hello, friends. i'm molly and i'm kind of a nervous wreck.
walk into the club like "be not afraid for behold i bring glad tidings of great joy."
Zen strongly emphasizes the simplicity and ordinariness of Being and the human experience. While it could be argued that Zen practitioners have a kind of pantheistic philosophy when it comes to their views of how individuals relate to nature, Zen tries not to exalt anything, especially abstract concepts like “divine source”. It’s not trying to get in touch the any “source”.
It emphasizes the experience of the present moment, which is thought to be the only true reality. Zen doesn’t see anything as having any kind of timeless source (the “source” implies a past condition which has a causal influence on the present), because for Zen Buddhists, the present moment is the only real, and thus timeless, thing. Time is an illusion for Zen Buddhists. They see everything as change. The reason Zen tries to avoid the exaltation of concepts is because of the traditional Buddhist view that desire causes attachment, which is the source of suffering. It’s important for Buddhists to let go of all attachments, which is why there’s no “God” concept in Zen. Zen discourages having attachments to ideas and concepts like that. The point of meditation is to dissolve the abstract symbolic-linguistic structure of the mind (what Lacan calls “the symbolic order”).
So no, there’s no kind of timeless exalted “source”. If anything, it’s you and your experience of the present moment that is the “true” divine source. If you really think about it, your conscious experience of the present moment is your entire reality; it’s the source of everything about who you are and the world you perceive, the memories of the past, and the anticipations of the future. But I personally don’t think the term “source” is helpful, since it implies time and causality.
The distinction between Zen and other sects of Buddhism tends to get exaggerated in the West. Zen Buddhists can and do recite the Amida Nembutsu, believe in celestial Buddhas and bodhisattvas, revere the Lotus Sutra, bow to images of the Buddha, and believe in literal rebirth. While Zen Buddhism has an iconoclastic reputation (e.g. burning Buddha statues and comparing Buddha-nature to a shit stick) Zen iconoclasm is not about saying Buddha images and intellectual understandings of Buddha-nature are bad, but about saying that the importance of such things is over-stressed to the detriment of the Great Matter of birth and death. For a Western Zen Buddhist, destroying an image of the Buddha would be pointless as Western culture as a whole values neither the image of the Buddha nor the dharma of the Buddha.
MY DAD JUST CALLED ME A “LIBERAL COMMIE”
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN
How about 50 shades of reading your damn bible
“While the king was on his couch,
my nard gave forth its fragrance.
My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh
that lies between my breasts.”
“My beloved thrust his hand into the opening,
and my inmost being yearned for him.
I arose to open to my beloved,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with liquid myrrh,
upon the handles of the bolt.”
“You are stately as a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its branches.
O may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
and your kisses like the best wine
that goes down smoothly,
gliding over lips and teeth.”
[minimalistic framed prints of physics and math forumlas]
Marinate the tofu
Saute the tofu
Grill the tofu
Pan fry the tofu
Deep fry the tofu
Crust the tofu
Bake the tofu
Roast the tofu
Sweeten the tofu
Spice up the tofu
Love the tofu
your tone implies that this was meant to be an insult but
that’s like trying to insult grass by saying it’s green
no fucking shit lmao
my favorite part about ugly betty is that betty suarez and i are the same person including having the same exact taste in guys
Well, you know me. I got so much to say about love…
Movement atheists are the second-worst biblical scholars because they think the Bible shouldn’t contain any contradictions.
Biblical inerrantists are the worst biblical scholars because they think it doesn’t.