Originally posted by no1marauder
Found this while looking through some definitions of non-dualism.
Seng T'san, the third Zen Patriarch: The Mind of Absolute Trust
The great way isn't difficult for those who are unattached to their preferences.
Let go of longing and aversion, and everything will be perfectly clear.
When you cling to a hairbreadth of distinction, heaven an ...[text shortened]... be discussed in Spirituality when people get tired of the "Evolution" threads.
Wonderful! Thank you! It’s like the whole Tao Te Ching—or the Tao Te Ching and the Prajna Paramita Sutra combined—packed tighter, rich in paradoxical parallelism. (I’ve saved it for printing out.)
Don't keep searching for the truth; just let go of your opinions.
I have quoted that a number of times, but from a later Zen master apparently quoting Seng T’san. I also like—
“If you don't live the Tao, you fall into assertion or denial.
Asserting that the world is real, you are blind to its deeper reality;
denying that the world is real, you are blind to the selflessness of all things.
The more you think about these matters, the farther you are from the truth.
Step aside from all thinking, and there is nowhere you can't go.”
“Not-two.” To focus only on the phenomenal world of distinctions is illusion; to focus only on the “blended” whole is also illusion. The figure is not unreal because it arises from the whole-ground; that does mean that the whole-ground is a fragmentation. Although different Buddhists (and other non-dualists) use the language differently, I prefer to let those who say that the phenomenal world of distinctions is
maya have their way—and then assert also the reality of that maya. In this "Not-two" nothing is separate, and nothing in the world is excluded.
There is something that I’d like to preempt, though: Buddhism is sometimes seen as a philosophy of bland dispassion. I think that some Buddhists see it that way, too. It is not our enjoyments and preferences that are entrapment: it is the clinging/clutching attachment to them. Passion is fine: it’s part of the rich playing in maya. Zorba-Buddha is more Zen, to my mind.
I like lobster.
“I’m sorry, sir, but the lobster did not come in today...”
Now I can work myself into anguish-of-mind (dukkha
), or I can let go of my first choice and order, say, scallops and filet mignon. And I can enjoy that fully (along with a good pinot grigio, perhaps).
Or, hell, I can enjoy a cheeseburger!
In an archaic usage, the word “en-joy” could be an intransitive verb. “What are you doing?” “I’m enjoying.” “Enjoying what
?” “Just enjoying...” Or else, “I’m investing enjoyment in eating this cheeseburger with a cheap beer, just as I would a fine steak with a rioja.”