You felons on trial in courts

[passing_through]

You felons on trial in courts,
you convicts in prison-cells, you sentenced assassins chain'd and
handcuff'd with iron,
who am I too that I am not on trial or in prison?
Me ruthless and devilish as any, that my wrists are not chain'd with
iron, or my ankles with iron?

You prostitutes flaunting over the trottoirs or obscene in your rooms,
Who am I that I should call you more obscene than myself?

O culpable! I acknowledge - I expose!
(O admirers, praise not me - compliment me not - you make me
wince,
I see what you do not - I know what you do not.)

Inside these breast-bones I lie smutch'd and choked,
Beneath this face that appears so impassive hell's tides continually
run.
Lusts and wickedness are acceptable to me,
I walk with delinquents with passionate love,
I feel I am of them - I belong to those convicts and prostitutes myself,
And henceforth I will not deny them - for how can I deny myself?

1860 - Walt Whitman

This poem describes the cry from within the Swamp. The Bible talks about being convicted of sin by the soul. The above poem reflects that experience. The question remains that, in my heart I am a beast full of vice and passions and wants (Freud called this the Id)... so why am I not on trial for what I feel inwardly when I feel I'm just as guilty as convicts, even if I haven't acted on my impulses? We've all had experiences when we wished someone else would die - in our hearts at that moment we're capable of murder... yet we don't act... what holds us back?

In another thread there is a discussion going on about killing the ego. When we are faced with a challenge - a direct affront to our self-identity, we have three choices: accept, reject, or stop everything. The ego either dies, gets stronger, or we become paralyzed and can't get past this challenge to our identity. Koans served this purpose in the past - to put students of Chan into a state wherein they can't move on with their lives until the "solve" the puzzle. Eventually, this focus was lost or changed and people used Koans and the "answers" to demonstrate their level of knowledge. An example of a Koan is the question, "Who am I?" When you are properly prepared, answering this question becomes the central focus of your life - you can't stop thinking about it until you achieve a breakthrough - or quit and leave the temple.

Translating this to daily life, any experience can become a Koan - any thought that becomes the sole focus of our existence can lead to a breakthrough provided we don't give up. To keep us from giving up if this is our first time, it helps to have faith that this experience is happening for a good reason - a vital and necessary experience for our growth. After having been through it a few times, the faith isn't required anymore as we know from experience that these moments of struggle are beneficial.

Going back to the question of not acting on our impulses, the ego can either accept the situation and die a little, resist the situation and fight back, or get caught between the two. As the ego gets stronger, I will continue to fight and resist the push and pull of the world for the rest of my life. Then, like a mighty tree that resists the force of the hurricane, life will rip be apart at my roots. This is the stock broker that loses everything and jumps out the window – he can’t see how to maintain his life without his money and investments. Instead, we should be like grass – flexible and adaptable to changing situations. This requires a small ego.

In the poem above, the author is mindful of his own level of attainment - he still has his vices and wants. Realizing where we are helps to know the direction in which we are moving.

Sincerely,
Jeremy R.

[Cang Long]

Going back to the question of not acting on our impulses, the ego can either accept the situation and die a little, resist the situation and fight back, or get caught between the two. As the ego gets stronger, I will continue to fight and resist the push and pull of the world for the rest of my life. This is the stock broker that loses everything and jumps out the window – he can’t see how to maintain his life without his money and investments. The first example is describing the yin and yang in the second example sight of yin has been lost. The key is understanding both yin and yang and never losing sight of either. In the poem the answer is simple for me a person not in jail or prison can balance the yin and the yang the person in jail or prison can not or has yet to realize the importance of doing so.

[Bryan Feagin]

Sifu Jeremy,

Your post hit home for me. Lately, I've struggled much with this idea of letting go of the ego, and bending to the criticism of others (as opposed to fighting it). It has proven beneficial in the respect that others are becoming more accepting of me now... and I with myself.

But, I'm still struggling with this concept. Especially as a man of principle. For example, if others perceptions of you and you actions are out of synch with Reality, then why should we bend to their wishes? Why should we be accepting of this type of situation? We all know people who project their shortcomings onto others, even those around us that we love and respect.

Here's an example: a manager I work with constantly badgers me about documenting my work, when he never bothers to do it himself. Or when I make a mistake (which is not often, but happens occasionally) he never misses an opportunity to point it out and go on and on about it, even though he is messing up *constantly* and I bite my tongue.

His perceptions of Reality are incorrect, yet it is my ego that has to suffer. Why?

With respect,

[Cang Long]

Hello Bryan,
If I might take a stab at your question while we await a response from Sisuk Jeremy.
His perceptions of Reality are incorrect, yet it is my ego that has to suffer. Why? Because we have ego we suffer, when there is no attachment or no ego there is no suffering to follow the attachment we discover a reason or the objective to remove ego when we fully understand this connection. One way to remove his her and their perceptions might be by getting to the truth in our own.his perception can be removedego,suffers can be removed by understanding they are simply manifestations of our own imperfect perception of reality.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

Nice!
See if this view helps as well. then why should we bend to their wishes? Since you and your boss are not battling for position of authority, then one must abide by rules. Reality can have two view but only one truth. It seems that you see the truth and he just sees his view. But really its no place to challenge authority unless the outcome is in your favor( getting the job). Why should we be accepting of this type of situation? Money,( to pay to the hands asking) if for no other reason. If that is not enough to keep you there then an ego check my be involved or needed.His perceptions of Reality are incorrect, yet it is my ego that has to suffer. Why? Learning to except criticism is a ego checker at best. Have you tried smiling, taking a few deep breaths and then saying thank you sir is there anything else I can correct?:D
just another view pointing.

[Bryan Feagin]

Cang Long,

Thanks for your reply. I agree that this central Buddhist ideal is the fundamental approach to be taken, the idea of letting go of attachment and thus the ego as well...

But, it is not an easy path, and we righteously cross that line and defend ourselves against incorrect perceptions of Reality (and thus 'attaching' ourselves to outcomes) all the time, do we not?

Case in point: the discussions in defense of HFY on the KFO boards. Now, from a Chan Buddhist point-of-view, should we care so much how we are perceived from outsiders? Are we still attached to how HFY is perceived by the community? We have put forth the Truth, but still people will think and believe what they want and hold incorrect perceptions of the Reality of what we do.

When you fight to defend something, are you not 'attaching' yourself to the outcome? Isn't your ego involved? How do you fundamentally know the difference between attachment and non-attachment?

Keep in mind that this is just a debate, not in any way starting a flame. I am internally debating with myself as well. ;)

With respect,

[JamesHFYofAZ]

But, it is not an easy path, and we righteously cross that line and defend ourselves against incorrect perceptions of Reality (and thus 'attaching' ourselves to outcomes) all the time, do we not? how true you are. Defend what is right, yes, good. Attaching outcomes is not a here and now type approach to dealing with reality. should we care so much how we are perceived from outsiders? Are we still attached to how HFY is perceived by the community? We should be aware of what the perceptions are and how we can clarify then to Cristal. The point that I make when on line is not to debate who is right or wrong but to allow the perceiving reader to a chance at growth. Opening their eyes to reality, clarifying comment made about the HFY is not attaching ones self but letting some one know that there are other views out there. If you can see them and there views but they can't see yours then reality is not a shared experience.We have put forth the Truth, but still people will think and believe what they want and hold incorrect perceptions of the Reality of what we do. Yep!

[Cang Long]

No problem Bryan I hear ya and understand.But, it is not an easy path agreed but then that is what makes it a worthy path, that is what makes it a fun path accomplishment and setback knowing and understanding always have bearing.Case in point: the discussions in defense of HFY on the KFO boards. Now, from a Chan Buddhist point-of-view, should we care so much how we are perceived from outsiders? Are we still attached to how HFY is perceived by the community? We have put forth the Truth, but still people will think and believe what they want and hold incorrect perceptions of the Reality of what we do. This is another case of percerption, perspective and yes as you say attachment but whose attachment. My personal perspective of the discussion of HFY on KFO is that HFY/truth needs no defending, simply more clarity at times. After presenting a viewpoint and listening to it being regurgitated back incorrectly sometimes more clarification is necessary not defense. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it" .... nor do you need to defend the need or usefullness of water or have you ever seen or heard of a baby that did not care for the taste of something as an infant but grew to love that same taste as it was presented to them either the same or different later in life, this is just the natural course of things and nothing to be attached to either.should we care so much how we are perceived from outsiders? Ultimately this has little to do with us/HFY and everything to do with those that would perceive us/HFY as anything other than a tool or device designed to help traverse/understand Tao/everything. When the finger points to the moon and all you see is the finger that will not negate the existance or significance of the moon. This just means there is more work to be done this work can come from the person behind the finger as well as the person looking at the finger as long as both continually strive for what is real. So, no we should not care or become attached so much about how HFY is perceived as much as we care about the truth or what is real.

[Bryan Feagin]

Originally posted by Cang Long
.... nor do you need to defend the need or usefullness of water or have you ever seen or heard of a baby that did not care for the taste of something as an infant but grew to love that same taste as it was presented to them either the same or different later in life, this is just the natural course of things and nothing to be attached to either.

Very nice response!

Ok, I think I'm getting it now. In my mind, he fundamental difference then is between clarification of concept and not caring what the recepient takes away from that clarification, vs. defending a view point with the desire (i.e., the 'attachment') of being somehow 'vindicated' by the recipient's agreement with or understanding of your view point.

Is this getting closer to Ch'an Buddhist concept of non-attachment?

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

With respect,

[Cang Long]

difference then is between clarification of concept and not caring what the recepient takes away from that clarification, vs. defending a view point with the desire (i.e., the 'attachment') of being somehow 'vindicated' by the recipient's agreement with or understanding of your view point. Bryan I am in agreement with most of what you say just that not caring is not the same as being cognisant of the fact that there will always be "different levels of understanding ", for example one person may look at the moon and get an understanding of yin/yang effects another person may look at the moon and better understand gravitational pull or g= GM over R squared. Both are correct both are real yet different and pertinent to the individual. Understanding this is and will always be the net effect of all our efforts can possibly preempt and remove the attachment of caring how ones efforts are perceived by different recipients. In short though yes I like and agree with your post.

[DavidE]

Sisuk Jeremy, I'm not clear if your asking for answers or just fostering discussion. Answers, who has um??? As for discussion I'm in!

"The question remains that, in my heart I am a beast full of vice and passions and wants (Freud called this the Id)... so why am I not on trial for what I feel inwardly when I feel I'm just as guilty as convicts, even if I haven't acted on my impulses? "

Passions, wants and inward feelings do not equate to the same "guilt" as the "guilt" of those chained convicts. Especially if not acted upon. Even if acted upon, you are not guilty until you have been caught,tried and convicted. Up till then you are innocent!

"We've all had experiences when we wished someone else would die - in our hearts at that moment we're capable of murder... yet we don't act... what holds us back?"

Well, wishing someone dead and contimplating murder are two very different actions! If you (figuretively, sp?) had a moment when you believed you were capable of murder but did not act, not even attempt it, two things are possible. First, you are a cold blooded and calculated killer. Most likely you have killed or participated in killing before. Second, you were not capable of it and you just proved that to yourself. So you can honestly say you no longer believe you can but, know you cannot.

I ask you what is more terrifing, knowing you cannot kill a man or knowing you can? Who among us can answer? That is a scary question as well, no?

"In the poem above, the author is mindful of his own level of attainment - he still has his vices and wants. "

In the last paragraph it appears as if he tires of playing to "civilized" society. At this moment maybe he decides to be true to himself no matter what people will say, think or do. After walking a mile/kilometer or two in those shoes he may realize he's better suited to have feelings of being among them than actually being among them. Or not.

-David

[Cang Long]

;)

[Cang Long]

Passions, wants and inward feelings do not equate to the same "guilt" as the "guilt" of those chained convicts. Especially if not acted upon. Even if acted upon, you are not guilty until you have been caught,tried and convicted. Up till then you are innocent! The Bible talks about being convicted of sin by the soul. Has the issue of the dichotomy of these 2 been addressed?

[JamesHFYofAZ]

Wow David!
I ask you what is more terrifing, knowing you cannot kill a man (The first is compation for life self and others.) or knowing you can? (I find that it is more of a scare to know that one is/was cappable of murder but did not act out of consiquences to come. This is still knowing that you can, yes?) Who among us can answer?Oops! Didn't see that question. That is a scary question as well, no? Can you still be a killer and never kill? Having that killer instinct!

[DavidE]

James,

"Can you still be a killer and never kill?"

Can you be a swimmer never having gone in the water?

But what Sisook was asking is what stops humans at times from acting on primal urges. I chose to answer by examplifing the difference of thoughts, emotions and suppositions to actual knowledge through personal experience.

Hence, the possible reasons for not killing someone when "in our hearts at that moment we're capable of murder" are

1 - You can subdue that urge at will and choose not to go foward
or
2- You didn't have the "guts" to do it. And in a sense foced not to go foward.

Either way that experience should guide each individual to why "yet we don't act..." and thier own answer to "what holds us back?"

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I see. I can only say that, for me, what causes the affect of "not doing" is outcome. I could go out and be an assasin/hitman but what if I get caught or kill the wrong guy or for the wrong reason? I could sink my teeth in someone’s flesh but then what happens to me and to the other? If I deliberately make someone crash doing 90 on the highway will I be sentenced? If I kill my self by whatever means necessary, who will it affect and how? All are questions of moral upbringing and the principals given threw the guidance of the heart. Some one that is left in the dark as a child raised on the streets with no home, no family, no heart given is more likely to go out and kill then someone nurtured from birth, given love and support, and has learn to respect other as they respect self.
But they are all questions about "I". If one focus' on the questions then one can never get past. If I just focus on the poem with out seeing through the eyes of the author, can I feel his struggle? I think that sisuk was trying to make people aware of " holding on" to things whether they be questions of life of what ifs or of self. Living the here and know. Learning to let go of the past, letting go of ego, Not becoming stuck in one own wandering. Just something else I see.

[passing_through]

Bryan,

Sorry for the delay in replying, I don’t have regular internet access right now.

In reply to your comments, this might sound really strange but you just have to know your place and you won’t suffer.

But, I'm still struggling with this concept (letting go of the ego, and bending to the criticism of others (as opposed to fighting it)). Especially as a man of principle. For example, if others perceptions of you and you actions are out of synch with Reality, then why should we bend to their wishes?

Turn the question around – why shouldn’t you? In your example, your boss doesn’t live up to the standard he sets for you. How does him not living up to the standard he has set for you in any way really effect you? You let it effect you be expecting him to live up to the standard he has for you. When he doesn’t, you suffer.

Why should we be accepting of this type of situation?

Using the manager example, does fighting it help? Will he change? Has he changed through confrontation? Would he change if you used a softer approach? If you can’t change a situation, how does resisting it help? Going to physical self-defense type training – if I’m being choked, struggling against the choke won’t help. I have to relax, accept that I’m being choked, keep my wits and find the source of the leverage for the choke to work. Once I address the source of the choke, I’ve addressed the choke itself. By resisting, I don’t have the time, space or energy to look for a solution.

Here's an example: a manager I work with constantly badgers me about documenting my work, when he never bothers to do it himself. Or when I make a mistake (which is not often, but happens occasionally) he never misses an opportunity to point it out and go on and on about it, even though he is messing up *constantly* and I bite my tongue.

Why does it chafe you to have to bite your tongue? You’re not the manager. So you do your job and let him do his. It isn’t easy but you know, from his behavior, that things in life aren’t so good for him. Why give him further grief? Teaching sparring tonight, I had two young brothers training with each other. One was using too much force on the other – and he got mad. In getting mad, he started making more mistakes – which resulting in him getting hit more, and so on. I had to separate them to give them time to relax.

His perceptions of Reality are incorrect, yet it is my ego that has to suffer. Why?

What did I mean by knowing your place? As the worker, your job is to do whatever your manager tells you to do. There is certain etiquette involved in this workplace relationship. By trying to use your personal system of belief about standards of conduct on your manager, you’re just as much in the wrong as him. You’re breaking etiquette by wanting to tell your manager how to do his job. When you’re manager, do it your way and not his. Until that time – and for as long as you’re working under him – you have to live with this situation. Getting upset about it won’t help. By being more relaxed, you might be able to see towards a solution or find a more proactive way to change his behavior. In allowing him to be him and you to be you, your suffering will go down. You should continue to live up to your standards of conduct – and accept the fact that the manager is not capable of living up to your standard. It’s not easy but that’s life, ya?

I agree that this central Buddhist ideal is the fundamental approach to be taken, the idea of letting go of attachment and thus the ego as well...

But, it is not an easy path, and we righteously cross that line and defend ourselves against incorrect perceptions of Reality (and thus 'attaching' ourselves to outcomes) all the time, do we not?

Case in point: the discussions in defense of HFY on the KFO boards. Now, from a Chan Buddhist point-of-view, should we care so much how we are perceived from outsiders? Are we still attached to how HFY is perceived by the community? We have put forth the Truth, but still people will think and believe what they want and hold incorrect perceptions of the Reality of what we do.

In this case, you can’t guess at the attachment of others. All you have is their actions. If I were to spend my life constantly thinking of how to address what is said on KFO, then I am attached. If I deal with things when I need to deal with them and leave them alone when I need to leave them alone, I’m not attached. This is summed up in the statement, “I eat when I’m hungry and sleep when I’m tired.” This is a very easy statement to misunderstand. Most people don’t eat when they’re hungry – they watch TV, think about what’s going on in their lives, and eat. In this situation, the mind is constantly buzzing. There’s two different experiences of the world going on – what most people do and what the author of the statement is experiencing. Does this make sense?

In my mind, he fundamental difference then is between clarification of concept and not caring what the recipient takes away from that clarification, vs. defending a view point with the desire (i.e., the 'attachment') of being somehow 'vindicated' by the recipient's agreement with or understanding of your view point.

Careful with the phrase “not caring”… just because I share something without attachment doesn’t mean that I don’t care. Being without attachment means that I fully realize and accept that you’ll take away what you need to take away even if that’s not what was offered. Again, not easy to do.

Sincerely,
Jeremy R.