The Enlightened Fish. Humility: the Trademark of Greatness

"What is the use of a well,

 If water is there all the time,

 Having cut craving at the root,

In search of what should one wander?"

(Udapānasutta, 79)

An awakened fish gets up one morning totally transfigured and shows-up with a peacefully and radiant face among his friends and lets them know that he has simply become aware of water.

“Our most intimate aspect, our essential nature is water”, he says.

But when he tries to explain what actually could had happened to him, this awareness of a pre-existent reality becomes a doctrine of some kind. It translates to other fish as a path full of various disciplines, austerities and commandments towards a goal which is the realization of the one water which all the fish are immersed in.

To a thinking fish the enlightenment will only make sense in terms of “goals” and “achievements".

An enlightened fish is a fish aware of the all-pervading water. The nature of fish is water in the same way in which the nature of humans in self-consciousness.

However, there will always be some guru-fish who will write interesting books for water-seeking fish, some books like "How to achieve water in 7 steps". Not all of them are fake. Some of them are just using metaphors as pointers - words that are transparent to transcendence, which, paradoxically, is here and now. There is ,however, a demand on the market of awakening and that demand should be addressed properly, in accordance with the level of understanding of the seeker-fish. The always-seeking minds of fish, asking questions all the time, will get some answers like this:

“you must achieve water",

"you must acquire water",

"you must possess water",

"you must become one with water".

This is how a spiritual teaching would sound like in a language of fish.

We see the waves of the ocean in contradiction with the ocean itself and in the same way, we perceive the colors of the rainbow as contradictory with the white light.

The “fish in water” is a complex, that is, a psychological condition. Although it is just a way of putting it and a figure of speech, a pointer meant to express a common state of “normality” or “comfort”, it’s not a proper attitude in case of human beings.

We are spiritually unconscious or, in Buddhist terms, asleep and this seems to be some kind of normality, but I think the actual normality of humans is to wake up and to be aware of both their environment and the awareness itself. A fish in water is not aware of the water - this is a normal attitude in fish, but not in humans.

Ignoring water can inflict no harm to a fish. Naturally and unconsciously floating underwater is in accord with its’ intimate nature, but a “fish in water” attitude is the real danger of a battlefield of life for a human “warrior”, whose mind gets entangled in the turmoil, unaware of the battle, unaware of the still canvas on which the picture of battle is painted, unaware of the fact that he is the canvas on a deeper level and only on the surface he is the participant in a battle. He is trapped, no longer capable of being aware of his environment and incapable of evaluating the suffering he inflicts on others and on himself. Losing the witness perspective is that what defines all human suffering. 

The “fish in water” perspective prevents you from evolving, spiritually speaking. The “fish in water” perspective belongs, naturally, exclusively to fish.

But, for the sake of this simile, let’s go on supposing that there are enlightened fish and that they can talk… The enlightened fish, while remaining a fish, undergoes only a shift in consciousness. The fish that has “achieved” Enlightenment will regard it so naturally and harmoniously ordinary, that it will barely try to be convincing. In the realm of the spirituality, humility is the trademark of the greatness. When in search for a real master, you should first pay attention to how much he/she struggles to be convincing.

We can recognize an "awakened" fish in the first place by his lack of eagerness and lack of interest in being very convincing, in attracting followers. From the perspective of the awakened fish, the all-pervading water is so normal, that it will not be very eager to argue and to be convincing. An awakened fish would accept to share, somehow, his insights, out of compassion for other fish, but he will never try to thrust the teachings in their throats.

You will recognize an enlightened fish from the very fact that it will be less vocal and militant  in his approach than other “spiritual” fish, because the latter are not very sure if there is still some water left to be achieved or not:) The vocal fish are very eager to convince you that you must acquire water, at any costs and not in your own way, but with their precious help.

Consciousness Experiencing Itself as Temporal Reality

The Unmanifested vibrates both through this phenomenal existence and as this phenomenal existence.The 8^th verse of the Buddhist masterpiece The Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya) goes:

“Whatever is Form, that is Emptiness and whatever is Emptiness, that is Form”

[whatever ("yad") is ("sa") form ("rūpa"), that is emptiness ("śūnyātā"), whatever ("ya") is ("sa") emptiness ("śūnyātā"), that ("tad") is ("sa") form ("rūpa")]

But what about looking in the mirror at the Heart Sutra with this statement in reverse:

“yad nāmarūpam sa satya ya satya tad nāmarūpam” ?

I am again inclined to regard Buddhism as Advaita Vedānta reflected in a mirror. This statement from The Heart Sutra, in a Vedāntic treatise would read:

“yad nāmarūpam sa satya ya satya tad nāmarūpam”,

That is:

“All that is Name and Form is Being and whatever is Being is equally Name and Form.”

India has had this great gift of skillfully handling the paradoxical language.
In order to clarify this statement in reverse, I'm quoting below from an older post:

“When the Consciousness objectifies itself as a visible form, or, in other words, when the consciousness experiences itself as a temporal reality, only then can It be conceptualized. When the One Consciousness reveals itself as an object or a thought, it paradoxically and simultaneously obscures itself. This is why it is so hard to see beyond the world of dancing and playing forms (Skr. “rūpa”) and concepts (Skr. “nāma”), the underlying reality. However, the objectified, the manifested or the visible aspect of reality, as a whole, in other words, this dance of māyā represents, for India, just a symbolic representation of the absolute Being or the Unmanifested, that vibrates both through this phenomenal existence and as this phenomenal existence.” (http://luciandantes.blogspot.ro/2014/02/thresholds-of-awareness.html)

We All Have Our Own Bodhi Tree

Under the Bodhi Tree, Prince Siddhartha Gautama was just sitting, in absolute silence. He lost any interest in any purpose whatsoever and gave up any desire of reaching awakening.

This is why we now have the Buddha.

Each of us has their own Bodhi Tree.

Any quest for understanding is a quest for liberation in disguise.
The same principle applies in the Buddha’s case. The need to understand conditioning/limitations arises in humans, not out of simple curiosity, of course, but out of the need for deconditioning. Unfortunately, we have this strange persistent determination: in our journey toward deconditioning, we create new mind patterns and so we add new layers of conditioning between us and the final liberation that we seek, always pushing it forward in a future that never comes.

We forget all the time that, by definition, the future never comes.

What actually could have happened to the Buddha?

First: A traumatic event: he crosses the threshold of the paradisiac, protective environment as he steps out of his comfort zone and acquires this straightforward visualization of illness, old age and death. These moments of despondency equate with the call to adventure, to a heroic endeavor, and with a new type of mindset, that is: a new type of conditioning.

Second: he accepts the challenge, starts questioning everything and leaves the protection of the environment, the mirage, the world of appearances and so he sets off for a seeking adventure that we all are very familiar with, because there are so many seekers around us and there is a seeker in each of us as well.

This is his philosophical and ascetical stage. During the quest, he becomes acquainted with all major philosophies of India and with all religious belief systems of his time. In addition, he gets along well in yoga practices.

Nevertheless, this is not the Buddha yet, this is only an exchange of IDs.

He just traded the illusion of a prince who is terrified by illness, old age and death for the life of renunciation. Not only did he see the appearances of suffering, but also, he found himself ensnared by the illusory powers of a monk, whose meditative demeanor would have seemed, back at the moment of his departure, as the only way out of suffering.

Illumination is now the last desire that he’s got left, an ardent desire that makes him push every spiritual practice beyond the limit. This is his new hope, his new dream and his new kind of expectation. Namely: the enlightenment that will happen sometimes, soon, in the future, as a result of renunciation and constant practice.

Henceforth, he exchanges the identity of a prince for the identity of a philosopher and a wondering monk. He is in this stage a seeker of enlightenment; he is seeking a state of mind where there is no suffering.

Now, don't get me wrong, this effort was necessary, like the training in the ballet. The movements in ballet seem effortless because there is such a great deal of effort behind, that is -all those years of hard work and exercise. Therefore, this need for understanding was a preparatory stage to both the Enlightenment and to the later doctrine of the Eightfold Path.

The last stage, under the Bodhi Tree, is that stage where the former prince Siddhartha and present mendicant leaves the vehicle behind: the seeking, the effort, the journey, the idea of a purpose, the idea of identity, the idea of idea, the need for understanding, the path itself.

He now comes to this realization:

How could there be a path, when there is no tomorrow?

I have come to realize that only when the human being that we know call the Buddha was able to give up the effort (the need to understand, to explain, to achieve awakening etc.), then and only then he actually awakened.

This supreme renunciation, which is giving up the desire to reach enlightenment, made him capable of looking at himself with an equal eye and in a state of utter equanimity. Prince Siddhartha, the monk, the philosopher, the Awakened One and "this body" and "emptiness" – they all are the same thing. In other words, he was able to assume each of these evanescent identities and, at last, to look at himself from the highest perspective, which is the radiant core of the consciousness of the entire Universe. This means that at this final stage he doesn’t care that much about any of these identities because, in essence, he comes to the realization that there is no identity whatsoever.

There is no clinging, no fear, no attachment, no duty and no identity, besides the functional-relational one. Of course, he remains fully aware that this is a human body, this is its masculine gender; this body must be fed and so forth. However, there is no subject of suffering anymore there to be found, there is no longer an "I" and no duality. The body is going to encounter pain, old age, illness and death, BUT there is a still point, a motionless place within, and he is now capable to seal off this center of pure awareness from any suffering, as the sense of the “I” has vanished. Nirvana is the pure and peaceful awareness that has remained after extinguishing the flame of the “I”.

There is no suffering anymore because there is no longer a sufferer.

This is what happened when the ego dissolved completely, as the need to reach Enlightenment was the last barrier between him and Enlightenment.

For both conventional and teaching reasons, he might have continued to act in the world in this or that way, but the sense that there is an "I" was no longer active in him, even when he would speak in first person, delivering sermons and so on.

The stage after the last stage: teaching - return journey and the necessity of a map

The Buddha did not follow and did not need the Eightfold Path for himself. He creates this kind of design in order to make this process of deconditioning accessible to others and I don't think that in creating this (let's say) therapeutic doctrine he has to struggle too much. It just pours out. He doesn't make any additional effort, the understanding is there, so complete, that the entire Universe is now speaking through his mouth. The effort is purely physiological: he just has to open up his mouth and speak.

The Buddha has ventured into uncharted waters by himself and when he later "returns" to the community, he draws up a map for the rest of the humankind. Therefore, we now think that the map is necessary, and there is a yonder shore. Nevertheless, for him, no map had been necessary and in the last stage of his quest, under the Bodhi Tree, he discovers that when the effort comes to a halt, the yonder shore is everywhere and everything. All this adventure of the Buddha was necessary maybe in order to prove that the center is everywhere.

The center is total awareness.

 We all have our own Bodhi-Tree

There is a tree of enlightenment for every one of us, waiting for us, ready for us, specially designed for us. We spend our entire lives running and running to get there and sit down under our own Bodhi Tree.

Eventually, we realize that it can’t be somewhere out there, but it’s in here and everywhere at the same time. There is no need to plan, to go or to run in order to grasp it sometimes in the future. We can give up the path altogether.

We just have to open up to the suchness of any given experience and thereby sanctify the place and the moment we are in.

Discarding the Raft When Reaching the Yonder Shore. A Zen Dialogue with Brad Radziej

 

 

 Lucian Dantes: I'd rather be wrong and fail on my own than being right and succeed by imitating another.

 

Brad Radziej: How about: transcend "rather be".."wrong or right".."fail or succeed".."my own or another"?
Certain concepts may trigger enlightenment, but no concept offers enlightenment!
Even the concept that triggers enlightenment is equally empty as any other concept!

 

Lucian Dantes: No concept offers enlightenment. Moreover, anti-concepts or paradoxical statements like the koans, I think are more efficient than any logical argumentation. Of course, if you are ready for this kind of message, because there are so many paths. There is a particular path for every one of us.
No spiritual message can be taught. Ultimately, one can be helped to obtain only that which one has already got. We do not have to do anything. And yet, I continue to think that concepts can help you to go beyond concepts, towards that reality to which concepts are but references.

Even "śūnyatā" (emptiness) is such a concept. The flower sermon is also a reference, a symbol, but perhaps closer to the reality to which it points, closer than a word. Words are very imperfect vehicles for the truth, maybe because they are very recent acquisitions of our minds. A sakura (Japanese cherry-blossom) is closer to the truth than a word. Music is closer to the truth than any intelligent statement. Silence is closer to the truth than the most divine music. And this is why I enjoy listening to the music - music can prepare you for silence. Also, the sounds of nature. There is no thought there, unless you take it with you from your past.

 

Brad Radziej: Enlightenment (ultimate realization), śūnyatā (emptiness) themselves are merely empty concepts. As you said they're just references, as is all conceptual thought. The concept of śūnyatā, as well as the understanding of śūnyatā (aha!) is empty! This is the reason for which koans are used instead of rational explanations, because they avoid all intellectual conceptual conclusions.

You've said here that "no spiritual message can be taught". Zen disagrees with this, unlike some other Buddhists schools, and feels that it cannot only be taught, but more importantly that it must be taught. I presume that by "taught" you mean, intellectually transferred knowledge, as it is conventionally used. But a teaching method can be employed in order to "transmit the dharma" as they say. The flower sermon is an excellent example of "transmission without doctrine", or teaching without conceptual conclusions.
And you've said, "concepts can help you to go beyond concepts." And in fact I believe that this is what the Buddha understood, and why he did decide to teach.

He is often considered to be like a doctor, and I think that this is correct.
Shunryu Suzuki said, "Do not mistake medicine for food".
The Buddha understood this and employed a method similar to that which is used to help addicts. Because conceptual thought, rational conclusions, etc., are indeed an addiction, much like heroin. And going cold turkey is very difficult, painful, and seldom sustained. So the Buddha specifically designed certain concepts to act as medicine, much like methadone is used for heroin addicts, to ease them out of their addiction. But once you are clean you no longer need the medicine, so you must stop using the methadone, you must discard even the concepts employed by the Buddha. Because these concepts were designed to free you from your addiction to concepts!
So the meaning of the phrase "do not mistake medicine for food" is that we must not mistake the Buddha’s concepts for the truth. We must not cling to the teachings intellectually, as merely conceptual understandings. We must discard the raft once we've reached the other shore. If we do not do this, then even these concepts employed by the Buddha will hinder & obscure reality as it actually is.

Shunryu Suzuki also taught the practice called "no trace", in which he says that, we should consider each moment to be like a bonfire, and burn it completely leaving no trace. To handle each & every moment intuitively with equal care & thorough intimate engagement. In this way we leave no trace or residue from the previous moment to then burden us within the presently arising moment.
For example, if in one moment you are doing some mundane task like washing the dishes, and in the next you find yourself in a situation of life & death, neither should be handled with any less care, or considered as more important. To do this would be to fall victim to measuring equally empty situations rationally. And the residue left over from the mundane task would then hinder & burden the life & death situation, etc., etc.

If you are washing the dishes and a cup falls & breaks on the floor...any rational conclusion as to "what you could have done to prevent this" is futile! It's broken and that's that. Attachment to this kind of rationality is a trace, a residue that will then bleed into the next moment and only serve to hinder and obscure it etc, etc. Now you're in a life & death situation, and someone is about to die!
Do you act intuitively, or do you try to rationalize the situation?
Well you are accustomed rationalizing everything then chances are you will panic. But if you are accustomed to intuitive action, then you will act immediately with the appropriate amount of care & thorough engagement. Either way they might die, and either way the cup might fall and break. But if it happens and you've acted intuitively, burning the moment completely leaving no trace, then it will not hinder the next time you wash dishes nor the next time you are in a difficult situation.

Which ultimately is not only of the most benefit to your life, but to everyone that you either directly or indirectly come into contact with.
This is the importance & the practical application of realizing the emptiness of all phenomena, and the practice of "no trace".

There is no "closer to the truth"..just listening, just talking, just acting, just thinking, just this moment!
Music is medicine, just listening is the truth.
Intelligent statements are medicine, just talking is the truth.
Silence is medicine, just sitting, just thinking, just this moment is the truth.
And yet it is not, because as soon as any conclusion is made it's thoroughly obscured any & all truth.

There is this that we call "life"..full of emptiness & form. Avoid nothing, cling to nothing...burn it completely leaving no trace!

Thank you my friend for the wonderful discussion. Your perspectives and opinions are truly profound & graceful.
It is always a pleasure meeting here with you. Take care & enjoy :)

 Lucian Dantes: Going beyond mind through the mind as the access point is wisdom. Going beyond mind in the absence of mind is brainwashing, unless you are Bodhidharma. Zen is not a path for everybody, as it requires a very particular mindset, open to paradox and already dispassionate, free, to some extent, to play with concepts and to leave them behind. My conclusion after reading, quite recently, T. Deshimaru’s book The Way of True Zen is that one can never understand what Zen is unless one is ready for it, unless he/she has arrived somehow to the same conclusions beforehand, otherwise Zen is total nonsense. All that Zen is about is destroying any labels of reality, cutting-off any escape routes to the addictive concepts and doctrines, ideologies, theologies, as they are seen all as traps and are followed only by those who are unable to cope with the sheer reality of all pervading emptiness. Master Deshimaru’s view is that one should never try to experience anything in zazen, zazen is not about ecstatic trances (and at some point he dismissed Mircea Eliade’s views expressed in the latter's study “Techniques du Yoga”, with regard to the “altered states of consciousness”), zazen is about renouncing thinking and “just sitting there”, in silence. I think this kind of view, in its starkness is a very appealing way and very effective to those who are already trained for it. This is no philosophy, this is athletics.

Some comments on your additional comments, which are, all, very inciting:

I don’t know if you’ve read one of my articles, Thresholds of Awareness, where I concluded that Hinduism and Buddhism are just clues or pointers to the same reality:

“This undefinable Consciousness in which the Buddhist thought that you're nothing (or no-thing) was projected is the same Consciousness on which the Hindu thought that you are everything (or every-thing or all things) was projected.

You are this Consciousness.”

I’ve come to this conclusion after finding out that the Upanishadic concept of turīya is very related to the concept of “Buddha-nature”, Buddha-datu: “The forth [state of consciousness] (turīya) is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is neither simple consciousness nor is it unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, it is the cessation of all phenomena; it is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the fourth (turīya). This is ātman and this has to be realized)”(Māṇdūkya-Upaniṣad, I,7).

After reading this statement about ātman, I concluded that the ātman of the Upanishads is the same with anātman (Pali: anattā) of the Buddha. So, I don’t speak of the “fresh” classical Advaita Vedānta, which begins with Gaudapada and Adi Shankara around 8^th century AD, the latter being undoubtedly influenced by Mahayanist ideas, but a text significantly older.

The primary intention of all these ancient sages was to drive followers’ mind beyond mind, beyond concepts. As early as 8^th century BC you can find this aim clearly pursued in Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, which tries to interpret the Vedic pantheon hermeneutically, in terms of references, thousands of years before our modern hermeneutic, phenomenology and philosophy of religion.

I agree to some extent with such Zen radical methods, because rational, conceptual conclusions tend to become petrified and applied as immutable labels to very fluid realities, however, I think that paradoxical language as the koans is a way, a practice. After studying more than one religion, I came to the conclusion that there are many paths. Nor Zen nor any other spiritual path can claim for itself the right to be fully right, or The Way. As you said, śūnyatā and ultimate realization are themselves empty, but this assertion cannot be grasped by everybody, this is not a common-place view. Zen uses religious symbolization, but its system of symbols is very straightforward and spontaneous, like a samurai sword fight, based mainly on fulgurant epiphanies. Words (poetry), flowers, music, dance, tea ceremony and the like are just symbols and thereby references; the thing to be remembered is that they are more addressed to the intuitive than to the rational mind. But this was the whole idea in any primitive religion. As soon as the so-called “abstract thinking” was “discovered”, humans started the quarrels over “being”, “becoming”, “transcendent”, “apriori categories”, “God”, “trans-categorial”, “saguna” and “nirguna” Brahman and so on. Up to those times, the rhythms and natural cycles of the Cosmos were enough support for meditation. Abstract thinking and conceptualization is a necessary step in human evolution and it is obvious, from reading an old text like The Dhammapada, that the Buddha himself had got full mastery of the Upanishadic language, before parting from it.

I also agree that any beautiful theory is addictive and tends to strengthen one’s ego, when the referred reality is obscured by the very concept that was initially meant only as a reference. I didn’t answer fully to your question as to how and when does one know to stop medicating oneself, because I think that this is everyone’s own trial, every individual must find out how and when. I think that a very large perspective, a global view on the different religious systems of the world is very important for anyone, at least up until now it helped me very much, not to find out fresh conclusions, but new ways of expressing that which was already found. On these forums, I am in the service of the humankind; my purpose is not to satisfy my curiosity, nor to seek out something new, some new mind-stuff.  I’d have enough of it for myself but still not enough in order to share with others, very different people, coming from total different cultures.

Buddhism, I continue to believe, as a non-Buddhist, cannot be taught, and the flower sermon is the very evidence that one can only be taught in the sense that one can be made able to recognize that which one already knows. If teaching means “helping to discover the Buddha nature that is already in here, in everybody”, only in this sense I agree that Buddhism can be taught. Although my case is not very suggestive, because I am open to all kinds of symbols, religious or not, personally, I think I was very receptive and even enthusiastic to this sort of symbolization because I was already familiar with it.

I know that the Buddha was initially very reserved and pondered for some time before deciding to teach, because, probably, he wanted to avoid the mistakes and confusion that all previous spiritual masters and teachings had had brought about, unwillingly. And as a result, statues or images of the Buddha have been missing in the first several centuries in the history of Buddhism, but then they slowly started to emerge, which is evidence that the human mind needs visual symbolization. I think they appeared because they were necessary.  Of course, any clinging is a mistake but, ultimately, a man ignoring his real nature will cling to everything in order to consolidate his ego. One doesn’t need religion for that.

The fact is that Buddha created a very simple teaching, an almost medical cure for ignorance. “I only teach suffering and the end of suffering”. This is true when reading such texts as The Dhammapada, which is ascribed to the Buddha himself. But when, for instance, coming across the pratītyasamutpāda (“dependend arising”) doctrine and the sophisticated concepts of linking causes and the creation and destruction of aggregates, oh! –you must have a good CPU in your head for this kind of stuff!

"Do not mistake medicine for food" is true to some extent, but I think it doesn’t have to be applied radically in all cases. Music, poetry and even philosophy have their intrinsic beauty. Any living person, which I usually define as “eternity bound to space and time”, really needs this beauty, this dance of forms, as long as one abides in this human body.

I know that Bodhidharma and other Zen (and non-Zen) patriarchs felt perfectly in silence, facing the wall, but this kind of practice should not be pursued unless you are perfectly fit for it. I don’t think Bodhidharma faced the wall for 9 years in order to get something, to accomplish something like enlightenment or samādhi; facing the wall was for this particular individual the most natural thing. He would have done this in a modern office, anywhere….Otherwise he would have gone crazy, this is sure. So, the urge to discard the raft once we've reached the yonder shore must be regarded in its own system of references. Silence is better than music and listening, without wanting to hear anything, this pure awareness without expectations, is even better. But we don’t need to renounce music for that. Chinese and Japanese traditional music are the best arguments to support this view, as their cyclic rhythms are specifically designed to drive one’s mind into a meditative state, they point towards the underlying, the still and empty space whence they spring.

The remarkable thing about Zen is this tremendous idea of just listening, alertly, without any need to hear something, without desire, without fear. Perfect alertness and perfect alignment with the present moment.

That which made out the samurai such masterly sword fighters was this ability to remain psychologically motionless, around a still center in the mind, in the middle of the fight, and to cut-off the rational mind during action. Total alertness and total focus in the present moment. Of course this means a life-long discipline, as you said. In The Last Samurai movie, I was of course impressed by the sword fighting, but I was even more impressed by the total focus with which Taka was sliding that Japanese door. I remembered those scenes when you commented on the no-trace method of Shunryu Suzuki.

I want to conclude with an aphorism by Eckhart Tolle: “Stillness is the only thing is this world that has no form. But then, it is not really a thing, and it is not of this world.”

Thank you for this great discussion, which started from the fact that we should transcend the wrong perception that there is such a thing like successes and failures:) This discussion, which I assume also lacks any inner self and is also empty, as if we didn’t talk at all:) It has left no residual trace… But it was so instructive and insightful, eventually, wasn’t it?

I thing that this dialogue is truly insightful and even intriguing and if you didn't mind, I would publish it as a “standalone” post on my blog, with a Japanese katana as a header and a sakura as a footer. What do you say? 

 

Brad Radziej: Wow!!
Simply amazing, my friend!
I say: pass it on!

You’ve so clearly not only pointed towards, but indeed you've expressed the importance of "finding your own way".
Because there is no "one way"..nor are there "multiple ways"..there is only the wholesome desire & diligent effort towards a way.
This being the case, nothing that could be considered as inspirational should be renounced!
But rather it should all be accepted & embraced as the necessary fuel that we then burn completely.

There is an old Zen story where the greatest artist in the land meets with a Zen master and asks him to share his wisdom of the ultimate truth. The master tells him, "I’ve been told that you are the greatest artist in all the land, go now and return only when you have completed your ultimate masterpiece. When you have done this, I will then explain to you the ultimate truth." So he left and returned with a truly magnificent & perfectly crafted work of art. And as soon as he offered it to the master, the master immediately tossed it over his shoulder into the pond.
After several attempts the artist becomes extremely frustrated, as everything that he has offered the master has ended up in the pond. So he explains his frustration to the master and asks him, "Master, why have you thrown everything that I’ve brought before you into the pond without even briefly examining it?" the master says that, "All that you've brought me is a bunch of junk, and I clearly told you to bring me your ultimate masterpiece. Go now and do not return until you have done what I've asked of you." So the artist leaves thoroughly confused & frustrated. And the next time he returns empty handed, and the master says to him, "You've returned empty handed, I see, have you brought me your ultimate masterpiece?"
The artist says, "Master, I've returned empty handed, as all that I have left to offer you is myself."
The master says, "Wonderful! Finally you have brought me your ultimate masterpiece! Come now, let's have some tea."

I love this story, because I've been an artist my whole life. I'm one of those kids who never stopped playing with crayons. I've just continually added more & more tools, mediums & methods, as each new inspiration motivated me to try this, that, anything, & everything as a means of creativity & expression.
From drawing/painting/sculpture/etc., crafts & woodworking, music/drums/guitar/bass/DJ/production/songwriting/etc., breakdancing, skateboarding, martial arts, etc, etc....
Until I finally realized that "life itself is your masterpiece!"
It's all medicine!
And everyone "gets there" the way they must, but the prerequisite is an intention to "get there".
I've read some books, and employed some intellectual scholastic methods, but most of my insights or gates have been revealed through active engagement; my hobbies, love for nature, cultivating lasting relationships and a naturally curious & observant character (so to speak). All of this was just compatible with Zen; meditation, the philosophy, etc.
As you said, I pursued it because I was perfectly fit for it. Which is why I've often said that, Buddhism (Zen) became me, and not the other way around!
I didn't "become a Buddhist", any more than I "became an artist" or "became a skateboarder" or "became this body"..
"I" did not become these things! These things became me!
This is often the mistake that people make along their journey, that they must become this or that, in order to realize their "true-self". But you do not realize your "true-self", because it cannot be known. Your "true-self" realizes you!

As you said about Bodhidharma, "facing the wall was for this particular individual the most natural thing."
That was "his way", and you may not fit "this way" or "that way", so trying to impose "these ways" upon "your way" is trying to become "this or that", rather than "this or that" becoming you, simply because it is natural & it fits!
Some can soak up intellectual knowledge with great detail & retain it with very little effort, such as yourself. And when it is expressed it is like a beautiful piece of music, graceful & elegant.
While others may try to force "this way" because they think that it is "the way", and so they must "become knowledgeable".
Yet all that results from it is frustration & grasping at "becoming more" because they are not satisfied with what they've "become".
They do not see the futility in this, and so they desperately continue "this way" hoping that they will eventually get the desired result of knowing or realizing their "true-self"!
Frantically running down "this way to enlightenment", rather than simply following their own heart, their own inspirations, their "own way".
This is why in Zen they say that you must "get lost along the road", because if you think that "Zen is the way" or that "becoming a Buddhist" is "The Way", then you must "get lost" and find "your way home". Because "these ways" are only intended to be guides, references, signs pointing you and motivating you to embark upon the journey.
You must find your own way!
Thank you again my friend for the wonderful discussion. Take care :)