "nèi pian" (Inner Chapters) of the book of Master Zhuang, the 仙 can be interpreted as a kind of "perfecti", that is, human beings who attained a higher status of conscious-being with a "beatificed body" (ger. verklärter Leib), who can "float in the air and nourish on dew" (paraphrased). These "model personalities" are most probably not to be equated with the classical mahayanist Bodhisattvas. But in the course of history, there developed some intercultural mixages, so that the psycho-cosmologies of Daoism and Zen began to "mirror" each other in many ways. Some cults became so syncretistic that their adherents could not tell, if they were Buddhists, Daoists, or whatever. That applies also to some "new creeds/religions" in the Far East today. The epistemological-ontological status of this "other, higher beings" is hard to judge, especially if you are not a "learned Daoist" (that is, learned via master---pupil apprenticeship), which I am not, only got some glimpses. "Haradcore Daoism" seems to be something like a closed shop. In this respect, Chán/Zen is more "catholic", that is, "concerning everybody, and open (for membership) for anybody". It is rather esoteric, operating with secret teachings ("for intern use only"), and thereby somehow excluding the "masses" of the "popular religion(s)". Sounds a bit complicated---and, it seems, it really is. Kristoffer Schipper gave some informations on the Daoist "system" in his monograph "The Taoist Body". Concepts of self, being, conscious-being and so forth seem in some aspects differ markedly from those in standard Buddhism. The basic "matrix" seems to be that of an "organic naturalism", which found some correspondences in the holistic paradigms of teh "new schools" of Huáyén (Kegon) and Tiantái (Tendai) during the time of the Táng-dynasty. The figure of the hero/sage, named 仙, may even hearken back to older forms of Shamanism in the "southern flowering lands". Sometimes I even suspect that Carlos Castaneda integrated some aspects of these in his anthropological science fiction, like the concept of the unorthodox "brujos" he describes, beginning with Don Juan Matus, and the basic matrix of the "bubble of perception" and the two "spheres" of the Tonal and Nagual. I was not the first and only to notice some correspondences with the Yin-Yáng schema of the Yìjing-Learning. That is all rather complicated. Seeing from the literary, semantic side, at least this can be positively said (according to my current understanding): 1) Daoism developed a "pantheon" with a hierarchy of beings (including ideas of a "soul ladder", based on the Yìjing-system, and so forth). 2) The 仙 rank higher than ordinary human beings. 3) There are other "model personalities", like the "perfecti" (至人), which shows that the Daoist movement is rather flexible in its structure (but the hardcore personage can be quite dogmatic, too). 4) There are some standard techniques, which can help with perfection, like the famous arts of the diverse "ways" of Gongfu and Qìgong. 5) The way of perfection has strong moral-ethic components, but is not as much "pan-moralistic" as standard Buddhism. 6) The 仙 are not as clearly defined as the Bodhisattvas, since Daoists tend more towards improvisation than the standars Buddhists with their strong "drive for controlling". This would be some impressions from my side, regarding concepts of Self---No-Self in Daoism, which is a "vast field" (ger.: weites Feld), indeed.
Nisargadatta spoke Marathi, and I have read the account of some native speaker that he was very funny in his talks, and it seems to be lost in translation. That Mumbai citizen who told that, said he frequented to Nisargadatta's satsangs enjoying his sence of humor. And YES - advaita-vedanta IS a trap
What does this trap thing mean? (I’m asking as someone who’s completely ignorant but has been a little bit drawn to some watered down derivative AV stuff recently)
@@DavidS-dw1wv You'd have to ask Tim. I did, but he didn't want to say anymore. I think it's that whenever someone explains something, we tend to take that explanation as a kind of statement of fact. You can get hooked on the various terms used to explain the thing and assume you understand it when you only understand your own definitions of those terms. Zan has the same problem.
Hardcore Zen makes sense. Reminds me of politics in a way. Left and right each have their own self-sustaining system, each able to prove on its own terms that the other is wrong.
Hello Brad. I was just looking at the conscious.tv item featuring John Rowan. Arent we going to end up like this guy (if all goes well )? Laughing about Joshu's answer to the question Does the dog have buddha nature ? So let's be just as free as this Rowan guy, no ?
Which Bhagawad Gita did you read man? If you read As It Is please get a different version. Bhagawad Gita: As It Is is published by ISKON which is trying to spread a false Hinduism and trying to make it into an abrahamic religion. They have their own agendas. Please read the one by Swami Ramsukhdas. He was a saint that refuted money and wealth and lived a simple life. Wherever money becomes a factor, the organisation becomes corrupted.
I own a few different translations of Bhagavad Gita, including As It Is. I'm aware that As It Is presents a very specific philosophical standpoint, which is not the standard one. I could tell that even when I didn't know much about Hinduism. It's kind of obvious! I've also noticed that As It Is presents a view of Bhagavad Gita that is very similar to the Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Bible. Thank you for your suggestion. I'll look for that version.
I was curious about the mention of a deep trap and the stink of zen - I haven't heard these phrases before. I found this PDF which is about the supposed dangers of meditation (it features a perpetrator of a mass murder who meditated, historical violence associated with buddhism, various conflicts and so on). On page 169 (PDF page 29) it has a section called "Zen soldiers" which seems to be arguing that zen does not have sufficient moral/ethical rules to make it safe - that people can be brought into a zen-ish (I don't know all the words - sorry) selflessness, the emptiness of which can allow any kind of action such as murder, war, terrorism, or genocide. meditatinginsafety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Dark_Side_Chapter_final-1.pdf I'm not saying I endorse this - I don't really know what zen is about anyway - I'm just a random curious youtube explorer - but I thought if anyone else found the phrases a bit mysterious this might possibly shed some light on what someone might perceive as a danger.
This PDF contains some weird nuggets such as "She welcomed me at her house in Reading, about an hour west of London. It felt odd to call her Swami Am-bi-ka-nan-da, seven full syllables of a name; her direct and expansive personality seemed to require no more than two". I have no idea who that is, or who the author is, but that is a weird thing to say.
That's not the sort of "trap" or "stink" my teacher was talking about. What you're asking about is an entirely different issue. It's a very interesting issue. But it's not what my teacher meant by using those words. What he meant was that when you get too involved in a specific formula for understanding things, you can end up losing sight of the truth. The truth can't be captured in words. But human beings often get stuck in words. When we are able to repeat a formula, we often think that we fully understand it. But actually we're just trapped by the words we have learned. As for the dangers of Zen, "Zen soldiers" and whether or not Zen lacks morality an ethics... these are complaints you hear a lot. But I cannot comprehend why anyone would say Zen lacks ethics. I'm not sure what kind of Zen they're talking about. Because the Zen I learned was almost obsessed with ethics. The first thing you do when you officially enter into a sangha (Buddhist community) is take a public vow to uphold a very strict set of ethical standards. And yet the argument continues to be made that Zen teachings like "emptiness" and "non-self" are dangerous and promote unethical behavior. It is true that, in the past, specifically during World War 2, some of those ideas were used by corrupt and immoral people to justify acts of violence. But that sort of use is clearly in violation of the longstanding ethical principles that Zen has always advocated.
Hardcore Zen Ah thank you for this detailed reply. I appreciate it very much. I hope I haven’t caused any trouble and please feel free to remove my above comment if you find it inappropriate. What you said about words reminds me of something I saw Rupert Spira say on a UA-cam video once - he was telling someone they don’t need to read any more books and they instead need to - I don’t know - do the Direct Path thing. Think some thoughts about awareness and do some yoga meditations and realise they’re actually awareness/consciousness or something. My point is - he was saying stop reading, the words are adding more junk you need to see through? Something like that. So I imagine a total layperson like me finding A.V. could easily feel “oh yeah, this seems logical. search over.” Or maybe get lost in semantics. I don’t know enough about zen to say anything about it one way or the other morally/ethically, so I take your words in good faith and look forward to learning more 🙂
Sorry, Brad, but at the start of this, you come across as whiny and egoic and attached (and consequently biased) to your own path. Exactly the messy stuff of mind that Nisargadatta blows apart! One doesn’t need to sit on a cushion for many lifetimes! Zen doesn’t own the moon pointed to.
I love this book. I have read it a few times myself. One of the coolest things about it is, that it's always fresh no matter how many times one reads it. And as I've said before, my teacher based many of his teishos on this book, cause after all, truth is truth, no matter who says it. These are two of my favourite passages..........That which you are, your true self, you love it, and whatever you do, you do for your own happiness. To find it, to know it, to cherish it is your basic urge. Sense time immemorial you loved yourself, but never wisely. Use your body and mind wisely in the service of the self, that is all. Be true to your own self, love your self absolutely. Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have realized them as one with yourself, you cannot love them. Don’t pretend to be what you are not, don’t refuse to be what you are. Your love of others is the result of self-knowledge, not it’s cause. Without self-realization, no virtue is genuine. When you know beyond doubting that the same life flows through all that is, and you are that life, you will love all naturally and spontaneously. When you realize the depth and fullness of your love of yourself, you know that every living being and the entire universe are included in your affection. But when you look at anything as separate from you, you cannot love it for you are afraid of it. Alienation causes fear and fear deepens alienation, It is a vicious circle. Only self-realization can brake it. Go for it resolutely. And........................................................................................................ You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them.
@@HardcoreZen Sorry, I had a bunch of passages like that marked in my copy, but I lost it when I moved. The only reason that I can post these is that I liked them so much I wrote them down.
@@HardcoreZen I have the pdf, don't know what page number it would translate to but first quote is from chapter 46. Awareness of Being is Bliss, it's under the last question in that chapter. Second quote is in chapter 63. Notion of Doership is Bondage , under the question "Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense? "
One of THE best books ever. It cuts to the bone. If you want to get real about locking into your awareness, both Nisargadatta & Ramana Maharshi will get you there.
It is a book that no will ever feel they have ''read'' (past tense, ''done with that''). I re read it every year. For me, (a practicing Theravada Buddhist) it is the greatest single spiritual collection (101 stand alone dialogues) I have ever encountered. Jack Kornfield (also trained in Theravada Buddhism) quotes from him often. His native language was Marathi. And yes, your experience of being nonplussed at first, is normal. The dialogues are not cumulative (you could read it from the last dialog to the first just as readily as the ''normal'' way''. He talks a great deal about Love and says the most important quality in the seeker is ''earnestness''. It has been translated into many languages, but reading it in English is almost as good as in Marathi. This is because M. Frydman, the trans. spoke English and Maharaj knew him VERY well, reviewed the English trans, AND said Frydman was a realized jnani!
If you enjoy non-duality, the transparency of things by Rupert Spira is as clear as it gets!
Love the Rupe!
I'll heck him out. Thanks!
Hardcore Zen Hope you mean check! I wouldn't want Rupert to be hecked :(. You're welcome, thanks for the video!
@@poikkiki Oops.
Best spiritual book ever published--yet it seems our reviewer wants to seek the authority of a system----which will become mechanical and produce a second-hand person.
Yes! Thanks Brad. So glad you see parallels with Dogen. I find Advaita to be the Zen of Hinduism like Zen is of Buddhism. I am also on my 2nd reading, and decided to dedicate to the practice of "I am" during a 7 day solo walking retreat with some Zazen thrown in. Walking is done, and now will sit at home for 7 more days; more Zazen and staying with "I am." In deciding to stay with "I" I see no difference with it and Shikantaza as the practice goes on-everything is just content of zazen/awareness. Full time dedication is required for both paths. My mind (not awareness) is thoroughly effed atm ☺️.
Does it resemble the practice of "what is this?"?
@@wladddkn1517 I think "Who Am I" cuts to the quick a bit more, because the "I am" is the most elaborate story we have, the closest story we have, the earliest story we have, and the most empty story we have as well. There is one "I am" to work with rather than the infinite "What is This-es." With "who am I" one quickly learns that everything seen is not "I." So we are left with...... THIS! lol
Sorry to intrude, but Just a little light, on Zen etc you posted.
Meditation in Sanskrit is falled _Dhayana_ ध्यान
When the practice of Meditation (Dhayana) reached China, it was called as _Chan_ 禪
When _Chan_ 禪 reached Japan, it came to be known as _Zen_ 禅
Hence _Zen_ 禅 has its roots in Sanskrit's _Dhyana_ ध्यान
Just sharing the roots.
Zen is just another version of original mediation or dhyana which originated in India.
People are ignorant because lack of knowledge.
Also in modern times east Asian countries being so developed in everything,people have kind over appreciate there things when it is actually just a version of something which originated in poor country modern times
It's same for Buddhism as we know it originated in India.
"I Am That" and "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" are canon to this "modern-classic" self-enquiry Advaita. Ramana is the soft touch, Nisargadatta the kyosaku.
Nailed it!
perhaps the big step is the recognition that I am not that or that, nor that ... my question is if that question can lead to a non-answer
@@belaespinosa5892 gees I wrote a big reply yesterday. But it's not posted. I'll aim it like this: impossible for the witness to see the witness, like it's impossible to shake your own hand. So by seeing the non-answers we learn this fact. We infer truth (the answer) but we can never experience it because we ARE the the One who experiences.
@@johndanalis1094 lol
Agreed. I was wondering if Brad was familiar with Ramana... Btw, did you know that Talks is not all Ramana's words or accurate? If you enjoy Ramana, check out Michael James. He has excellent free translations of Ramana's actual writing (of which there is very little) and words.
Really nice stand alone quotes! I would love to hear more about this sort of "deep deep trap" and the "stink of zen"
You'll have to ask Tim!
There's something I don't understand.
The fact that "everything is one", for me, doesn't mean that there is no soul for example.
The same way that you and me are one, and yet if you cut yourself I don't experience pain. We're separate in that sense.
Same with Buddhism.
It's still not clear to me if the Buddha said there is no soul, or, simply that the soul is not our absolute self, and is itself part of the whole, therefore all is one.
The two views are very different.
The first view sees things are contradictory. Everything is one so there can be no soul.
The second view sees the absolute reality of oneness and yet the relative reality of multiplicity. Many souls, many bodies, you, me.
Any help on that ? To help me clarify it ?
I have been practicing exactly the prescribed "method" of this book for 7 days I am taking a day break and will continue for another 7. I can say in my current practice of "being the 'I-am'" I am definitely attached to this practice in a conceptual sense, and I am struggling with it and it is causing/surfacing frustrating suffering. I can only call this Zen sickness, but perhaps not so much because I know I'm not seeing the whole picture just yet. So I continue to practice and look patiently and as gently as I can, but not running from anything (like the shit feeling). Ironic? Idk. But Nisargadatta often says in the beginning with such a practice one will struggle and fight and get beat up by it, because even "I am" is just a mind creation/creature. As Brad quoted from the text it is a practice to see what is NOT. So this struggle definitely brings what is not, and idk... the attachment to this non-real thing brings suffering ie. Zen sickness perhaps? I have great faith from multiple experiences that the way knows no difficulty, so a zen-sickness doesn't deter me, as there is really nothing else to do... My mind is attaching, I think I'm doing the right thing, it is all happening as it does. I am encouraged by this to stay with it patiently and gently but only settling for the real, knowing this desire is also blocking what Is. Zen sickness does suck. Sweet, sweet irony.
@@JordanREALLYreally total rubbish, this is crazy shit man !
@@JordanREALLYreally I would seek advice from an experienced teacher.
I don't know about Advaita, but in the zen tradition, it is said that a teacher is very important. Simply because he or she can help with things like that along the way.
Clearing doubts, encouraging one direction, or telling you no this is not the way to go, etc.
Best.
Thank you. Lots of Love. Take Care of yourself.
You too, Linda!
I am aware of the concept that zazen is both the way and the goal, but essentially doing zazen is a preparation, no ? Could you do a show on that subject, please ? However, I magine you have already delt with that subject.
Brad Warner, seems to me that Sri Nissargadata as many other vedantic teachers didn't realize the union between convention and ultimate reality (two truths), what do you think?
It's certainly less emphasized in that tradition. This may be one of the major differences.
They did realize it... Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi, as well as other true advaita sages like Ramesh Balsekar, Wayne Liquorman all say the same thing. Here's a famous quote by Ramana Maharshi. "The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman." This is the same thing as the Zen saying "there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, and then there is a mountain again."
I'm pretty sure (at least in the traditional advaita tradition), that a clear distinction is made between paramarthika satyam (ultimate reality) and vyavaharika satyam (transactional reality) and that has been been well established. I had some association with Swami Dayananda and then later I knew Ramesh from the mid 90s to early 2000s. Ramesh certainly understood the advaita tradition, he had a very traditional teacher before he met Nissargadatta and that association lasted for 20 years, an AdvaitaVedanta teacher. At that time Ramesh was practising mantra meditation i believe. Anyway, its Implicit in his teaching that the world of appearances and duality is a convention that has to be accepted and respected (as if) its a reality, while also recognising that the truth is one without a second. So pretty much equivalent to the two truths of Buddhism.
I agree it's probably less emphasised with some advaita teachers. For example, Guadapada and other more renunciate types. This is particularly true of that aspect of advaita that holds more to the Ajatavada.. rather than the Vivartavada.
I appreciate KK's quote below: I'm not sure if she is suggesting to dismiss I AM THAT all together, so i won't put words in her/his mouth. But, personally -yes, i recognize there is no person ;) - i have found reading and rereading chapters or passages very useful over the years (years and years!!!) for greater understanding of where 'i am at' in practice and life. It has been a constant guide and support. I feel that quotes like that reported by Jean Dunn can undermine the value for, what i feel, is a profound and immensely important collection of teachings- for anyone on the path. Simply, i feel, it is not helpful to take quotes such as these, especially when we are unaware of the context in which the statement was made (Plus, we are presumably getting an interpretation of a translation of what was said.)......My 2 cents.
"Forget 'I am That*'.
I realised so much more since then.
It's so much deeper."
- Nisargadatta before his death, reported by Jean Dunn
Interesting.
One of the greatest, Nisargadatta Maharaj. Thanks!
Great Job, sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is Awesome 👍🏼
Thanks Brad. It sounds as an inviting book to read and have. I like the language simplicity expression style used on it. Reality empty from self expresses itself through every one who has had that kind of awakening within and around regardless of any spiritual form tradition.
This video is not a book review, but rather a person's attempt to understand and contextualize a teaching that he hasn't -as of yet, anyway- been able to grasp. I humbly suggest for HZ to continue inquiring-continue reading this book or other wisdom teachings -then, maybe, in 5- 10 years post your commentary.
And remember.... ;)))
“To escape from the world means that one's mind is not concerned with the opinions of the world.”
― Dōgen, A Primer Of Soto Zen
I tried to look up what their monsteries are like, but search engines aren't showing me anything. Too bad.
If we have the Budha nature there is no need for a thing called ethics. every thing is inherent good and perfect before the ego, before the self before yin and the tent and sometimes yang. Its nice the words you use to make things out of your mind and I enjoy your perspective.
I have a question, does anyone know the video Brad did when he talks about the different paths to become a zen teacher? I wanted to find it to share with a friend. I remember it talked about finding a teacher that you could work with one-on-one versus going somewhere where there is more structure to the path and how long it would take. And if I remember the video he didn't talk about the name of the monastery explicitly, but he did say Oregon, so I assume it was Great Vow Monastery. If I remember correctly it was last year between May and June, I have been trying to find it with no luck. Perhaps I was thinking of one of his books as I was listening to a lot of them during that time as well.
Hmmmm... I don't know if I did a video like that. Maybe I did. I did a blog about that, though. You can find it in the FAQ section at hardcorezen.info. Actually, there are a couple of FAQ questions that relate to that issue (How can I become a Zen priest/monk/nun? and How Do I Join a Zen Monastery in Japan? and Do I need a Zen teacher? and How do I find a Zen teacher?). I doubt that I mentioned Oregon or Great Vow Monastery in them, though. I have been to Portland a couple of times but never to Great Vow. I probably mentioned Tassajara and Green Gulch monasteries, because they do teacher training and I know a little tiny bit about the process they follow.
There's an advaita vedanta teacher guy on youtube called Rupert Spira.
At least he "studied" it for about 20 years.
He doesn't really mention it much in his talks, so I don't know if you could call him an official teacher of it, but I'm sure lots of people watching this channel would appreciate his stuff.
Love your channel :-)
Thank you!
I noticed some comments saying this (Hindu thing) seems so much like "taken" from Zen.
This is akin to saying, the Mother took features from daughter. Is it possible? Or we have upturned the relationship upsidedown.
Meditation in Sanskrit is falled _Dhayana_ ध्यान
When the practice of Meditation (Dhayana) reached China, it was called as _Chan_ 禪
When _Chan_ 禪 reached Japan, it came to be known as _Zen_ 禅
Hence _Zen_ 禅 has its roots in Sanskrit's _Dhyana_ ध्यान
Just sharing the roots, and thence we can say which is the precedent to which.
Zen leads to Advaita, which is the end of all seeking.
Zen eventually leads to advaita which in the end leads to nothing...😁😉😘
you wonder, when all is said and done, doesJapan really add anything to what developped in India ? Looking at how Ramana was, it seems that it comes down to just realizing anew how things are. But thanks for looking at the roots of buddhism.
When the Japanese began to a c c u l t u r a t e "Ways" from the "West" (i.e. the Asian mainland), they, of course, did it their way, because, for a long time, direct contacts, especially to Central Asia and India, were nearly impossible. People, like Eisai and Dôgen, were really pioneers, who sought for more authentic teachings---inlcuding Zen-meditation, as a special aspect of the Buddha-teachings---in (Southern) Sòng-China. Master Dôgen, at several places in his writings, states this explicitly (paraphrased): He was unsatisfied with the teachings from the Hiei-Montain (Tendai, Kegon), where he had been an apprentice, and thought it being a good idea to travel to mainland China, which then was quite an dangerous adventure.
@@gunterappoldt3037 Thank you Günter. But for us today, do we need to look at Japan ? For the lesson to penetrate each one of us it is probably good that there exists a variety of methods (teachers) even though they are essentially saying exactly the same thing. But when no particular venue strikes one as being more interesting, should we not turn to India where it all began ?
@@andrederomer1629, as Henri Bergson and others quite rightly observed, i.m.o., a big part of our remembering is "intending backwards". The Past speaks to us, we speak to the past. How much transcendent or immanent is the past (or are manifold pasts) relative to us, here and now (as standing-fleeting time-"bubble or -"arrow") ... and in the future ...?
I am interested in the history of the Far East (and thereby following certain reality-principles, like calendar- and clock-time), so I try to do some hermeneutics to understand the "voices from the past", coming from different life- and sense-worlds.
Now, Dao-Zen is sinicized Buddhism, grossly speaking. Therefore, I also, among other things, "intend backwards" by studying sinitic cultural history, and am at the same time looking for a kind of "philosophia perennis". This is my way to approach the "particular universals" of Dào-Zen. Other people follow other approaches.
This made me think of the Khemaka Sutta from the Samyutta Nikaya: “Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.”
Yes, "I am That" means quite the same as "there is no I-me-mine" (nahamkara-namamankara)
Wlad DDKN no, that’s impossible for them to mean the same thing. “I am that” is wrong view because it starts with an assumption of self.
@@trevorjones8737 , well. if X is Z, then X is not X, = no X.
Wlad DDKN when this is, this is. When that is, that is.
@@trevorjones8737 well, yeah, if this and that are in mutual interdependance, then abcence of this means abcence of that, right?
Hey Brad great video, one thing I always wonder is the disagreement between buddhists over the concept of Brahmen and the Buddhist concept of no self, to me they always appear to be the same thing and it seems the disagreement lies in semantics. It seems like they are both describing the same thing.
I think that's true. Not in every case. But in lots of cases both atman and brahman seem to be different ways of saying "no self."
@@HardcoreZen I also think that. And yet, it's always strange to me that Zen people will most of the time try to make Zen very different by saying WE Buddhists don't believe in self, unlike the Hiiinduus...who believe you are a soul that is in the body and is reincarnated.
While they clearly say that Brahma is the absolute, the no-self. Or the Self with a capital S.
It just confuses me, even though I practice Zen I don't understand why teachers want to make Zen really different, by exaggerating the difference with Hinduism, which doesn't seem that big when you get that it's semantics.
@@ytonaona all religions tend to posit themselves (sic!) as "unique" or, at least, "supreme". That`s what makes "them"---caveat: Try to prevent or, at least, control, simplifying generalizations!---human, all too human.
That`s one possible taxonomy, if you take a foremost sociological perspective, especially if you go with E. Durkheim, one of the founding-fathers of the academic discipline of sociology: "Religion" (as an institution) is that, what fundamentally makes human societies conscious of themselves (via rites and myths and so forth). --- And it`s part of the "play of differences" (P. Bourdieu), which helps to structure communities and societies via symbolic interactions (Garfinkel, Strauss, Psathas et.al.).
There are some Hindu traditions that see Buddhism not as another religion but as another form of Hinduism
@@iloverumi The genius of Hinduism is that it can define any religion as a form of Hinduism.
There is no Advaita in the teachings of Nisargadatta, just like there is no Zen in the teachings of Huang Po.
So mayby now topics "sting of zen" and " problems of the vedanta "
I bought the book when you mentioned it, not a fan of ?/answer, let it sit, got bored picked it up, so, so and then it took off for me. Great book!
Can we donate books to you?
Thank you for the offer. But right now I am trying to reduce the number of books that I own. I have far too many!
I love you channel :)
Thank you!
Thanks for the review! That book sounds really interesting. I had no idea that there was a Zennish "no self" tradition in Hinduism. (Or I should say one sect of Hinduism.) I think I will buy the book and read it.
Yeah. It's funny. Some of the Advaita Vedanta guys will use the word "atman" and "self" a lot. But when you look at what they say about it, they mean "no-self." And loads of Zen guys (Kodo Sawaki, for example, and Dogen) use the word "self" a whole lot too.
The Zen and Advaita treaties by Leesa something-or-other references that these differing points are only a mirroring of sorts to each other, and that both Atman and no-self are leading to non-duality anyway. Makiyo.
@@HardcoreZen a short philologist remark: Seen from the Daoist sources, namely Master Zhuang, the understanding of this vital matrix, called "human being" (人) is quite complex, operating, on the semantic level, with signifiers, like: 自，己，吾， 我， 凡夫， 本人，至人，仙 , and, last not least, the "primordial self" (which, paradoxically, is quasi-locaated near to, but not identical, with the Great Dào) of the "nature" (性), later taken up by Chán/Sôn/Zen as the "Buddha-nature" (佛性)。
@@gunterappoldt3037 I didn't know 仙 could be interpreted as "self."
@@HardcoreZen: With special reference to the "nèi pian" (Inner Chapters) of the book of Master Zhuang, the 仙 can be interpreted as a kind of "perfecti", that is, human beings who attained a higher status of conscious-being with a "beatificed body" (ger. verklärter Leib), who can "float in the air and nourish on dew" (paraphrased).
These "model personalities" are most probably not to be equated with the classical mahayanist Bodhisattvas.
But in the course of history, there developed some intercultural mixages, so that the psycho-cosmologies of Daoism and Zen began to "mirror" each other in many ways. Some cults became so syncretistic that their adherents could not tell, if they were Buddhists, Daoists, or whatever. That applies also to some "new creeds/religions" in the Far East today.
The epistemological-ontological status of this "other, higher beings" is hard to judge, especially if you are not a "learned Daoist" (that is, learned via master---pupil apprenticeship), which I am not, only got some glimpses.
"Haradcore Daoism" seems to be something like a closed shop. In this respect, Chán/Zen is more "catholic", that is, "concerning everybody, and open (for membership) for anybody". It is rather esoteric, operating with secret teachings ("for intern use only"), and thereby somehow excluding the "masses" of the "popular religion(s)". Sounds a bit complicated---and, it seems, it really is.
Kristoffer Schipper gave some informations on the Daoist "system" in his monograph "The Taoist Body".
Concepts of self, being, conscious-being and so forth seem in some aspects differ markedly from those in standard Buddhism. The basic "matrix" seems to be that of an "organic naturalism", which found some correspondences in the holistic paradigms of teh "new schools" of Huáyén (Kegon) and Tiantái (Tendai) during the time of the Táng-dynasty.
The figure of the hero/sage, named 仙, may even hearken back to older forms of Shamanism in the "southern flowering lands". Sometimes I even suspect that Carlos Castaneda integrated some aspects of these in his anthropological science fiction, like the concept of the unorthodox "brujos" he describes, beginning with Don Juan Matus, and the basic matrix of the "bubble of perception" and the two "spheres" of the Tonal and Nagual. I was not the first and only to notice some correspondences with the Yin-Yáng schema of the Yìjing-Learning.
That is all rather complicated. Seeing from the literary, semantic side, at least this can be positively said (according to my current understanding):
1) Daoism developed a "pantheon" with a hierarchy of beings (including ideas of a "soul ladder", based on the Yìjing-system, and so forth).
2) The 仙 rank higher than ordinary human beings.
3) There are other "model personalities", like the "perfecti" (至人), which shows that the Daoist movement is rather flexible in its structure (but the hardcore personage can be quite dogmatic, too).
4) There are some standard techniques, which can help with perfection, like the famous arts of the diverse "ways" of Gongfu and Qìgong.
5) The way of perfection has strong moral-ethic components, but is not as much "pan-moralistic" as standard Buddhism.
6) The 仙 are not as clearly defined as the Bodhisattvas, since Daoists tend more towards improvisation than the standars Buddhists with their strong "drive for controlling".
This would be some impressions from my side, regarding concepts of Self---No-Self in Daoism, which is a "vast field" (ger.: weites Feld), indeed.
Nisargadatta spoke Marathi, and I have read the account of some native speaker that he was very funny in his talks, and it seems to be lost in translation. That Mumbai citizen who told that, said he frequented to Nisargadatta's satsangs enjoying his sence of humor.
And YES - advaita-vedanta IS a trap
That's interesting. I've seen some films of him. It looks like he could be a funny guy.
What does this trap thing mean? (I’m asking as someone who’s completely ignorant but has been a little bit drawn to some watered down derivative AV stuff recently)
@@DavidS-dw1wv You'd have to ask Tim. I did, but he didn't want to say anymore. I think it's that whenever someone explains something, we tend to take that explanation as a kind of statement of fact. You can get hooked on the various terms used to explain the thing and assume you understand it when you only understand your own definitions of those terms. Zan has the same problem.
Hardcore Zen makes sense. Reminds me of politics in a way. Left and right each have their own self-sustaining system, each able to prove on its own terms that the other is wrong.
Hello Brad. I was just looking at the conscious.tv item featuring John Rowan. Arent we going to end up like this guy (if all goes well )? Laughing about Joshu's answer to the question Does the dog have buddha nature ? So let's be just as free as this Rowan guy, no ?
Found mentioned book and given a quick look into three first chapters. It’s an ok book but not for me at present.
The book gets progressively deeper. The first 3 chapters arent a great representation of the whole book, but yeah trust your gut.
Ethan Schaltegger : Thanks.
Which Bhagawad Gita did you read man? If you read As It Is please get a different version. Bhagawad Gita: As It Is is published by ISKON which is trying to spread a false Hinduism and trying to make it into an abrahamic religion. They have their own agendas.
Please read the one by Swami Ramsukhdas. He was a saint that refuted money and wealth and lived a simple life.
Wherever money becomes a factor, the organisation becomes corrupted.
I own a few different translations of Bhagavad Gita, including As It Is. I'm aware that As It Is presents a very specific philosophical standpoint, which is not the standard one. I could tell that even when I didn't know much about Hinduism. It's kind of obvious! I've also noticed that As It Is presents a view of Bhagavad Gita that is very similar to the Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Bible.
Thank you for your suggestion. I'll look for that version.
I was curious about the mention of a deep trap and the stink of zen - I haven't heard these phrases before. I found this PDF which is about the supposed dangers of meditation (it features a perpetrator of a mass murder who meditated, historical violence associated with buddhism, various conflicts and so on). On page 169 (PDF page 29) it has a section called "Zen soldiers" which seems to be arguing that zen does not have sufficient moral/ethical rules to make it safe - that people can be brought into a zen-ish (I don't know all the words - sorry) selflessness, the emptiness of which can allow any kind of action such as murder, war, terrorism, or genocide. meditatinginsafety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Dark_Side_Chapter_final-1.pdf I'm not saying I endorse this - I don't really know what zen is about anyway - I'm just a random curious youtube explorer - but I thought if anyone else found the phrases a bit mysterious this might possibly shed some light on what someone might perceive as a danger.
This PDF contains some weird nuggets such as
"She welcomed me at her house in Reading, about an hour west
of London. It felt odd to call her Swami Am-bi-ka-nan-da, seven full
syllables of a name; her direct and expansive personality seemed to
require no more than two".
I have no idea who that is, or who the author is, but that is a weird thing to say.
That's not the sort of "trap" or "stink" my teacher was talking about. What you're asking about is an entirely different issue. It's a very interesting issue. But it's not what my teacher meant by using those words.
What he meant was that when you get too involved in a specific formula for understanding things, you can end up losing sight of the truth. The truth can't be captured in words. But human beings often get stuck in words. When we are able to repeat a formula, we often think that we fully understand it. But actually we're just trapped by the words we have learned.
As for the dangers of Zen, "Zen soldiers" and whether or not Zen lacks morality an ethics... these are complaints you hear a lot. But I cannot comprehend why anyone would say Zen lacks ethics. I'm not sure what kind of Zen they're talking about. Because the Zen I learned was almost obsessed with ethics. The first thing you do when you officially enter into a sangha (Buddhist community) is take a public vow to uphold a very strict set of ethical standards.
And yet the argument continues to be made that Zen teachings like "emptiness" and "non-self" are dangerous and promote unethical behavior. It is true that, in the past, specifically during World War 2, some of those ideas were used by corrupt and immoral people to justify acts of violence. But that sort of use is clearly in violation of the longstanding ethical principles that Zen has always advocated.
Hardcore Zen Ah thank you for this detailed reply. I appreciate it very much. I hope I haven’t caused any trouble and please feel free to remove my above comment if you find it inappropriate. What you said about words reminds me of something I saw Rupert Spira say on a UA-cam video once - he was telling someone they don’t need to read any more books and they instead need to - I don’t know - do the Direct Path thing. Think some thoughts about awareness and do some yoga meditations and realise they’re actually awareness/consciousness or something. My point is - he was saying stop reading, the words are adding more junk you need to see through? Something like that. So I imagine a total layperson like me finding A.V. could easily feel “oh yeah, this seems logical. search over.” Or maybe get lost in semantics.
I don’t know enough about zen to say anything about it one way or the other morally/ethically, so I take your words in good faith and look forward to learning more 🙂
Sorry, Brad, but at the start of this, you come across as whiny and egoic and attached (and consequently biased) to your own path. Exactly the messy stuff of mind that Nisargadatta blows apart! One doesn’t need to sit on a cushion for many lifetimes! Zen doesn’t own the moon pointed to.
I apologize.
I love this book. I have read it a few times myself. One of the coolest things about it is, that it's always fresh no matter how many times one reads it. And as I've said before, my teacher based many of his teishos on this book, cause after all, truth is truth, no matter who says it.
These are two of my favourite passages..........That which you are, your true self, you love it, and whatever you do, you do for your own happiness. To find it, to know it, to cherish it is your basic urge. Sense time immemorial you loved yourself, but never wisely. Use your body and mind wisely in the service of the self, that is all. Be true to your own self, love your self absolutely. Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have realized them as one with yourself, you cannot love them. Don’t pretend to be what you are not, don’t refuse to be what you are. Your love of others is the result of self-knowledge, not it’s cause. Without self-realization, no virtue is genuine. When you know beyond doubting that the same life flows through all that is, and you are that life, you will love all naturally and spontaneously. When you realize the depth and fullness of your love of yourself, you know that every living being and the entire universe are included in your affection. But when you look at anything as separate from you, you cannot love it for you are afraid of it. Alienation causes fear and fear deepens alienation, It is a vicious circle. Only self-realization can brake it. Go for it resolutely. And........................................................................................................
You suffer because you have alienated yourself from reality and now you seek an escape from this alienation. You cannot escape from your own obsessions. You can only cease nursing them.
Whoa! Those are GREAT! How did I miss them? Do you know the page numbers?
@@HardcoreZen Sorry, I had a bunch of passages like that marked in my copy, but I lost it when I moved. The only reason that I can post these is that I liked them so much I wrote them down.
@@HardcoreZen I have the pdf, don't know what page number it would translate to but first quote is from chapter 46. Awareness of Being is Bliss, it's under the last question in that chapter. Second quote is in chapter 63. Notion of Doership is Bondage
, under the question "Q: How is one to be free from the 'I'-sense?
"
@@mbettinar Thank you!
You’re what?
Sounds like there are some interesting overlaps with Zen
Truth is truth, no matter who says it.