How to Grow A Lotus Blossom?

First topic message reminder :

I tend to agree with many of the threads on this website, particularly Kozan's, about the dangers and ignorance of the OBC's one sided, institutionalized way of acting and thinking. I've certainly witnessed and experienced it myself.
However, I'm curious as to why How to Grow A Lotus Blossom is harshly criticized. From what I understand, visions can be common when one takes on a spiritual or even more psychological practice. I have even had a few at times, and usually they're just little flashes of imagery with some teaching (and I've never used drugs). Also, past life theory/karma is common in Buddhism, and occasionally even the mainstream media covers a story in which a child remembers historical events that occurred before they were born. Not to mention, a few prominent psychologists have written books on the matter.
I just question whether too much is getting tossed out, since I believe some of the things RMJ taught came from a true spiritual experience or place of understanding.

:-) Hello, Sugin

Thank you for your kind words.

Did you pick up my PM on John McRae's book, Seeing Through Zen? (There didn't seem to be a suitable thread at the time.)

All the best

In my post dated October 27 above, I wrote: "I understand that Master Jiyu explained her 'third great kensho' as entry to arhat stage."

Answering several questions I put to him recently, Seikai wrote of Master Jiyu that:
"She equated the second Zen kensho, which she called the on-going Fugen kensho, or second kensho, to the second [Theravada] stage, Sakadagami, translated as Once-returner...The third stage of [Theravada] sainthood, Non-returner or Anagami, she equated with the third Zen kensho...Beyond this level is where things get murky. At one time it was my understanding that she thought there was a fourth Zen kensho that equated with the final rank of [Theravada] sainthood, that of the Arahant; later it seemed that she adjusted that view to accommodate the third and fourth levels of sainthood into the third Zen kensho. In her later years she stopped talking about these things altogether, except perhaps in private conversations, so it was hard to get an exact read on what she was thinking."

I had a very strange experience sitting Zazen which I'm pretty sure was a past life experience prior to reading HTGALB.

I know the traditional Zen response would be it's just makkyo. But it was far more vivid than anything I'd experienced before or indeed after.

I'm still a believer in karma and rebirth in the Mahayana traditional sense even if the modern Buddhism with no beliefs seems prevalent these days!

Reading Ian Stevenson and other cases suggestive of rebirth I did find the book to be particularly interesting. It certainly was real to Rev.Kennett and who am I to disagree.

I wanted to post this excellent advice on meditation in full. This piece has been freely available on the internet for some years and is attributed to Dilgo Khentze Rinpoche, one of the great Tibetan meditation teachers of Dzogchen - which is a tradition that is somewhat similar to Zen. So when you see the word "dzogchen" you could substitute zazen or meditation or just sitting. I find this advice very helpful. Dilgo Khetze may not have actually written this - it may have come from another source, but it doesn't matter.

Some very good advice about the meditation attitude and how to deal with "experiences."

Sorry about the formatting.

EVERY DAY MEDITATION

The everyday practice of dzogchen is simply to develop a complete
carefree acceptance, an openness to all situations without limit.

We should realize openness as the playground of our emotions and relate
to people without artificiality, manipulation or strategy.

We should experience everything totally, never withdrawing into
ourselves as a marmot hides in its hole. This practice releases
tremendous energy which is usually constricted by the process of
maintaining fixed reference points. Referentiality is the process by
which we retreat from the direct experience of everyday life.

Being present in the moment may initially trigger fear. But by
welcoming the sensation of fear with complete openness, we cut through
the barriers created by habitual emotional patterns.

When we engage in the practice of discovering space, we should develop
the feeling of opening ourselves out completely to the entire universe.
We should open ourselves with absolute simplicity and nakedness of mind.
This is the powerful and ordinary practice of dropping the mask of
self-protection.

We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and
field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse.
We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go "deeply
into ourselves" or withdraw from the world. Practice should be free and
non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration.

Vast unoriginated self-luminous wisdom space is the ground of being -
the beginning and the end of confusion. The presence of awareness in
the primordeal state has no bias toward enlightenment or
non-enlightenment. This ground of being which is known as pure or
original mind is the source from which all phenomena arise. It is known
as the great mother, as the womb of potentiality in which all things
arise and dissolve in natural self-perfectedness and absolute
spontaneity.

All aspects of phenomena are completely clear and lucid. The whole
universe is open and unobstructed - everything is mutually
interpenetrating.Seeing all things as naked, clear and free from obscurations, there is
nothing to attain or realize. The nature of phenomena appears naturally
and is naturally present in time-transcending awareness. Everything is
naturally perfect just as it is. All phenomena appear in their
uniqueness as part of the continually changing pattern. These patterns
are vibrant with meaning and significance at every moment; yet there is
no significance to attach to such meanings beyond the moment in which
they present themselves.

This is the dance of the five elememts in which matter is a symbol of
energy and energy a symbol of emptiness. We are a symbol of our own
enlightenment. With no effort or practice whatsoever, liberation or
enlightenment is already here.

The everyday practice of dzogchen is just everyday life itself. Since
the undeveloped state does not exist, there is no need to behave in any
special way or attempt to attain anything above and beyond what you
actually are. There should be no feeling of striving to reach some
"amazing goal" or "advanced state."

To strive for such a state is a neurosis which only conditions us and
serves to obstruct the free flow of Mind. We should also avoid thinking
of ourselves as worthless persons - we are naturally free and
unconditioned. We are intrinsically enlightened and lack nothing.

When engaging in meditation practice, we should feel it to be as natural
as eating, breathing and defecating. It should not become a specialized
or formal event, bloated with seriousness and solemnity. We should
realize that meditation transcends effort, practice, aims, goals and the
duality of liberation and non-liberation. Meditation is always ideal;
there is no need to correct anything. Since everything that arises is
simply the play of mind as such, there is no unsatisfactory meditation
and no need to judge thoughts as good or bad.

Therefore we should simply sit. Simply stay in your own place, in your
own condition just as it is. Forgetting self-conscious feelings, we do
not have to think "I am meditating." Our practice should be without
effort, without strain, without attempts to control or force and without
trying to become "peaceful."

If we find that we are disturbing ourselves in any of these ways, we
stop meditating and simply rest or relax for a while. Then we resume
our meditation. If we have "interesting experiences" either during or
after meditation, we should avoid making anything special of them. To
spend time thinking about experiences is simply a distraction and an
attempt to become unnatural. These experiences are simply signs of
practice and should be regarded as transient events. We should not
attempt to reexperience them because to do so only serves to distort the
natural spontaneity of mind.

All phenomena are completely new and fresh, absolutely unique and
entirely free from all concepts of past, present and future. They are
experienced in timelessness.

The continual stream of new discovery, revelation and inspiration which
arises at every moment is the manifestation of our clarity. We should
learn to see everyday life as mandala - the luminous fringes of
experience which radiate spontaneously from the empty nature of our
being. The aspects of our mandala are the day-to-day objects of our
life experience moving in the dance or play of the universe. By this
symbolism the inner teacher reveals the profound and ultimate
significance of being. Therefore we should be natural and spontaneous,
accepting and learning from everything. This enables us to see the
ironic and amusing side of events that usually irritate us.

In meditation we can see through the illusion of past, present and
future - our experience becomes the continuity of nowness. The past is
only an unreliable memory held in the present. The future is only a
projection of our present conceptions. The present itself vanishes as
soon as we try to grasp it. So why bother with attempting to establish
an illusion of solid ground?

We should free ourselves from our past memories and preconceptions of
meditation. Each moment of meditation is completely unique and full of
potentiality. In such moments, we will be incapable of judging our
meditation in terms of past experience, dry theory or hollow rhetoric.

Simply plunging directly into meditation in the moment now, with our
whole being, free from hesitation, boredom or excitement, _is_
enlightenment.

Brilliantly said too Josh,and it also sums up the very reasons I severed my links with Kennett and Shasta

I did think that the experience I had was simply makyo and not worth pursuing. In hindsight I had an experience which was unlike I'd had before. Utterly clear and vivid as my 'life' as a Victorian woman.

As a particularly skeptical Buddhist I found this experience somewhat mystical but not without it's own merit!

Gassho.

here's how I see it. whatever experience arises, when there is this open awareness, there is no need to label it. Things come, things go. The most vivid aspect is this mind of nowness. When we naturally let go of our stories of a past and expectations of a future, who are you? I do know that whenever I hold on to any experience, it is not terribly useful. As one Buddhist sage said, just more stuff to lay down.

that's my two cents.

If past lives are real and karma and rebirth weren't just teaching aids of the Buddha's Dharma then this is an important point and not one which should be casually skipped over.

I see it much the same in that the Tibetan,is talking about being limitless,where we are fantastic at being limited. We experience enlightenment,and we pidgeon hole it want to experience it again, label it talk about it,think we are great,and in the process,actually get further from being here in the present, Sometimes the illusions of enlightenment, (sorry for the long words) memory of the present moment, makes one want to manipulate our own minds, very complex my mind is,best to let it go and be here now.he said it much better than me!

Hello Josh

Thank you for posting Dilgo Khentze Rinpoche's, (possible) writings on meditation.

This is one of the clearest and most lovely descriptions of zazen that I've seen.

For me this fits beautifully with the Scripture of Great Wisdom as a map of what meditation can be.

Gassho
Howard

A beloved quote from the Diamond Sutra that helps us keep our experiences in perspective:

Quote :

Subhuti said to the Buddha: 'World Honoured One, does your (own) attainment of Supreme Enlightenment (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi) mean that you have not gained anything whatsoever?'

The Buddha replied: 'Just so, Subhuti, just so, I have not gained even the least Dharma from Supreme enlightenment, and this is called Supreme Enlightenment. Furthermore, Subhuti, this Dharma is universal and impartial; wherefore it is called Supreme Enlightenment.

The practice of all good virtues (Dharmas), free from attachment to an ego, a personality, a being and a life, will result in the attainment of Supreme Enlightenment.

Subhuti. the so-called good virtues (Dharmas), the Tathagata says, are not good, but are (expediently) called good virtues. 'Subhuti, if (on the one hand) a man, in his practice of charity (dana) gives away the seven treasures piled up in a heap as great as all the Mounts Sumeru in the Universe put together, and (on the other hand) another man receives, holds (in mind) reads and recites even a four-line stanza of this Prajna-paramita Sutra, and expounds it to others, the merit resulting from the former's dana will not be worth one-hundredth, one-thousandth, one-ten-thousandth and one-hundred thousandth part of that obtained by the latter, as no conceivable comparison can be made between the two.

'Subhuti, what do you think? You should not say the Tathagata has this thought (in His mind): "I should liberate living beings." Subhuti, you should not think so. Why? Because there are really no living beings whom the Tathagata can liberate. If there were, the Tathagata would hold (the concept of) an ego, a personality, a being and a life. Subhuti, (when) the Tathagata speaks of an ego, there is in reality no ego, although common men think so. Subhuti, the Tathagata says common men are not, but are (expediently) called, common men.

One of the many 'take away' points here is that our words DO NOT POINT to anything. We make it up in our head - we reify language and think that there is something 'out there' that it applies to. Nagarjuna makes this very clear. As Bino (a shasta monk from the 70's) used to say 'dont believe everything you read between the lines'.

yes lovely to read these pieces, they point the way so well, when vision is blurred from more than old age. I found a great aspect Gensho of practicing zazen in Japan, was, because of language, a complete lack of verbal communication

chisanmichaelhughes wrote:

... I found a great aspect Gensho of practicing zazen in Japan, was, because of language, a complete lack of verbal communication

A language barrier can be great. Because of it, at the temple I go to, I don't worry about being drawn into unwanted exchanges with monks. Most don't speak any English. It's a relief.

I just question whether too much is getting tossed out, since I believe some of the things RMJ taught came from a true spiritual experience or place of understanding.

The role of the Zen master is to inspire/point the student to inquire into his/her own just-now experience. If the teaching focuses on the master's experience (as if it were something special), then the teacher isn't doing her job. Also, making distinctions (like "this is a true spiritual experience, but that's a lower mundane experience") serves no purpose in the practice of moment-to-moment attention.

I don't take the position that RM Jiyu was mistaken in what she described

It's not a matter of anything being mistaken, or that it's wrong to simply describe past experiences. But if it results clinging to distinctions like "This is a high spiritual experience that you should strive for; that's a lower mundane experience that you should ignore or avoid," then those concepts can be questioned. Why believe such things, for what, for who?

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

randomstu wrote:

It's not a matter of anything being mistaken, or that it's wrong to simply describe past experiences. But if it results clinging to distinctions like "This is a high spiritual experience that you should strive for; that's a lower mundane experience that you should ignore or avoid," then those concepts can be questioned. Why believe such things, for what, for who?

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Is there a distinction made somewhere in RMJK's writings between high spiritual experiences that one should strive for Vs mundane experiences that should be ignored or avoided?

Isan wrote:

Is there a distinction made somewhere in RMJK's writings between high spiritual experiences that one should strive for Vs mundane experiences that should be ignored or avoided?

The "distinction" is made whenever someone holds beliefs about high and low, about this experience being more "spiritual" than that one. Whether such beliefs were initially inspired by RMJK's writings, someone else's writings, or whatever... it's up to us to choose whether to hold the belief or doubt it.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Question Lise:
What are the copywrite issues surrounding this book? Can we quote from the book or do we have to have permission? It's funny, I haven't seen one quote from any OBC books yet and I'm wondering why.
Thanks,
Diana

My copy of HTGLB states, "No part of this book may be reproduced in any form except for brief excerpts for purposes of review without written permission from Shasta Abbey."

actually, I think that under copyright law, you can quote for purposes beyond reviews - in other words -- short quotes are permitted when you are writing essays or criticism, etc.

I was wondering about that, so I went and looked it up. Here's what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about fair use:

"One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.”
The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of
court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of
the copyright law.

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such
   use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
   
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
   
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
   
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
   

"The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not
easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes
that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of
the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. "

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Thanks Karen, and Josh.

Diana, sorry I can't help with this question. I'm not remotely qualified to address it but maybe one of our members with legal experience will comment -

Thanks to Karen for quoting the statute. I have legal experience and believe that short quotations of copyrighted material for the purpose of comment and criticism (such as we have seen on this forum) fall within the fair use doctrine. Josh says that he (correctly) obtained permission from the author for the longer pieces he quoted in his earlier posts. Lengthy quotations might otherwise infringe the author's copyright.

back to the Kennett's lotus blossom experiences, I just ran across this from the Jewish tradition:

"Chassidic masters say that enlightenment is commensurate with one's understanding of the Torah and specifically the explanations of Kabbalah and philosophy. They warn that prolonged concentration devoid of intellectual content can lead to sensory deprivation, hallucinations, and even insanity which all can be tragically mistaken for "spiritual enlightenment"."

Hi Olga I was interested to read you say

Most of you probably disagree. In my own experience, going to Shasta was inspired by reading all I could about Zen - which was, largely, cryptic stories of other people's enlightenment experiences. I now believe that they lead me up the garden path...

Personally I feel sort of the same about being influenced by stories, I think that with a lot of us the inspiration was to find something personal, to find our own experience, I do not think in the beginning we felt that that experience was the place we were going to.
I think the depth of ones spiritualty is knowing when to say hello and goodbye.

Reading your posts from when you started posting, I detect a great sincerity of your quest to find your spirituality, I detect that through your life from your initial start at Shasta ,through your reasons to leave and till now,your quest , belief and intention is still intact and pure, from my position of wiping sleep from my eyes, you have at least not lead your self up the garden path, you have stayed true to your personal belief,and we must remember that the real journey is not always easy to see, and is only hindered by our giving up, or feeling that we have arrived,I do not see either of these with you

[Admin note: The messages about the approval/disapproval feature were moved to a new thread titled:

"Should the Option to Approve/Disapprove Posts be Removed"

It can be found in the Announcements section.]

Michael's post was responding to mine that got moved elsewhere. Here is the pertinent part:
As to Josh's post quoting the Chassids - I would also like to read more.
As far as 'spiritual enlightenment' is concerned, Zen - and this forum for the most part - has it on their brains! But all you can ever see is someone else's behaviour. Their understanding is theirs alone - it can be easily faked, or misunderstood. Someone's experience is even more ellusive. Have it, enjoy it, don't flaunt it. If you think it will help someone... - well, will it?

I think we are so different. Just consider how different the kenshos are - compare, say, Bill Picard's and Jimyo's (both valid, I'm sure - and yet how different, thank God). How
does either light up someone else's path?

I have a linguist friend, whose specialty is language acquissition. She told me a very interesting thing - when you are memorizing a new word, find your own memory aid. Someone else's doesn't work, it won't stick - everyone has their own associations, their own imagery.

I'm convinced that the Truth (for want of a better word) can be taught - in the sense that someone can point out what has always been there, but was missed - and one can then see it for oneself - for good. Most of you probably disagree. In my own experience, going to Shasta was inspired by reading all I could about Zen - which was, largely, cryptic stories of other people's enlightenment experiences. I now believe that they lead me up the garden path...


Thank you, Michael, your words are very dear to me.
No, I don't think I have arrived ... I only want to know, and know it 'fest', firmly, that there is no arriving. Do I know it clearly? Of course not! How could anyone fool themselves on this score?

I have to run now, if I don't want a divorce on my hands.
Oli

Isan wrote:

June99 wrote:

However, I'm curious as to why How to Grow A Lotus Blossom is harshly criticized. From what I understand, visions can be common when one takes on a spiritual or even more psychological practice. I have even had a few at times, and usually they're just little flashes of imagery with some teaching (and I've never used drugs). Also, past life theory/karma is common in Buddhism, and occasionally even the mainstream media covers a story in which a child remembers historical events that occurred before they were born. Not to mention, a few prominent psychologists have written books on the matter.
I just question whether too much is getting tossed out, since I believe some of the things RMJ taught came from a true spiritual experience or place of understanding.

I agree. Some people have visions in the course of spiritual practice, and while it can be dramatic it doesn't have to be problematic. The Spirit makes itself known in whatever way is best for each one of us. I believe Jiyu Kennett Roshi's visions gave her important insights and helped her heal old emotional wounds. Some of her students also had visions and some did not. Some chose to share their experiences and others kept them more private. It doesn't have to be disruptive. However serious problems can ensue when visions are seen as proof that the teacher is all-knowing, and students lay aside personal conscience and common sense to follow blindly. This is what I witnessed at Shasta Abbey.

I agree with June on this and also most of what Isan has said.

I think when someone has a big spiritual experience, sometimes other people are sortof blinded by the "shiny".

I don't think that's an ill intent on the part of the person having the experience though, just another example of if something good happens to someone else, you still need to do your own training and stay on center. And not just get pulled off by the fascination of the spiritual experience someone else is having.

In Gassho,

Sara H

Resurrecting this thread cos it's a cool read for me and..

Re past lives... I've remembered 52, sat with 100's of people reliving them, done 2 years with the late great Roger Woolger in what to do when someone suddenly goes into a past life.

Some of the past life experiences I and others have had are right up there in valid powerful life-changers. Essentially my experienced advice is past lives are totally safe.

Read htgalb loved it great book, not sure that Kennett was bodhidarma and whathisface was jesus, especially in the light of masterbatory activities....

The 3 heaven and earth Kensho stuff has helped me understand what was happening and is happening to me, even though I often think despite having had similar experiences to her, God I have totally messed my life up and swim sink and scream in my own emotional pit so much of the time, as those that know me know.

Joshes tibetan quote oh my god beautiful!!!!!

One cool implication of mister tibetan is all is perfect as is, no individual self actually exists, and therefore everything everywhere at all times is perfectly safe. Indeed better than safe!!!!!

Rock on music lovers.

A bit like if there are past lives, and our consciousness survives physical death, then noone can kill us, we do not die, we are all perfectly safe!!!!!

So just naming stuff for what it is is safe, so come on zen masters, act a bit more like u believe the universe is safe and stop being so hung up on all those "risks" that don't exist...

I have done many excorcisms over the years. Sounds freaky doesn't it. Actually watching Roger woolgar and another guy I learned much from doing "releasements" (oh that's nicer word isntit) I was in hysterics sometimes cos they didn't take it too seriously, something that comes from knowing what u r doing and having done it enough times for it to be a bit like riding a bike etc. Also there is the lovely logical truth that if your dealing with a real disembodied entity, it is disembodied, so hasnt got a body to do u any harm with, and if it's just the persons mind at play, then it can't do u any harm either can it? So relaxation ensues. Real life aint like the movies folks.

One small word gets lost in all this talk usually, and it's a word that kinda cuts through the gunge for me, and the word is lurrrrrve.

I find that unconditional love is my measure, unconditional love with warmth, inclusiveness, and space. I felt this in the tibetan guy, and I feel it writing this david-rant.

Oh, and I loved what everyone wrote in this thread so far, specially the personal experience open revealing bits.