From ‘The Way of Liberation’, by Adyashanti

“As a guiding principle, to progressively realize what is not absolutely True is of infinitely more value than speculating about what is.

[…]

No spiritual teaching is a direct path to enlightenment. In fact, there is no such thing as a path to enlightenment, simply because enlightenment is ever present in all places and at all times. What you can do is to remove any and all illusions, especially the ones you value most and find the most security in, that cloud your perception of Reality.”

From ‘The Way of Liberation’, by Adyashanti

From ‘Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist’, by D.T. Suzuki

 

Ullled-1

I wish to emphasise this idea of ‘seeing’. It is not enough to ‘know’ as the term is  ordinarily understood. Knowledge unless it is accompanied by a personal experience is superficial and no kind of philosophy can be built upon such a shaky foundation. There are, however, I suppose many systems of thought not backed by real experiences, but such are never inspiring. They may be fine to look at but their power to move the readers is nil. Whatever knowledge the philosopher may have, it must come out of his experience, and this experience is seeing. Buddha has always emphasised this. He couples knowing (ñana, jñana) with seeing (passa, pasya), for without seeing, knowing has no depths, cannot understand the realities of life. Therefore, the first item of the Eightfold Noble Path is sammadassana, right seeing, and sammasankappa, right knowing, comes next. Seeing is experiencing, seeing things in their state of suchness (tathata) or is-ness. Buddha’s whole philosophy comes from this ‘seeing’, this experiencing.

[…]

The one thing I wish to call to the readers’ attention is the term ‘wisdom’, pañña, or prajña in Sanskrit. This is a very important term throughout Buddhist philosophy. There is no English equivalent for it. ‘Transcendental wisdom’ is too heavy, besides it does not exactly hit the mark. But temporarily let ‘wisdom’ do. We know that seeing is very much emphasised in Buddhism, but we must not fail also to notice that seeing is not just an ordinary seeing by means of relative knowledge; it is the seeing by means of a prajña-eye which is a special kind of intuition enabling us to penetrate right into the bedrock of Reality itself.

From ‘Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist’, by D.T. Suzuki

from ‘The Gateless Gate’, commented by Mumon

feet_garden

Ummon asked: “The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?”

Mumon’s comment: When one studies Zen one need not follow sound or color or form. Even though some have attained insight when hearing a voice or seeing a color or a form, this is a very common way. It is not true Zen. The real Zen student controls sound, color, form, and actualizes the truth in his everyday life.
Sound comes to the ear, the ear goes to sound. When you blot out sound and sense, what do you understand? While listening with ears one never can understand. To understand intimately one should see sound.

When you understand, you belong to the family;
When you do not understand, you are a stranger.
Those who do not understand belong to the family,
And when they understand they are strangers.
from ‘The Gateless Gate’, commented by Mumon

from ‘An Introduction to Zen Buddhism’, by D.T. Suzuki

enso1“Zen has nothing to teach us in the way of intellectual analysis; nor has it any set doctrines which are imposed on its followers for acceptance. In this respect Zen is quite chaotic if you choose to say so. Probably Zen followers many have sets of doctrines, but they have them on their own account, and for their own benefit; they do not owe the fact to Zen. Therefore, there are in Zen no sacred books or dogmatic tenets, nor are there any symbolic formulae through which an access might be gained into the significance of Zen. If I am asked what Zen teaches, I would answer, Zen teaches nothing. Whatever teachings there are in Zen, they come out of one’s mind. We teach ourselves; Zen merely points the way. Unless this pointing is teaching, there is certainly nothing in Zen purposely set up as its cardinal doctrines or as its fundamental philosophy.

Zen claims to be Buddhist, but all the Buddhist teachings as propounded in the sutras and sastras are treated by Zen as mere waste paper whose utility consists in wiping off the dirt of the intellect and nothing more. Do not imagine, however, that Zen is nihilism. All nihilism is self-destructive, it ends nowhere. Negativism is sound as a method, but the highest truth is an affirmation. When it is said that Zen has no philosophy, that it denies all doctrinal authority, that it casts aside all so-called sacred literature as rubbish, we must not forget that Zen is holding up in this very act of negation something quite positive and eternally affirmative.”

from ‘An Introduction to Zen Buddhism’, by D.T. Suzuki

from ‘A Tua Presença Morena’ (in ‘Qualquer Coisa’, by Caetano Veloso)

selo

“A tua presença  [Your presence]
Paralisa meu momento em que tudo começa  [Paralises my moment in which all begins]
A tua presença    [Your presence]
Desintegra e atualiza a minha presença [Desintegrates and actualises my presence]
A tua presença     [Your presence]
[…]
Se espalha no campo derrubando as cercas [Spreads over the fields flattening hedges]
A tua presença     [Your presence]
É tudo o que se come, tudo o que se reza   [It’s all that’s eaten, all that’s prayed]
A tua presença     [Your presence]
Coagula o jorro da noite sangrenta [Coagulates the flow in the bloody night]
A tua presença     [Your presence]
É a coisa mais bonita em toda a natureza [Is the most beautiful thing in all of nature]
A tua presença     [Your presence]
Mantém sempre teso o arco da promessa [Keeps always taut the bow of promise]
A tua presença     [Your presence]

from ‘A Tua Presença Morena’ (in ‘Qualquer Coisa’, by Caetano Veloso)