Re: Meditation is at least as challenging as learning to fly
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, medit8ionsociety
> To whomever it may concern,have
> Let's say that there's a pilot who can fly a plane as easily and
> mindlessly as most of us can drive a car, even though they don't
> any real knowledge about aviation or how to teach others to fly. Andsay
> someone else decides that being able to fly would be a great benefit
> to their lives, and goes to a flight school in the hope of learning
> how to aviate. Isn't it obvious that it would be wrong for the
> experienced pilot to go to the flight school and tell those who came
> to the school for lessons to just get in the plane and fly. Or to
> that all people have the innate ability to fly a plane and thatdelusional,
> therefore they don't need lessons. Or that they are dumb,
> etc. for wanting flying lessons. And wouldn't it be undermining andthat
> discouraging to the seekers of flying knowledge if the pilot said
> the teachers of flying are only doing it to boost their own image,and
> that if they quote deceased masters of flying they are doingsomething
> wrong, regardless of the quality of the flying instructions they aretype
> sharing. Inappropriate methodologies also, right? What would be
> appropriate, and would avoid mid-air collisions, is if all those
> pilots take their act to a "You don't need flying lessons" group,Bob --
> where this view of aviation understanding is welcomed, and keep far
> far away from the air space of the flight school.
> Peace and blessings,
A plane gets to a destination.
The sky already always is the sky.
Is meditation a plane that is flown to
a destination -- or is it the shift
to being the sky (which includes all
planes and pilots, but has no destination)?
How is it that a shift occurs from being one
particular pilot flying one of the planes,
to being the entire sky all-inclusively, at once?
Is it because of a particular model plane, or
what the controller is saying from the flight
No. It is because the sky is what it is, is
who you already are.
But, the shift happens, not only because you
already always are -- but also because of
the "no" in the previous sentence.
That "no" is not anti-meditation, nor is it against
any particular pilot or model of plane.
Fly your plane, give messages from the control tower,
make sure the planes don't crash.
It's just that none of those activities get you to the sky being
the sky -- nor do they interfere --
it's just that if taken as a means to an end of becoming
the sky, they miss what the sky already always is.
Misconstruing the sky as a destination, they've partialized
it into an end they can reach.
It's not that activities to reach goals shouldn't be done,
or can't have any benefit for particular pilots
and passengers -- it's merely not taking
those activities as something which they aren't.
That "no" which says the pilot doesn't get to
become or be the sky, nor bring his plane
into the deal -- is compassion. The sky already
is, and doesn't need anything added in. Planes
go up and come down. The sky doesn't.
It's apples and oranges.
The sky isn't against planes.
But it's not in favor of planes, either.
It has no opinion of planes, because it's not divided
into separable pilot-personalities so as to have
views in favor of this model or that air traffic controller.
Of course, you as a pilot have every right to promote your
favorite model of plane and favorite air traffic controller.
The sky doesn't invest in building plane factories,
doesn't read the stock reports to see which company
did well, nor take sides concerning who is
the best air traffic controller that ever lived because
he or she produced the most successful pilots.
The sky includes all of it, just no separates.
The "No" of the sky saying you don't get to get to me,
is like God telling Moses you won't get to see
the promised land -- it is the utmost in compassion.
This isn't a no against any one in particular -- it's
a "no" to anybody having any separable position from
which to do anything or arrive anywhere.
That "No" is meditation and it actually is affirmation as
totality, beyond affirmation and negation --
it's not a "no" to methods and a "yes" to nonmethodology ...
it's not a "no" to a particular person and a "yes" to another ...
it's not a "no" to knowledge and a "yes" to not knowing anything.
It's "No" to all the games of partialized beings however
those are construed, and all the positives and negatives
involved in relation to them. Yet, it's not against those
games, nor saying it's wrong to do them. What this is,
is a radical shift that involves no movement from where
you already always are. Because it involves no movement,
nothing happening, no gain -- that is why it is the
ultimate radical shift called meditation.
There is a famous Zen dialogue in which a monk asks
Joshu whether a dog has Buddha-nature (presumably
expecting him to say 'yes,' probably having heard
such a tenet expressed as the common Buddhist
teaching that all living beings
have the seed of Buddha-nature).
Joshu said loudly and emphatically, "Mu!" (No.)
This story became a very well-known koan that is often considered
very primary and important in many Zen schools that use
koans. (Right up there with "What is the sound
of one hand clapping?" and "Who am I?")
A teacher once said that if you really get Joshu's
mu, you will have the answer to every koan (of course,
many Zen schools believe there are progressive levels
of koans, and would move a student from this one to the
next, once it is "solved.")
Now, someone could easily say to Joshu, you are being
antimeditation, antiBuddhism, you don't know anything,
you are misleading this monk, you are going to prevent
monks from meditating, monks will be discouraged, they
will no longer feel they have the seed of Buddha-consciousness,
and that is no way to teach meditation).
Yet, I submit to you that Joshu's "No!" is meditation,
and is not neti-neti meditation either.
It is extremely compassionate and direct expression of
enlightenment directly and without mediation.
Joshu's "No!" is the sky itself, yet he wouldn't let
the monk believe that the monk's idea of becoming the sky,
or feeling reassured that all beings will eventually
know they are the sky, has anything at all
to do with what the sky already always is.
Of course, because this is a famous story of an
event in the life of a great Zen teacher,
if someone prestigious from a famous Zen school
says "Mu!" everyone will be impressed.
If a homeless person looking through a trash bin happens
to look directly into your eyes at the moment
you are wondering whether you have the potential
to be God, and says, "No!"
and then returns to looking through the trash -- of course,
that statement will be disregarded.
People are looking for pilots who know how to fly, who
have gone to school, not homeless people sleeping on
But you never know how meditation will come to you, how
it will grab you -- how that "No!" which is
beyond "Yes" will hit you.
You never know whether a teacher might not fit the mold
you expect, might appear as a bird rather than a pilot,
perhaps, singing rather than using human speech.
A pilot listens to the air traffic controller so as
not to crash -- doesn't listen to a bird -- but who
knows, what if that is the sky talking?
Jesus said, "I am a thief that comes in the night."
That thief is meditation.
In my humble opinion, as always,