To: alt.philosophy.zen
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: How does one find his/her guru?
Date: 29 Jan 1995 09:54:41 -0800

|>|>The whole world is trivial. You want a more complicated example? 
|>|>Then go drink tea.
|>
|>|Drinking tea is more complicated and also not trivial.
|>|Is the whole world trivial?
|>
|>no, only I am trivial.  the world is glorious and outshines my puny abilities
|> to dwarf her
|
|but are you separate from the world?

different but composite appears I, and yet ephemeral as the whispy morning
 fog; the Hermetics say: 'As above, so below'.  the zenbudds say 'Form is
 not different from essence.  Essence is not different from from.'  where
 is the line between Yin and Yang?  
----------------------------------

To: alt.zen
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: ZM Kyong Ho
Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:23:11 -0800

|...his teacher and master, Man Hwa, was NOT a Zen Master but he was one 
|of the most well-known sutra Master at the time. 

ptooey.  such ravings.  how are we to tell who is a zen master?  do you
 mean that the mobs hadn't given him a Red Badge of Courage?  ptooey

|...Korean Zen had been practically discontinued for more than a hundred 
|years before Kyong Ho, so it is hardly plausible that Kyong Ho could 
|receive a Zen transmission from anybody. 

you really think that it is like a lightening bolt from someone's fingers?
 or do you think that it is some sort of secret password only communicable
 by human mouths?  what if the Buddha turned into a cloud instead of going
 to the Happy Lands?

|It has been said that Kyong Ho had to choose his Kong-an for himself.

the sign of a true master

|I am not trying to diminish the value of the present-day Korean Zen
|which basically stems from Kyong Ho's lineage

diminish the value of all 'lineage'.  they are diseases upon the face of
 zen.  tradition is the clinging to the permanent, as if masters could be
 created like so much factory-rubbish.  ptooey

|but for those who give an absolute meaning to master-to-student, mind-to-
|mind dharma transmission, 

an 'absolute meaning'?  even these 'transmissions' have no own-being.  they
 are empty and hollow

|it may imply that present-day Korean Zen is not a rightful heir of 
|Bodhidharma. Any opinions on this?

only those who are not the 'rightful heir' of Bodhidharma may ever come to
 know the subtlety of zen.  puffing into legitimacy, I sieze the Throne of
 tradition and become Mara

push your finger down to the ground
-----------------------------------
To: alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie ZEN questions !
Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:09:52 -0800

|1.  How long should you sit in Zazen in the beginning ?

as long as is effective.  sample: 15 mins at sunrise and sunset.  see if you
 can extend this comfortably to 30 and then level out between 30 and 60

|2.  " A special transmission outside the scriptures" Does this mean that
|you can only get this knowledge froma teacher ? 

yes, but knowledge is not a panacea.  the only worthwhile knowing comes
 from direct experience of the present moment.  teachers may be part of
 this moment, but the intellect is as much trap as ladder

|That only a teacher can help you along the PATH ?

you are the path.  give up on zen before it falls out from under your feet.
 if you fall out first, then you shall become the Buddha
--------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: Enlightenment Attained???????
Date: 14 Feb 1995 14:17:29 -0800

|A master passed by a great river in his annual journey.  Every year by 
|the river for ten years sat the same man in meditation.  One year the 
|master approached the man and asked him how it was that he sat year 
|after year by the river.  The man responded, "If I meditate long enough, 
|I will be able to cross the river by walking on water."  The Zen master 
|tossed him a coin and said, "There is a ferry just around the river bend!"   

the meditating man tossed the coin back to the Zen master, saying,
 "I have already reached the Other Shore, but thank you for your kindness."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: ! (tyagi@Houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: Zen alone?
Date: 20 Feb 1995 18:05:17 -0800

|...there are no Zen centers in my area, 

yes there are.  you just don't recognize them

|and I do not practice (yet) 

you probably mean Zen Buddhism.  :::yawn:::  

|but I think I have found my path in Zen and don't know where to start...

you do not practice and you haven't been to a social club of Zenners yet.
 how do you know you've 'found your path in Zen' when you have not even
 gone the para-gauntlet of Zen Ascetic Practice (ZAP)?

perhaps you mean that you like the philosophy.  well, you've come to the
 right forum

|what can I do?  

the question is, what can you *not*-do?

|Well, I know that the basics--the state of mind especially--come from 
|my Self, 

this shall be your greatest obstacle

|...it is the little things (like the fact that I have never been taught 
|how to sit) 

that is very easy.  it can be done over the computer, through books, etc.
 the Zenners keep it under wraps because they want to get you into their
 pyramid schemes.  here, I'll show you...

butt on floor.  one foot toward crotch.  other foot over thigh if possible
 (half-lotus), or tucked.  spine straight.  if you can't tell if your spine
 is straight, wobble wildly back and forth and come slowly to what feels
 like straightness.  hands together in lap -- left hand under right, ends
 of fingers even with second knuckles of other hand.  thumbs meeting to
 form a circle.  tongue slightly extended toward roof of mouth.  eyes
 directed toward a spot about 2 feet in front of you on the floor (or, if
 facing a blank wall, settled with a gaze about 45' down from level).

|that I would like help with.  Can anyone tell me where to go?

go directly to zazen.  do not pass jail.  do not collect bad karma
------------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: Zen alone?
Date: 25 Feb 1995 09:19:41 -0800

|What is Buddhism?

buddhism is the way of waking up.  Buddhism is a religious complex which
 has formed around methods, ideas and people who want to wake up, help
 others to do so, or assist everyone in realizing that it is unnecessary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.philosophy.zen,alt.zen,talk.religion.buddhism
From: ! (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
Subject: Re: Zen alone?
Date: 27 Feb 1995 21:33:58 -0800

|>|What is Buddhism?
|>
|>buddhism is the way of waking up.  Buddhism is a religious complex which
|> has formed around methods, ideas and people who want to wake up, help
|> others to do so, or assist everyone in realizing that it is unnecessary

|What is Zen?

zen is a means of absorption (often such that one may wake up).  Zen is a 
 meaningless prefix to the religious complex of Buddhism though designating 
 a sect brought from India to China by Bodhidharma (as legend has it) and 
 to Japan by some other monks.  in India it was was called 'Dhyana' 
 (absorption*) and in China 'Ch'anna', in Japanese 'Zenna', shortened to 
 'Zen'

* - some translate 'zen' erroneously as 'meditation' whereas the technical
 meaning of 'meditation' is a single-pointed focus, only *one* means of
 entering the absorption pointed to with the multi-cultural term 'zen'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: !
Subject: Re: Finally something serious: Zen & Psychology
Date: 17 Mar 1995 01:05:21 -0800

|> Zen practice is a means of reprogramming yourself; a species of 
|> psychological self-medication.

deprogramming

|Zen practice is only a means of reprogramming yourself if you think it is. 

who thinks it is?

|Please tell me how a practice of realising your unchanging and SELFLESS
|nature can at the same time be a means of reprogramming oneself when the
|essence of Buddhism emphasises the absence of an ego entity or self nature.

the self exists, but it is not permanent.  attachment to anything, including
 the self, leads to suffering.  the self may be influenced so as to inspire
 or discourage attachment

however, the situation is more difficult still, for complete detachment
 leads to a loss of compassion, and wisdom and compassion are one in
 essence
--------
To: talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,alt.zen
From: !
Subject: Re: mirror
Date: 11 Mar 1995 13:12:05 -0800

|I've tried one of Rajneesh's techniques where you look at yourself in the 
|mirror, until you feel as if the reflection is looking at you, (not you 
|looking at the reflection). 

potent exercise

|...I got to the point where I felt that the reflection was looking at me, 
|and I got scared to death......

understandable

|...Does this mean that I am afraid of myself

not necessarily.  being afraid of myself, I would have difficulties
 looking into a mirror altogether.  doing that exercise is like trying
 to intentionally blurr my vision so as to see how affected that image
 is by the physical configuration of my eyes

looking into the mirror and projecting my 'self' in to the image is like
 putting my fantasy-self under a microscope, separating my experience
 from my reflection on that experience.  marvellous!

fear here may merely be the reaction to finally STOPPING the identifying
 with the image.  compare this with finally letting go of my mother as
 she teaches me how to be in deep waters.  without the support of this
 self-image, I am foundation-less!  who am I??


|...why are we afraid of ourselves? 

we are taught this from an early age so as to get us to conform
---------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen,talk.religion.buddhism
From: !
Subject: Re: What is Zen?
Date: 21 Mar 1995 10:27:09 -0800

|...I was responding to the fact that people ...love to get on here and 
|play zen master with the most goofy of results. 

goofy zen masters!  Perfect Dharma!!

|A tremendous amount of the postings are intellectualization oriented which 
|gets a bit old as does the cute answers that are supposed to be zen sound 
|clips or something.

everything is very old.  if you only read news, then you are missing out

|(like the person named ! -- and by the way, what is that? Exclamation point? 

you ask the beauteous question!  you ask me to reflect upon me.  
 'what is '!'?'
 ! - the inverse of 'i'
 ! - the Boolean 'not'
 ! - the exclamation of the Dharma
 ! - the shout that wakes
 ! - the loud mouth that cannot be quieted
 ! - the Deafening Silence

|A symbol?  

yes, that too.  ! - the point moving into linearity

|Maybe it's The zen student who used to be Prince or something???) 

Prince before, Samana after, World-Refuge, nothing special

|See?  Are your eyes enlightened so you can make such a comment?  

only my toes are enlightened.  this is why I dance through fields of joy and
 sorrow

|Buddha-mind?  If it's not in worldly phenomenon, it's worthless.

value is as value does.  what is worthwhile for you may be dross and
 confusion for others.  all arises together in meaninglessness.  we
 give meaning as we encounter the buddha-nature
-----------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: !
Subject: Re: What are koans?
Date: 14 Apr 1995 18:59:27 -0700

|why is a mouse when it spins ?

better at night
---------------
To: talk.religion.buddhism
From: !
Subject: Re: Beginner
Date: 24 Apr 1995 18:18:36 -0700

|How do you classify a sudden burst of seeing that a thing is so? 

constipation
------------
To: alt.zen,talk.religion.buddhism
From: !
Subject: Re: zen and theorization
Date: 17 May 1995 18:39:56 -0700

|>why couldn't the activity of theorization be in certain conditions 
|>coinciding with zen practice? 

it can be, but the Zen Buddhists will tell you it can't because they are
 hooked on anti-intellectualism

|>How can you define what is NOT zen practice?

we cannot, but it gives a certain sense of security to be able to say
 *something* about the path with conviction.  unfortunately it begins
 the dissolution into religion which has been the bane of every mysticism

|...if your mind habitually separates into "self" vs. "outside of self", 
|and one authenticates these categories, then the activity of the mind 
|is creating ontological errors of dualism.   

hogwash.  this is why Zen Buddhism attempts to destroy intellectualism,
 because it becomes a tool to restrict others through mind-control, all
 on the basis of extreme theoretical statements

|This ain't zen practice, this is self delusion.

if there is no self to be deluded, then there can be no self-delusion
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To: alt.zen
From: !
Subject: Re: Zen and Love
Date: 19 May 1995 17:11:34 -0700

|What is the nature of love, both human and divine, as understood in Zen?

love is both human and divine, united.  there is no difference in love.
 it is called variously Kama (India) and Jen (China) and a number of
 other words from the same and different cultures.  ultimately love and
 awakening are one thing, and attachment makes possible the opening of
 the heart in preparation for compassion.  serious intensity with respect
 to something is variously called absorption and love.  love cannot be
 understood as a concept.  it can only be experienced
-----------------------------------------------------
EOF
Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@shell.portal.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Subject: Re: Monks and priests
Date: 21 Nov 1995 10:29:09 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <48t5pl$gfq@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: !
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com talk.religion.buddhism:12992 alt.magick.tyagi:4909 alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan:4896

|>Could someone please explain what Buddhists "monks" and "priests" are?  

a monk does not necessarily lead.  priests are religious leaders who
 function as authorities for the particular religious tradition of
 which they are a part.  monks may be affiliated with a religious
 tradition or not.  some say that a 'priest' is a secondary rank in
 a multi-tiered hiearchy within the religious establishment.  others
 that it bears no relation to social involvement but is a particular
 level of religious experience which may be readily observed by the
 eyes whose experience is similar  

some say that 'Buddhism' is an Eastern religious tradition, and that
 this has regulations about sexual and marital relationships.  those
 who accept such things do so out of the discipline of their cultures,
 and not out of any particular knowledge of its rightness for all people

|monks do not marry, priests may. 

a minor difference.  is this consistent among all Buddhists?

Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: !
Newsgroups: alt.yoga,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.tibetan.buddhism,alt.meditation,alt.magick.tyagi
Subject: Re: Guru System vs Buddhist Thougt?
Date: 22 Nov 1995 14:21:19 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 30
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4907ov$q6j@jobe.shell.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.yoga:3011 alt.zen:18626 alt.philosophy.zen:4669 alt.meditation:16332 alt.magick.tyagi:4931

|>|> Is not the core of Buddhism that we have within us the Buddha nature and 
|>|> that we find truth by our inner experience?

|>no, the core of Buddhism is the awakening process

|...The core is being awake.  If you could be born fully awake and 
|attentive then there would be no need for the process.  

it is said by some that such births are indeed possible, especially within
 particular realms of rebirth.

|As it is, it seems that the only way to be awake is through the process 
|of awakening.  (And awakening, and awakening....)

Bodhisattvas and the various Buddhas are already awakened.  while it is
 true that there is no difference in their actions, they are said to have
 a certain quality (wakefulness/consciousness/bodhi) about them which is
 in itself inspirational of the process of others, and the continuation
 of this process through the eternity of the various worlds is the
 tradition of Buddhism, the structure of pointing out that means exist
 for waking up

whether or not that tradition arises within the West or East, includes a
 certain cosmology, or metaphysic in its teachings is irrelevant as compared
 to the simple fact of waking up.  there is no self to be awake, and that
 is the reason that 'being awake' is insuffient as a descriptor  

there is wakefulness.  no-self does not admit of an 'it' which either wakes
 or is awake.  therefore it is beneficial to speak of a process of waking
 without speaking of what does the waking or how it may be accomplished

Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: !
Newsgroups: alt.zen
Subject: Re: zen zombies
Date: 23 Nov 1995 04:45:18 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 26
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <491qcu$cr1@jobe.shell.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com

|> what does it exactly mean to say that my thoughts, feelings, and
|> sensations are "not me?"

|    No.  They are just me, but I am not them.

who?  they do not substantiate a consistent and separate entity

|> If you are not your thoughts or feelings, then what exactly are you?

a changing event-point consciousness

|    Why is it necessary that you be something?  

else 'you' applies to nothing and you are speaking to nobody

| If you let yourself be nothing, do you disappear?  

of course

|Does the universe disappear?

no, it gives the impression of longlastingness

|    Would you rather be something or would you rather be nothing?

to some this will seem trivial.  I'd rather be a cloud

Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: !
Newsgroups: alt.zen
Subject: Re: confused about zen point.
Date: 23 Nov 1995 05:01:45 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 41
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <491rbp$dp1@jobe.shell.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com

|what is the duality concept and how does it relate to zen?

the duality concept is the basic presumption that there is a fundamental
 division within the structure of reality, and that this may be seen along
 several channels or within the comparison among several irresolvable
 pairs (good/evil; God/Nature; prakriti/purusha; mind/body; matter/spirit,
 etc.)

the duality concept relates to zen in many ways depending on your particular
 teacher or favorite zen stories.  Nagarjuna taught that there were (at least)
 two levels of truth: the ordinary and the esoteric.  the ordinary works for
 practical circumstances and is directly connected to the world of things.
 the esoteric is the providence of the dedicated and curious.  it works for
 more abstract understandings/experiences of all things and is directly
 connected to the world of ideas and principles.  the former is objective.
 the latter subjective.  there may be generalizations among the esoteric
 which do not hold in the ordinary world of things.  there may be particular
 applications of the esoteric principles in the world of things which the
 limited understanding of the ordinary will not allow us to see or hear

several writers on zen break their cosmology into parts which occasionally
 include dualisms, though these are typically not fundamental in their
 division, the buddha-consciousness resolving all dualities within the
 unmanifest and continual re-creation.  pairs such as nirvana/samsara or
 atman/anatman or dharma/adharma are sometimes interpreted very dualisti-
 cally.  

other zen teachers explain that these divisions are not lasting, even 
 while having actual existence.  that is, while there is a definite 
 division between these things, it is ephemeral, will not last, and so 
 we may dismiss it as less than 'real' in this sense, not a truly strict 
 dualism

|...who should want to own or possess anything?  Ownership and possession 
|only create turmoil, because the owner must strive to maintain ownership?  

the Old Boy said it aright, amassing of wealth creates thieves

|Is that the right idea?

there are no 'right ideas', even while we may find truth in quite alot of them