Welcome admin !

It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:18 pm
Pathway:  Board index General Buddhist Discussion General Buddha Dharma

What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

For discussion of Buddha Dharma, including teachings common to all Buddhist schools, such as the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, etc., that is not specific to Mahayana or Therevada

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby Linda Anderson on Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:14 am

Joe,

I am not buying any of this.... any of the rudeness, the flimsy explanations about words or the flippant gesture of forgiveness .... no sireee. None of it. Spike was kinder than I ever have seen him, and good on him. I hope I can be honest and kind as well. I am sick to death of zen flippancy, I've seen it all. Don't you dare tell me that it's my problem, my practice. I will deal with that.

My friend and neighbor Gregory needs no defense, I'm sure he's chuckling. But I do object to deriding heartfelt and sincere dharma. You are mistaken that it's just words ... and I won't stand by silently. We have seen enough of this in our US politics. It seems that you have appointed your self as a judge .... stop it!!! There are no sacred cows to be seen!!

You have staked your immunity on a flimsy quote... it serves no one, especially new ppl who may not know the ground yet.... and, certainly not you, if I may say so.

I will stop here.

linda

desert_woodworker wrote:Stu, Meido, et al.,

Thanks!, Meido, as always.

Yes, I might rethink my post. And because my "take" is surely personal and original, or at least authentic -- though -- clearly, there's no warranty or promise that I can satisfy others' weirds.

And, now-now: no sacred Cows, ...nor Gregorys (nor Joes; nor Meidos, nor etc.).

Let's see: what was I "complaining" about? Oh, yes, "daffynitions" (a notion borrowed from MAD MAGAZINE in 1960s), and redirecting a developed thread in accord with such.

I'll quote now, in any case, from a third-party Buddhist scholar, for fun, and for fire-extinguishing: cool-off!, Summer deni-Zens. See what another feller has to say who never met any of us in this medium, nor etc. I ask you to be "fair and balanced"; at least fairly-fair, and balanced... . For a moment.

From Edward Conze (1904-1979), in Buddhist Thought In India (1962; 1967; Ann Arbor):

    "In actual fact the meaning of words is defined by their usage among an élite of insiders, who among themselves rarely experience much difficulty. It is when the message has to be conveyed to outsiders that precise 'definitions', semantic distinctions, and so on, become necessary. A soteriological doctrine like Buddhism becomes a 'philosophy' when its intellectual content is explained to outsiders. This is not a particularly rewarding task, but in this book I have undertaken it. It must never be forgotten that it involves a huge loss of substance."
p. 28, Op. cit.

Yes, well; fine business: that's what we're here for.

I hope my replies to the OP, early in the thread, were on-point -- I. e., Best!, Stu! Maybe some others could have gathered a point or two, too, from those direct and experiential declamations: One posts, and can only hope, in faith. Such is our Way. And our sway. No warranties! But we do our dangdest (and, damn the would-be 'torpedoes' ). It's for a good cause. And for a good effect.

One can only do so well. And others can only receive so well. No blame.

All is forgiven. How could it not be. Especially considering that it is, apparently, not easily otherwise. Humans are such as they are; until they are otherwise, themselves.

And so, we practice. :Namaste:

--Joe

Meido wrote:
desert_woodworker wrote:But when somebody (was it Gregory?) comes suddenly into a developed thread with a passel of "definitions", as if to set everyone "straight" despite what's already long been written and digested, it generates a bad flavor.

We're not a dictionary book-club, here. We're talking about experience, and Zen Buddhist practice. No experience? Well, then, drag out the "daffynitions", and pedantry; it reflects poorly.


On the contrary, Gregory's background as an experienced practitioner is what makes his posts living words. That, along with erudition and ability to wade through source languages, is exactly more of the flavor this forum needs.

How anyone could take his contributions in this thread to be empty proliferation is beyond me. His own comments, which he simply uses quotes from classics to support and unpack, are very kind, direct pointers for practice. "Daffynitions" and "pedantry", really? Is there a problem with explanations of what "samadhi" actually refers to in Zen?

Honestly, Joe, you might rethink this. There is too much posting going on at ZFI that is off-track, not based in experience, needlessly provocative or demeaning, displaying fondness of conflict rather than exposition, and more revealing of authors' compulsive habit of posting than useful contribution. But if a time has come that posts like Gregory's are going to be derided, it may be that my own usefulness here has expired.
Not last night,
not this morning;
Melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
User avatar
Linda Anderson
 
Posts: 3824
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Forestville, CA

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby partofit22 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:44 am

Linda Anderson wrote:Joe,

I am not buying any of this.... any of the rudeness, the flimsy explanations about words or the flippant gesture of forgiveness .... no sireee. None of it. Spike was kinder than I ever have seen him, and good on him. I hope I can be honest and kind as well. I am sick to death of zen flippancy, I've seen it all. Don't you dare tell me that it's my problem, my practice. I will deal with that.

My friend and neighbor Gregory needs no defense, I'm sure he's chuckling. But I do object to deriding heartfelt and sincere dharma. You are mistaken that it's just words ... and I won't stand by silently. We have seen enough of this in our US politics. It seems that you have appointed your self as a judge .... stop it!!! There are no sacred cows to be seen!!

You have staked your immunity on a flimsy quote... it serves no one, especially new ppl who may not know the ground yet.... and, certainly not you, if I may say so.

I will stop here.

linda

desert_woodworker wrote:Stu, Meido, et al.,

Thanks!, Meido, as always.

Yes, I might rethink my post. And because my "take" is surely personal and original, or at least authentic -- though -- clearly, there's no warranty or promise that I can satisfy others' weirds.

And, now-now: no sacred Cows, ...nor Gregorys (nor Joes; nor Meidos, nor etc.).

Let's see: what was I "complaining" about? Oh, yes, "daffynitions" (a notion borrowed from MAD MAGAZINE in 1960s), and redirecting a developed thread in accord with such.

I'll quote now, in any case, from a third-party Buddhist scholar, for fun, and for fire-extinguishing: cool-off!, Summer deni-Zens. See what another feller has to say who never met any of us in this medium, nor etc. I ask you to be "fair and balanced"; at least fairly-fair, and balanced... . For a moment.

From Edward Conze (1904-1979), in Buddhist Thought In India (1962; 1967; Ann Arbor):

    "In actual fact the meaning of words is defined by their usage among an élite of insiders, who among themselves rarely experience much difficulty. It is when the message has to be conveyed to outsiders that precise 'definitions', semantic distinctions, and so on, become necessary. A soteriological doctrine like Buddhism becomes a 'philosophy' when its intellectual content is explained to outsiders. This is not a particularly rewarding task, but in this book I have undertaken it. It must never be forgotten that it involves a huge loss of substance."
p. 28, Op. cit.

Yes, well; fine business: that's what we're here for.

I hope my replies to the OP, early in the thread, were on-point -- I. e., Best!, Stu! Maybe some others could have gathered a point or two, too, from those direct and experiential declamations: One posts, and can only hope, in faith. Such is our Way. And our sway. No warranties! But we do our dangdest (and, damn the would-be 'torpedoes' ). It's for a good cause. And for a good effect.

One can only do so well. And others can only receive so well. No blame.

All is forgiven. How could it not be. Especially considering that it is, apparently, not easily otherwise. Humans are such as they are; until they are otherwise, themselves.

And so, we practice. :Namaste:

--Joe

Meido wrote:
desert_woodworker wrote:But when somebody (was it Gregory?) comes suddenly into a developed thread with a passel of "definitions", as if to set everyone "straight" despite what's already long been written and digested, it generates a bad flavor.

We're not a dictionary book-club, here. We're talking about experience, and Zen Buddhist practice. No experience? Well, then, drag out the "daffynitions", and pedantry; it reflects poorly.


On the contrary, Gregory's background as an experienced practitioner is what makes his posts living words. That, along with erudition and ability to wade through source languages, is exactly more of the flavor this forum needs.

How anyone could take his contributions in this thread to be empty proliferation is beyond me. His own comments, which he simply uses quotes from classics to support and unpack, are very kind, direct pointers for practice. "Daffynitions" and "pedantry", really? Is there a problem with explanations of what "samadhi" actually refers to in Zen?

Honestly, Joe, you might rethink this. There is too much posting going on at ZFI that is off-track, not based in experience, needlessly provocative or demeaning, displaying fondness of conflict rather than exposition, and more revealing of authors' compulsive habit of posting than useful contribution. But if a time has come that posts like Gregory's are going to be derided, it may be that my own usefulness here has expired.


Linda, I'm addressing the bold- (where you said in the above quote that you've seen it all) You once suggested, in so many words, that I haven't met everyone on earth- It was your response to something I said- I said something like, "I've never met a person/or anyone who did/didn/t .. something along those lines- I've kept your suggestion in mind-

There is a lot of flippancy, which must mean flippancy has an enormous "fan" base- Which is what, I think, Joe was pointing to when he mentioned "sacred cows"- Fanaticism- And .. then he quoted Edward Conze -- again- :tongueincheek: Because it appears he's a fan of Edward Conze .. lol .. Joe = fan of Conze- Conze = sacred cow-

As far as politics are concerned, we watched Mr Smith Goes to Washington on the 4th of July-

:)

PS - The word flip is in the thread title!

Image
partofit22
 
Posts: 4828
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby partofit22 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:54 am

If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?
partofit22
 
Posts: 4828
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby Spike on Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:39 am

partofit22 wrote:If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?


Well, for example, read Meido's comment.
Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow. --R.H.
User avatar
Spike
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:15 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby Spike on Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:20 am

Per Master Rinzai, commenting in a blog would be an example of the first category of Samadhi, "Man is deprived, circumstances are not deprived." Or maybe G or M would have their own way of explaining it.
Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow. --R.H.
User avatar
Spike
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:15 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby Linda Anderson on Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:58 pm

Spike wrote:
partofit22 wrote:If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?


Well, for example, read Meido's comment.


Teresa,
I did not say Gregory laughed it off... that is not the same energy as chuckling.... and I was speculating when I said... I am sure Gregory is chuckling. And, to put it in context, I started with pointing out that Gregory needs no defense.... meaning that my comments stand on their own.

yes, read Meido's comment
Not last night,
not this morning;
Melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
User avatar
Linda Anderson
 
Posts: 3824
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Forestville, CA

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby fukasetsu on Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:48 pm

Sparkle wrote:Thoughts, you samadhi dwellers?


I know a cat named Samadhi :lol2:

I had no idea I experienced one until a teacher late told me after I shared the experience,
I was like oh is that what that word means, my first thought will always dwell on the cat first though.
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7249
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby partofit22 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:34 pm

Linda Anderson wrote:
Spike wrote:
partofit22 wrote:If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?


Well, for example, read Meido's comment.


Teresa,
I did not say Gregory laughed it off... that is not the same energy as chuckling.... and I was speculating when I said... I am sure Gregory is chuckling. And, to put it in context, I started with pointing out that Gregory needs no defense.... meaning that my comments stand on their own.

yes, read Meido's comment


I think most prefer to express themselves in a manner thats not so flippant- But not always, not when one feels passionate about a matter- But some folks simply respond flippantly more often- It can be difficult to read, but what gets said I think is worth considering- In another thread Dan suggested that people are equal- And perhaps somewhere between daffynitions and sacred cows a similar point was rudely communicated-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4828
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby partofit22 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:35 pm

Spike wrote:
partofit22 wrote:If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?


Well, for example, read Meido's comment.


I did read it, Spike-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4828
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby desert_woodworker on Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:57 pm

hi, Linda,

Linda Anderson wrote:Joe,
I am not buying any of this....

"Fine business". No one here says that everyone must conceive things the same way. I vowed long ago not to hide light under a bushel. Others have other bushels, and perceive light in different ways. Your teachers and mine would not disagree! But let's leave them out of it: we're Adults, now.

yours,

--Joe

p.s. let's return to the OP, and to the FIRST PAGE of this important thread. I think Stu thus received the info he wanted about 5 pages ago. None of it involved "daffynitions". Hail! Granted, a thread sometimes inadvertently has an "after-life", after it has served its direct purpose. Oh, well. Afterlives are irrelevant to our lives on Earth, to those of us still breathing, that is. Eating. Practicing. If so, I think we all know pretty well what's important, where the rubber meets the Road, ...or where Practice meets the Way. "Daffynitions"? No, no, no. Nah... . But of course you will be the Judge, Your Honor. No blame.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7041
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby fukasetsu on Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:24 am

Spike wrote:
partofit22 wrote:If Gregory laughed off Joes comments, as its been suggested, why would anyone else be upset by it?


Well, for example, read Meido's comment.


I read it as a retoric question :heya:
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7249
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: What the blimmeny flip is Samadhi!?

Postby fukasetsu on Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:27 am

desert_woodworker wrote:No one here says that everyone must conceive things the same way. I vowed long ago not to hide light under a bushel. Others have other bushels, and perceive light in different ways. Your teachers and mine would not disagree! But let's leave them out of it: we're Adults, now.


Shouldn't we leave everyone out of it, always?
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7249
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Previous

Return to General Buddha Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest