XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   brian mitchell  wrote:   
   > Tang Huyen wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/7/2016 5:36 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Not bound by social norms and standards, but free to adopt them. After   
   >>> all, living has to take *some* form. Most zen masters continued to   
   >>> adopt the monastic form.   
   >>>   
   >>> But there's still a question.   
   >>>   
   >>> One time, the Master rose from his chair in the dharma hall, lifted   
   >>> his robes, and began dancing, saying to the monks, 'Look! Look!'   
   >>> When the astonished monks stared at him dumbfounded the Master said,   
   >>> 'I am performing an action of the world without departing from the   
   >>> mind of Bodhi.'   
   >>> (the anecdote may be a bit mangled since it's from memory, but not   
   >>> horribly so)   
   >>>   
   >>> My question is: was the Master really dancing, the way young people   
   >>> dance in nightclubs, with intensity and absorbtion, with delight in   
   >>> the body and its allure? Or was he only imitating the outward form?   
   >>   
   >> You profess to want to learn Daoism, right? Load   
   >> up on ZZ, and loosen up from your uptight Catholic   
   >> straitjacket. Just remember: mindfulness is "just   
   >> look, don't judge". Doesn't Jesus say something to   
   >> the effect not to judge? If you invoke Japanese Zen   
   >> masters of WW II, they were acting in raging mob   
   >> psychology, to the glory of the Emperor, and did not   
   >> show mindfulness. The sage, to me (and I am not   
   >> qualified to judge), acts or does-not-act ad hoc,   
   >> without intention, and slips out of social norms and   
   >> standards (like above). ZZ is packed choke-full with   
   >> such non-conformism. JayLo offers us a surfeit from   
   >> the menu on a daily basis.   
   >   
   > In your eagerness to insert a thorn you seem to have missed the point   
   > of the question, which was not to judge, but to understand the inner   
   > nature of detachment.   
   >   
   > One could similarly address the question of mindfulness: in   
   > mindfulness, is there a watcher and a watched?   
      
   One at a time.  As best my sense of it can be worded.   
      
   > To be unobstructed,   
   > must not awareness be fully participatory?   
   >   
      
   When listening, the sage listens.  Listening is not observing, there is no   
   watcher while listening, because the watcher is listening.   
      
   HTH, it seems confusing to try to explain what simply is.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)