To the truly balanced entity no situation would be emotionally charged.

[Meerie]

Reminds me of a story about a Zen master.

During a war the city in which his monastery stands is occupied by the enemy. Like the civilians all the monks flee the city. But the master does not change his daily ritual. As the fighting goes on around him he sits in his garden drinking tea.

A soldier jumps over the fence and points his sword at the master shouting some threat. The master continues drinking his tea. The soldier menacingly comes closer and asks "You fool, don't you understand the man before you could kill you without blinking an eye?"

To which the monk replies. "Do you not understand you stand before a man who can be killed without blinking an eye?"

I'm a little confused about the moral of this story. What does it mean exactly? On the surface it seems that disassociating ones self from other people and / or events happening around oneself, to the point of your own physical death, is somehow a good thing? I think I'm missing something.

I think it means that when he was initiated / enlightened, he lost all fear, including that of death. So to him it simply is not important anymore, whether he lives or dies, since death is just the doorway to something else, anyways.
He simply does not feel the need to run for his life, and wants to continue being in the moment, which he does by sipping his tea.
(I am imagining the face of the soldier right now, lol... I bet the soldier let him live. Such calmth and fearlessness is pretty impressive, isn't it?)

[Shin'Ar]

I could kill you.

I can be killed, just as easily.

The fact that the act is just as easily done by the victim as it is the killer, reveals that the killer's action is no great feat.

The monk is telling the killer that his bragging is of no merit when the victim can accomplish the same act himself.

It is foolish to feel high and mighty about power that you do not truly hold yourself.

[Ali Quadir]

I'm a little confused about the moral of this story. What does it mean exactly? On the surface it seems that disassociating ones self from other people and / or events happening around oneself, to the point of your own physical death, is somehow a good thing? I think I'm missing something.

It has nothing to do with courage, suicide or power. The answer lies in the religion of the monk.

An important factor in buddhism is the principle of attachment. Attachment by it's nature is always to something that is transient. Meaning you're attaching yourself to something that is guaranteed to go away. This is the root cause for suffering. All suffering is the result of something you're attached to that is taken away from you.

This can be attachment to a person, to a state of affairs (your life), or to an outcome.

If you are attached to a person you are not free to enjoy that person to the fullest. You will be checking for signs of problems in your relationship. And when they show up they will always be dramas. These dramas are only going to make things worse. Same goes for all areas of attachment. Compare to unattached happiness. Sure your lover could go away. But if you're not afraid of that, but instead always the smiling lightbulb who is thoroughly enjoying his life and her in it. She's also not likely to want to go away.

Buddhism can be seen as a philosophy of extreme mental hygiene. You effectively clean out all this rubbish from in the brain.

This monk is good at it and no longer attached to anything. This does not mean he does not love his life, his monastery or his fellow monks. He understands these are transient in nature. He understands they will eventually go away. And be replaced by something else. This understanding allows him to enjoy them without suffering "problems in those areas of his life" as threats.

So it is not disassociating yourself from people and events, it is accepting that they are transient so you don't have to disassociate. It's basically clearing away your suffering by removing it's root cause so that you can fill your life with people events and affairs that can only bring joy.

Buddhists are among the most happiest people on this planet. Check out "Matthieu Ricard" he's officially the happiest man alive... They're sure because they've tested him..

Google "non attachment" for more..

[abstrktion]

An important factor in buddhism is the principle of attachment. Attachment by it's nature is always to something that is transient. Meaning you're attaching yourself to something that is guaranteed to go away. This is the root cause for suffering. All suffering is the result of something you're attached to that is taken away from you.

. This can be attachment to a person, to a state of affairs (your life), or to an outcome

If you are attached to a person you are not free to enjoy that person to the fullest. You will be checking for signs of problems in your relationship. And when they show up they will always be dramas. These dramas are only going to make things worse. Same goes for all areas of attachment. Compare to unattached happiness. Sure your lover could go away. But if you're not afraid of that, but instead always the smiling lightbulb who is thoroughly enjoying his life and her in it. She's also not likely to want to go away.

Buddhism can be seen as a philosophy of extreme mental hygiene. You effectively clean out all this rubbish from in the brain.

This monk is good at it and no longer attached to anything. This does not mean he does not love his life, his monastery or his fellow monks. He understands these are transient in nature. He understands they will eventually go away. And be replaced by something else. This understanding allows him to enjoy them without suffering "problems in those areas of his life" as threats.

So it is not disassociating yourself from people and events, it is accepting that they are transient so you don't have to disassociate. It's basically clearing away your suffering by removing it's root cause so that you can fill your life with people events and affairs that can only bring joy.

Beautifully said. Love this. A good reminder to us all--and not just a tenet of Buddhism. In the western traditions, it is sometimes called 'desire'--and it is something that we will eventually outgrow or be purged of when it can no longer be satisfied.

[Ankh]

I find this monk story really cool. I enjoy reading stories like this or that about Jesus when those who were about to kill him came, and Jesus told his followers to put down their weapons when they wanted to defend him.

And yet, at the same time I wonder, what if this monk or Jesus had wife and children? Would the monk and Jesus be equally non attached to what was happening? Would Jesus let those men crucify his children and his wife and still not defend them? Would he let his family be hanging on the crosses for days and not do anything?

That is when it gets complicated to me. To walk the path of a monk is one thing. To walk it with a family is more complicated I guess.

[drifting pages]

Ankh i think you already know the answer to your question, detachment is detachment and that includes everything in it.

I am not saying i follow this principle or not but it is what it is.

[Lulu]

I find this monk story really cool. I enjoy reading stories like this or that about Jesus when those who were about to kill him came, and Jesus told his followers to put down their weapons when they wanted to defend him.

And yet, at the same time I wonder, what if this monk or Jesus had wife and children? Would the monk and Jesus be equally non attached to what was happening? Would Jesus let those men crucify his children and his wife and still not defend them? Would he let his family be hanging on the crosses for days and not do anything?

That is when it gets complicated to me. To walk the path of a monk is one thing. To walk it with a family is more complicated I guess.

Really good point Ankh, I've pondered on this topic much myself. I am fairly certain he did have a family and a wife and I find that martyrs are only as good as what they stand for. Though his message was Love, to me, allowing oneself to be hung up on a cross is very far from Love. Because of that error, he was then used as a pawn to promote that which he created to the very benefit of those who he pushed against.

Dying in Defending your family however, to me, is Love. Standing up for what one believes is unjust, to promote change is Love, but one need not necessarily die as a sacrifice, only be willing.

Lulu

This does bring to mind why STO must be properly understood and applied. Those who think BEING Loving IS LOVE are are yet again positioning themselves to become enslaved and/or martyred at best. There is a big difference between Being Loving and what is LOVE.

[Ali Quadir]

And yet, at the same time I wonder, what if this monk or Jesus had wife and children? Would the monk and Jesus be equally non attached to what was happening? Would Jesus let those men crucify his children and his wife and still not defend them? Would he let his family be hanging on the crosses for days and not do anything?

That is when it gets complicated to me. To walk the path of a monk is one thing. To walk it with a family is more complicated I guess.

I don't think non attachment means not acting in the face of things that are wrong. It means you're not emotionally attached to the outcome. It does not mean you do not choose to walk the right path.

I think that when we're free from attachments we are free to do the right thing because it is right. No matter what the consequences. At that point you realize the only thing that is important is who you are.

[Unbound]

Actually, many Buddhists, even Lamas' and "masters" do indeed get married and have wives and families.

Something I would note is that in this case, more often than not the wife and kids would all be fully aware of the state of the father and his manner of existing. Also, many monks trained in martials arts to protect those who could not protect themselves, they just didn't leave their "territory" or pursue foes.

I think it would all depend on the situation, obviously.

[abstrktion]

hmmm...like attracts like...It would surprise me if the wife were not also committed to these beliefs--and the children would likely be taught the beliefs as well.

[Ali Quadir]

I think when you're attached to a lover there is the expectation that this person will bring you happiness and fulfillment.. This expectation is unrealistic, no person is so perfect that they can truly complete us. When you're unattached this means you will always look within to find that happiness and fulfillment. You are complete on your own. You don't expect or need the other person to supply it.

Being in a relationship is much much more than "what can that other person do for me". It is about the genuine wish to interact with that other person on a recurring basis and building from this interaction a kind of shared reality.

If the other person goes away through death or simply because paths lead them elsewhere, and we're unattached we will remember the good times and don't impose on the other the frustration of unfulfilled expectations. The long term well-being and happiness of the partners then becomes more important than the fulfillment of emotional addictions.

You're not there to get your fix of "being loved" you're there because you wish to spend time with the other person.

And not being clingy, not putting your well-being in the hands of another person, but instead spending the time in the here and now, this is actually a very good basis for a relationship.

[Unbound]

This is exactly how my Dad talks about relationships. You both have to have your own complete lives and then meet in the middle and enjoy yourselves there, you can't try or be forced to "carry" eachother or else you both tend to fall down.

[Ankh]

I am not critizing the story. I like reading stories like that! For me personally though they are cool but not valid, because in the cases that I speak of, in my eyes, it would be unwise to let things happen both to the self and the family because of the detachment. Detachment is seen by me as a realization that the self is a tiny part of the one infinite Creation, trying to learn how to dance with other parts. Each part contributing to the experiences to the One Creator, by exercising its own Free Will, so there must be a detachment to whatever you would like to create so you won't infringe upon the Free Will of other Creators. Yet, we are in third density. A density where there indeed exists this infringement due the meshing between polarities, and this is also a density where the "war" is still fought. So speaking of this density, when another portion of the Creator decides to exercise its creative power and by doing so have to infringe upon the Free Will of another Creator, in this case taking lives, I say that it is unwise to not defend itself/family.

[Meerie]

But the question is... did he really get killed? was the decision to stay really that unwise?

If he chose to run away in order to protect himself, he might still get caught and killed.
Maybe he also had an injured leg and wasn't able to run, anyways.
I still believe that the soldier did not kill him, in fact was probably unable to do so, after looking into the eyes of this extraordinary monk.
What use is it to exert control over someone who clearly cannot be controlled?
(Kill = control)
Call me naive, but in my book the story continues like that: the soldier, overwhelmed by the monks behaviour and the aura of holiness that enveloped him, took down his weapon and said "master, I bow before your infinite wisdom, please show me the way"

[godwide_void]

The reason for the monk's detached demeanor to the soldier's threat is because the monk has achieved awareness of his true nature and thus understands that the disintegration of his temporary form does not equate to obliteration of his true form and that the transitory phase which the phenomenon of death as is experienced in this world will lead to the next phase in the movement towards the fountainhead. The monk has gained wisdom of the stillness necessary when traversing through the vortex. The monk comprehends himself as Oneness with All and thus knows that all will unfold as it should, even his own death if it should come at that time through the soldier's hands.

[Shin'Ar]

The reason for the monk's detached demeanor to the soldier's threat is because the monk has achieved awareness of his true nature and thus understands that the disintegration of his temporary form does not equate to obliteration of his true form and that the transitory phase which the phenomenon of death as is experienced in this world will lead to the next phase in the movement towards the fountainhead. The monk has gained wisdom of the stillness necessary when traversing through the vortex. The monk comprehends himself as Oneness with All and thus knows that all will unfold as it should, even his own death if it should come at that time through the soldier's hands.

There you go again GWV, speaking so casually of this "stillness". It appears and disappears in a sentence and most have no idea what you extraordinary truth you have just let free from your lips. I have heard you speak of this 'stillness/emptiness' before.

For the sake of all here, please try to delve into the meaning of that. It is so vital to our true realities. I know it is difficult and we have spoken just discussed this recently ourselves, but try to see if you can further elaborate on that and 'connect' with it, so that many here might benefit from it.

[Ankh]

What use is it to exert control over someone who clearly cannot be controlled?

My understanding is that if a negative entity can not control another entity, the negative entity will try to control the situation, which in this case would be to eliminate the entity who can not be controled.

[Ali Quadir]

Call me naive, but in my book the story continues like that: the soldier, overwhelmed by the monks behaviour and the aura of holiness that enveloped him, took down his weapon and said "master, I bow before your infinite wisdom, please show me the way"

Which is usually how these zen stories end

The point of the story is not that the master did not defend himself. The point was to exemplify freedom from attachment.

The point of these koans is to demonstrate or illustrate a principle to inspire seekers... Obviously there is no wisdom in not defending yourself and your family. And I think if we take that from the story, we're missing the writer's intent.

There's another koan where a guy reaches enlightenment because he gets whacked over the head by his master. If we take from that story that getting whacked over the head causes enlightenment then a whole lot of people should be saints by now. :/

[kycahi]

A soldier jumps over the fence and points his sword at the master shouting some threat. The master continues drinking his tea. The soldier menacingly comes closer and asks "You fool, don't you understand the man before you could kill you without blinking an eye?"

To which the monk replies. "Do you not understand you stand before a man who can be killed without blinking an eye?"

I'm a little confused about the moral of this story. What does it mean exactly? On the surface it seems that disassociating ones self from other people and / or events happening around oneself, to the point of your own physical death, is somehow a good thing? I think I'm missing something.

I would change the monk's words to, "Do you not understand you stand before a man who accepts death without blinking an eye?"

[Ankh]

A soldier jumps over the fence and points his sword at the master shouting some threat. The master continues drinking his tea. The soldier menacingly comes closer and asks "You fool, don't you understand the man before you could kill you without blinking an eye?"

To which the monk replies. "Do you not understand you stand before a man who can be killed without blinking an eye?"

I'm a little confused about the moral of this story. What does it mean exactly? On the surface it seems that disassociating ones self from other people and / or events happening around oneself, to the point of your own physical death, is somehow a good thing? I think I'm missing something.

I would change the monk's words to, "Do you not understand you stand before a man who accepts death without blinking an eye?"

Ah! Thanks! Now I understand this story point.

[Ali Quadir]

This dropped into my inbox this morning and I figured it would be relevant to this topic.
I have not seen the talk myself yet, it's on my todo list
The Art of Meditation by Matthieu Ricard

[Oceania]

even Jesus had a fit.

[Ali Quadir]

even Jesus had a fit.

He should have been studying with Matthieu then.

[3DMonkey]

Sounds like any other guy trying to figure it out. (Also, I find it funny how a person speaking to a group affects the each listener's perspective. Jesus knows what I'm talking about )

[Plenum]

I had an insight into the attraction/avoidance mechanic.

avoidance is quite often linked to repulsion; or wanting the thought or idea to get as far away from you as possible.

this repulsion can be likened to a rock, that is tied to an elastic band. You throw the rock as hard as possible away from you, and the avoidance works, for a little while.

but soon after, the elastic reaches full stretch, and know what? the rock changes direction, and comes straight back at ya ...

[Ashim]

I had an insight into the attraction/avoidance mechanic.

avoidance is quite often linked to repulsion; or wanting the thought or idea to get as far away from you as possible.

this repulsion can be likened to a rock, that is tied to an elastic band. You throw the rock as hard as possible away from you, and the avoidance works, for a little while.

but soon after, the elastic reaches full stretch, and know what? the rock changes direction, and comes straight back at ya ...

You just summed up what will happen with our portion of Creation in about 60 minutes from now, my time.
It works that way because We Are All One.

[kanonathena]

I think love is the natural state of awareness. Our personality is like a sheet of cloth with wrinkles on it. All we have to relax and let the sheet to unwind until it is undistorted and without differentiation. When there is no differentiation all one can feel is wholeness, all one capable of is love which is a projection of the undistorted self.

Easier said than done though. Very difficult to relax when your mind keep asking relaxing what and why. My approach is to relax the little twists first, like if I can say "good morning" but usually I felt lazy, I just will do it even though I may not feel like it completely. Little by little, the bigger ones will become smaller and smaller... overtime when I reach a state when there is only one and two bigger ones left, it became easier to elevate myself and get a clear view of my sheet. The hidden wrinkles will surface, but by then I feel like just keeping on relaxing, this generate a momentum to keep undistorting, which means it will get better and better...

What I try to say is love is not some object. It is a state inside you and you feel it more clearly when your personality relax enough.

Oh, another thought is that since all your perception is generated by yourself, so all you can perceive is your self. It doesn't matter if there is anything outside yourself or not, all you can experience is yourself anyway. When this is fully realized, there would be an overwhelming sense of peace. If one is able to dwell on this, one is able to project peace and love to physical reality. All facets of oneself can be viewed equally and naturally return to an undifferentiated state.