Steve: "It is the world of Hakuin Ekaku (1686–1769), who fixed the orthodox Rinzai koan practice and attacked what he called "dead sitting in silent illumination" (koza mokushô) as counter to the Buddhist path and disruptive of social ethics; and it is the world of Mujaku Dochu (1653–1744), who established modern Rinzai scholarship and dismissed Dogen's Zen as “pitiable.” This Zen, said Mujaku, simply clung to the notion that the deluded mind was itself Buddhahood (môjin soku butsu) and ignored the transformative experience of awakening (satori). Dogen "never even dreamt" of the state of satori that was the meaning of the advent of the Buddha, the purpose of Bodhidharma's mission to China, and the message of the patriarch of kanna, or koan Zen, Ta-hui" (Carl Bielefeldt, Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 4).

Solon: Putting the matter bluntly, the philosopher Colin McGinn believes that presently we are too stupid to see how consciousness and the brain really connect. He writes: "So we are left with an introspection-based view of consciousness and a perception-based view of the brain, staring at each other across a yawning conceptual divide. These two faculties must be providing us with a partial and skewed picture of what they are directed toward, and hence fail to disclose the underlying unity of mind and brain. Cognitive closure results from the fact that this partialness is inherent in the two modes of apprehension. There is no way to modify or extend introspection and perception so that they can transcend their present limitations. That is like hoping that if we tinker with our sense of touch it will eventually give us perceptions of color. To put it baldly, it is part of the very essence of consciousness that it not be perceptible by the kinds of senses we have, but that means that it can never be integrated with an object--the brain-- whose essence is to be perceptible" (The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World).

Eidolon: My friend would sit on Sasaki's lap every time she went into his room to try an answer her koan. He was like an old sweet Teddy bear. They were both consenting adults and that is as far as it went. No harm done to anyone. As for the other allegations, I make no judgements. I have to keep in mind that Sasaki took zero in the way of typical monk's vows. Edict number 133 issued by the Meiji government in 1872 decreed that all Buddhist monks in Japan should be free to “eat meat, take wives, and shave their heads” as they chose. As early has the Heian period (794–1185) examples are found of Buddhist monks marrying. In fact, there has been hardly a period in Japanese history where Buddhist monks did not marry.

Jure K. Most of what the say about the Roshi is probably true. I know of one incident. But Japanese teachers don't take the vows of a monk. So they are just like normal dudes. They can drink and have sex like any Christian minister.

Deathless: I like the Q&A genre. For talking about experiences and how to walk the path, it's not bad.

MefromCali: Both are mystical paths, both seek gnosis of the light. Both recognize that clinging to the flesh hides and denies the light. Both recognize awakening (Grk., anastasis) from the flesh: the sleep of ignorance.

Laura Smith: There is a via positiva, too. It is the 4 dhyânas. It is by the dhyânas that Siddhartha awakened (became buddha).

Guido Keller: I think many Buddhist discussion groups and Dharma centers might be stuck at Kohlberb's stage 4, which is about maintaining the social order. A Global Moderator recently said: "It is to be expected that those who cause friction and conflict will be banned, in order to maintain an environment that allows the greatest majority of members to enjoy the service this forum provides."

Jure K.: A.i.149. Go to the Anguttara-Nikaya. It is volume one, folio 149. Incidentally, Access to insight has an incomplete canon. If you are serious about Buddhism either find an academic library, buy the suttas, or go to Ken Wheeler's Aryan site (http://aryan-buddhism.blogspot.com/) and download his copies.

Jure K.: LOL

Jure K.: My use of the "real dude" refers to Buddha-nature/Self which is not an aggregate. This is at the heart of the real anattâ doctrine, not the one Theravadins and Westerners imagine to be who are lost in ignorance. Anattâ is a via negative term. I am profoundly to distinguish my self from the aggregates which are impermanent and suffering.

Jure K. The author, who has a Ph.D. in English, can't refute what is obvious in the Pali canon in regard to the real anattâ doctrine (I hate to use the term doctrine) - not with stuff like this: ||The teaching of anatman, then, can be understood as an assertion that there is no eternal and unchanging consciousness, life force, or soul, singular or plural, nothing which can escape this dependently arisen world and continue on in eternal bliss.|| Anattâ doctrine is very simple in the Pali canon: You Jure, the real dude, are not actually the Five Aggregates (which belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara). Of each aggregate you reflect: 'this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' (na meso attâ).

Anthony: Insisting on a determinate self is sakkaya (self=khandhas). Insisting there is no self is natthatta. Yes, both are extremes but this is not where the Buddha's self is coming from. The Buddha's self transcends all determination and spheres of being. This is why in commentarial literature Tathagata is equated with the self (tathâgato'ti attâ, UdA 340).

Jure K.: I am sure Hegel came across this: "For in the one only substance wherein there is no division there can be no knowledge" (Clavis by Boehme). You see this in the Awakening of Faith shastra. Where Buddhism differs in all this, is with the requirement of gnosis. No gnosis, it's metaphysical bullshit.

steve: On some blogs I have strongly suggested how the One Mind detects itself through creating, first, an antithesis from within itself. This solution came to Hegel's attention who studied the German mystic Jacob Böhme. It took me over ten years to put two plus two together to see that dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) was the antithesis I was looking for. The world (loka) we live in is this antithesis. By penetrating through it is a return-to-self. With the return-to-self, the grand gnosis comes that there is Mind-only (cittamatra). Phenomena don't really exist. Phenomena are Mind's way of recognizing itself and its absolutness. It is a perfect solution. Nothing changes yet everything changes.

Alicia: It is better to recognize it than to describe it.

Susan: Like with war there is a lot of fog in Buddhism. People can waste their entire lives in Buddhism not learning anything about Buddhism. It's obvious to me that Asians, generally, understand the need to realize pure Mind, as demanding as it is. Western Buddhists don't understand the need, so its a waste of time to study their interpretation of Buddhism. Next time you are with your teacher, ask the teacher what pure Mind looks like. :)

steve: To begin to understand Vedanta I think it is necessary to read Hajime Nakamura's book, _A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy_ (the book has a lot on Buddhism, too). I am still reading it. Suffice it to say that the Buddhist Vijnanavadins called themselves Advaitavadinah before the time of Sankara.

steve: It is probably more accurate to say that Vedanta came from Buddhism.

steve: I hear what you're saying but it needs some correction. First of all, the Buddha never denied the âtman or taught there is no âtman (in Pali, natthatta). He basically taught that our psychophysical body is not-the-âtman or anâtman. Awakening is the self-returning-to-self having overcome the illusory and evil anâtman/Mara the Evil One. The void is not ontological but negation. The absolute is void of the non-absolute (e.g., the fire aggregate)); the non-absolute (e.g., the five aggregates) is void of the absolute or âtman/pure Mind. Put another way, the uncompounded/nirvana is void of compounded/dependent originations/samsara. Compounded/dependent originations/samsara is void of the uncompounded/nirvana.

Susan: The bulk of Western Buddhists seem very uncomfortable with religion, especially, the transcendent. I have Muslim friends who are more open to what I have to say than the average Western Buddhist who, in the past, went so far as to accuse me of spreading Vedanta. At the coffee shop, my friends are Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews, Muslims and party animals (love ya Richie). We all get along beautifully. In light of this, I am beginning to see that Western Buddhists have a major problem, they are not really religious at all. It seems to be, unconsciously, "Screw the transcendent." They can't even see that God is just a signifier for what is truly transcendent within each of us, which is primordially free of suffering if only we would bother to turn to it, and not to the temporal which is never without suffering.

Neal: Gauḍapāda is the guy to study - accused of being a crypto-Buddhist. But so is Patanjali worth studying who is much older. For a mystic, the heart of Buddhism, is straightforward and ingenious. Baudda, as I see it, was a tremendously popular religion, not because of its skepticism and materialism (which many Theravadins impute to it) but because of its spirituality which disclosed to man his true abiding, eternal nature. It was truly a religion of redemption.

Jure K.: Actually, i am banned for what I have to say about self or âtman - as is Dr. Tony Page (he has been pretty much ostracized). By analogy, I hope that you are not suggesting that if Paul Krugman blogs in a better style somehow members of the Tea Party will flock to his views about the economy. Face it Jure, I can't please all the people. I just blog the truth as it was given to me many years ago.

azanshi: Perhaps the worst thing is these people suffer from some kind of 'personality disorder' which means they are incorrigible (one of the dirty little secrets of psychology). One needs to profile their type and then avoid them like the plague - or maybe just have them sit in zazen until their arses turn blue. :)

Eidolon: Thanks for saving them.