Why Practice Meditation?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 січ 2014
- Dharma Talk from 1/8/2014 with Zen Master Bon Soeng. We have Dharma talks every Wednesday evening at the Empty Gate Zen Center.
Need 1:1 Support? www.emptygatezen.com/support
Website: www.emptygatezen.com
Facebook: / emptygatezen
Twitter: / emptygatezen
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanke you,thanke you.🙏🙏
Deep gratitude for posting these talks, I find them so beneficial in my practise
What a great talk. Thanks a lot!
You are welcome!
Thank you.
Thank you so much for this
Nice to see a long video!
Good idea, you can really relax then and digest the information.
The concept of the bodhisattva is a subtle one. To say that a bodhisattva foregoes Nirvana for the sake of all beings, returning to the cycle of samsara - that doesn't quite make sense. That suggests the idea that Nirvana is somehow distinct, apart from, samsara; Nirvana is beyond samsara. Enlightenment (at least in part) implies no distinction between rebirth and no rebirth; enlightenment has nothing to do with either being reborn or not. But it does have something to do with non-attachment to either being reborn or not reborn. To "transcend" the world of samsara is just another idea to which the mind gets attached as a reaction to the unsatisfactory nature of life generally. It's still part of the chain; it's reactive. The question is: What is "unsatisfied"? The one that's unsatisfied, the ego, is the very same one that wants to get beyond, which is just the ego projecting an ideal. The idea of Nirvana can become a chain because it's still the ego that merely imagines it. Nor is Nirvana a "final destination". Yet it's quite possible that the Buddha and subsequent Buddhist masters(at times) deliberately used concepts which, though not quite accurate, nonetheless spurred on some practitioners, for they had to make some accommodations based on the psychology of the latter.
There's another subtle issue: attachment. While clearly non-attachment has great benefits, the question arises: what leads us to be engaged at all? How is it that we care at all? Is that not a subtle form of attachment? If one cares at all, one may be disturbed should something negative befall the object of our care. Consider, specifically, a loved one. That seems virtually inevitable. And that, to me, suggests attachment, however refined. Now: should we not be attached AT ALL, are we not also letting go of what we may treasure in the first place? It's an interesting question: is it possible to care without ANY attachment? If so, this "care" must be examined carefully - what is it? What is its source? What is its nature?
I love these talks, thank you. Could I please ask for a recommendation for best beginners book for Zen Buddhism?
Many people have started with Zen Mind, Beginners Mind. Taking the Path of Zen is another. In our school you can try Compass of Zen or Only Don't Know.
Empty Gate Zen Center Thank you
I wish I was rich enough to do a 90-day retreat
You still can!
I agree with this man's perspective on rebirth. However, it's well known that the Buddha's teachings are intimately connected with his understanding of rebirth. He ridiculed those teachers who claimed that this life here and now is enough because it denies that causes and effects multiply indefinitely, stretching indefinitely. Moreover, he cites examples of powerful people who are widely celebrated, who enjoy status and privilege as a consequence of killing. They experience no pain or distress now, in their lifetime, so there's no impetus for them to practice meditation or refrain from harm. Since they have only one lifetime, they might as well follow their inclinations. Why should they be concerned? When they die, it will all be over anyway. (Of course, they may be concerned - about, say, not being caught during their lifetime, or only killing where it's likely to be supported.)
However, my objection to the Buddha's point would run roughly as follows: it doesn't so much matter whether we human beings gain our positions legitimately or illegitimately, though no doubt only the former's to be endorsed; the central point, rather, is that if one relies on that for fulfillment, satisfaction one will inevitably suffer - yes, in this very lifetime. Simply following one's inclinations implies attachment, and the effects of attachment will be experienced in this lifetime. They may be subtle, they may not be reported on the news, but they're there. To use a rather crude analogy: it's like a party with lots of alcohol. You enjoy yourself one night, you dance and are merry, but when you wake up the following morning you're back with your hollowness, your misery or dissatisfaction. the heroine addict gets a temporary high, and you already know what happens afterwards. Or take the example of Hollywood celebrities: yes, they seem happy, are probably very happy at times, yet many succumb to alcoholism or drug abuse. Some commit suicide. The point is not whether they rose to prominence as a result of sheer talent and work or merely by sleeping with someone influential. That may be an important consideration, but it's not central. The point is that simply following one's inclinations, being attached to self-gratification, and doing what it takes to fulfill that desire leads to suffering - IN THIS LIFETIME. Moreover, it's quite clear that only being concerned with one's self-gratification, because it emphasizes the self, one's purview also becomes exceedingly limited; one relates to the world only within the context of what one may get out it. That's stultifying; it limits one's options; one doesn't see clearly, and so it's much easier to get entangled in all sorts of negative circumstances. All of this can be SEEN RIGHT NOW; it requires no belief in rebirth or future lives. It's no less obvious than 2 plus 2 equals four. And yet, true, there are many idiots...
Was Socrates a zen monk when he said: 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing'?
then i know that I know nothing too... thnk you
zimonslot for me, the inherent paradox is the way. Tao.
Thank you.