JESUS AND ZEN

by onesong 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JamesThomas

  Jesus and Zen.

  Right away there is a problem as such wording implies something specific to someone; when what the word Z-E-N attempts to points to is the identical foundational reality of everyone and everything.

  It's not about anything which Jesus was refuted to have said, or what anyone says. It's not about words and thoughts, nor concepts and interpretations, nor beliefs of any kind. It's about what comes before everything. It's about what all exists in and as, right now. It's about what you really are; what everything truly is. It's about present reality.

  Even though it is here already and has always been, as strange as this may seem, we can't get there via the mind. Our truth is too big and immediate.

  j
• 

  onesong

  JT, I think I understand what you're saying and I think that is the objective of the book...to show that what Jesus may have said is pointing to the all -important power of presence, the now. Pointing to the greater reality of ourselves, "I am" and the kingdom within.
• 

  JamesThomas

  Yes, onesong, I understand. I did not mean to detract from your book. I may have been responding in the light of past memory of when I considered Jesus as my Master; and for me this exaltation resulted in separating me further from the presence of truth. In other words in order to make Jesus brighter, I had to dim the light within myself. I found it more beneficial to kill the Master....as the Buddhist saying goes.

  j
• 

  onesong

  Very insightful and informative JamesThomas. I enjoy hearing your take on things. Your comments reminded me of "Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse where Siddhartha does essentially the same thing with his Master, the Buddha.

  How I understand it is that when we've grown enough all of our masters, deities , gods ect. that we thought we needed sort of step aside and we discover our own divinity. This is what I've experienced anyway.

  Your thoughts?
• 

  JamesThomas

  Indeed there seems to be required a surrender of all masters, gods and deities. Not that they, specifically, are standing in the way. Often our gods and masters are but foundations on which is build a false identity and definition of "self", e.g. I am a Christian, I am Muslim, I am Buddhist, etc. In reality, we are none of these things. In reality there is no individual "me", that exists at all.

  j
• 

  serendipity

  Thanks for sharing onesong!
• 

  onesong

  JT, since we're in this discussion may I ask a question? I've pondered this concept of false selves, ego's that are created and can see the deeper "oneness" of everything but it seems to me that these false selves or ego's have a purpose, I'm just not sure what it is.

  Any ideas? Are they something used to navigate thru reality and no longer hinder us once they are seen for what they are?
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Hi James: I haven't spoken to you in a while.

  In a book I am currently reading on buddhist philosophy, it is described this way. "We must self-liberate even the antidote." I took this to mean that while certain masters or teachings can guide us in the right direction, we don't want to become so attached and enslaved to their teachings that they cause more problems for us then they were originally intended to help us solve. Or we become so convinced that we have found the correct path to enlightment that we are now "experts" and no longer have anything to learn.

  Kind of reminds me of the jw's a little.

  Cog
• 

  LittleToe

  Sorry Terry, it seems you've either missed the point or else aren't communicating very clearly. It must suck to be a right-brain thinker, huh?
• 

  Terry

  
  Why must everything be an object in order to be defined?
  

  For instance what exactly is a thought? Is it an object, concrete and tangible?

  What is an emotion?

  What is space but the absence of objects and yet we can define it.

  
  To exist is to exist as SOMETHING. That is objective.

  To comprehend that something exists you do what? You abstract a sense of it conceptually.

  Your concept is a compression scheme to fit the universe inside your little head when it would not otherwise fit.

  A rational mind checks often to see how well the concept matches the reality. It does this by means of the senses. That is what the word "ostensible" refers to.

  What exactly is a thought?

  A thought is brain activity which places objects before the mind to be understood for pro survival purposes. Survival consists of neotiating with reality. Knowing the difference between what really IS as opposed to what you wish that it was is sanity.

  What is an emotion? It is an involuntary physical reaction to values you hold. The greater the value (be it positive or negative) the greater the physical reaction.

  When you say you "fear" something it means you involuntarily react to the valuation of danger you've learned to connect with an object or situation.

  What is space but the absence of objects and yet we can define it.

  You shot yourself in the foot on that one. Without OBEJECTS (objectivity) all you have in your head is space! Notice how unconnected your thinking is. Let us put your first sentence next to your last sentence.

  Why must everything be an object to be defined? (You answer your own question with this: (What is space but the absence of objects and yet we can define it?)

  I must say these are very very basic definitions. It is by means of objects that fit what we are (real and objective) into the world of actuality (real and objective). Where people get confused is when they don't understand HOW THEY DO IT! This is basic epistemology: What do we know and how do we know it.

  If you have not bothered to sort through your foundational definitions I don't wonder you are easily confused!

  Life without a strong (accurate) sense of reality is just wishful-thinking.

  Mixing fantasy up with reality confuses you.