BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Zen?

  
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:13 / 18.10.02
lock thread?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:36 / 18.10.02
Well, you can't do that on Barbelith - but in any case, that's a practical solution to a problem, not an answer to the question.

THWACK!
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:08 / 19.10.02
In which case a thread called "Zen" probably defeats the object anyway.

Pretty much, yeah. But that's okay. Like I said earlier, you can't move anywhere except towards the Tao.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:44 / 20.10.02
Yeeees... but at the same time, you can use that as an excuse not to engage properly with your own study.
 
 
cusm
17:38 / 21.10.02
One of the interesting paradoxes of zen is that the very act of investigating and deconstructing it is in fact a failure to live in zen. So, it is easy to cop out with that as an excuse to not discuss it further. Yet, jumping to this conclusion is also an act of the same cleverness that is demonstrated as failing to grasp zen. Given, one only "finds" zen when one ceases to pursue it, but one can only know that this means anything if they've wasted the time searching for it in the first place. The answer at the end of the long journey is that the journey was never necessary in the first place. Yet, you still have to walk it and make that mistake. One can not succeed at zen unless one has first spent some time failing at it. So, the point here being, it is of zen to discuss zen using western thinking that is indicitively un-zen. The enlightened cop-outs are cute, and while true, it is the pointless discussion that is actually of value, even though it is ultimately meaningless.
 
 
gretchen
14:17 / 22.10.02
"Jazz is knowing everything there is to know about music. And then forgetting all of it"

Jazz-mentality, improvisation, being in the moment... seem similar to some Zen teaching, such as non-attachment and viewing things as they are beyond the filter of categories. In relation to whether its pointless to talk about zen... its not. The trick is "..to speak of fire without burning one's mouth"...(When I first read this sentence it made so much sense.. I wanted to eat it)... misquoted from a book called 'Zen the Comic Spirit', which although not funny itself, has a lot to say about how a joke isn't funny if you already know the punchline. So finding new ways of saying things is probably a Zen approach to conversation, think how hackneyed is 'the sound of one hand clapping'. Everyone has to find their own way. As far as comedy is concerned, as anyone who has ever laughed knows, it comes when you're not trying to be funny. Perhaps, for some, "the way" is Peewee Herman. Others not.

Johnny Awol wrote:
"So it really is a case of you either get it or you don't. Sort of like a joke, except the punchline can't be explained. Don't worry if you still don't have a clue about zen after you've read all the books. No one does. You don't learn Zen from books, you learn it from living. I didn't know a damn thing about zen until I stopped thinking about it and started actually doing things."

This is what Suzuki repeatedly lectured about. A collection of his lectures (I think its called "The Way of Zen") is worth tracking down, he talked about the value of sitting in meditation only really being felt when you get up and move. Think.. you get a sense of the fullness of the moon when it is partly obscured by clouds (Suzuki said).

Also, about getting the point of the joke, a lot of Buddhist teaching makes great use of comedy to reveal the "folly of the desiring self" (ego, attachment to things, etcetera)... a bit like the fool who looks at the finger that points to the sky. But if words are the pointing finger, showing one where to locate the moon, then rejecting words is also a form of attachment: "Speech is blasphemy, silence is a lie. above speech and silence there is a way out".

The following are from 'Zen and the Comic Spirit':
"Zen records commonly contain profanations of the name of Buddha.
A monk asked Yun-men 'What is Buddha?'
His shocking reply: 'A wiping stick of dry dung!'".

"Lin-chi offered this piece of advice to his monks: 'Do not take the Buddha for the Ultimate. As I look at him, he is still like the hole in the privy. As to the Bodhisattvas and Arhats, they are the cangues and chains to keep you in bonmdage...Do not deceive yourselves! I care nothing for your expertise in interpreting the scriptures and commentaries, or for your high positions in the world, or for your flowing eloquence, or for your intelligence and wisdom. I only care for your true and authentic insight and perception. Followers of Tao! Even if you were able to expound a hundred sutras ans shastras, you would still be no match for a simple humble monk with no concern for anything.'"

See, not everybody likes toilet humour, but a few Zen masters obviously did. So anyway I think its perfectly Zen to have conversations about Zen, or anything else for that matter. By the way this is my first ever Barbelith post, so naturally I will be very excited if somebody replies, especially because yesterday I quit walking up and down my street looking for people of intelligence and imagination with whom to chat.

Think... a celebrity stalker working from home.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:32 / 22.10.02
The answer at the end of the long journey is that the journey was never necessary in the first place. Yet, you still have to walk it and make that mistake. One can not succeed at zen unless one has first spent some time failing at it.

I wonder about this. Children have a pretty easy time living Zen, which is why they're used as a model in a lot of Zen literature (interestingly enough, Jesus of Nazareth also thought children had the proper "spirit", so to speak. When his disciples rebuked people for bringing little children to him, Jesus said to them [the disciples]: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not recieve the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it" Lk 18:16).

Do you suppose there is any way for a child to retain this spirit of naturalness into adulthood?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:34 / 22.10.02
By the way, welcome, k.s. dust. I hope you enjoy your stay. I also enjoyed Zen and the Comic Spirit, although it wasn't very funny in and of itself.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:50 / 22.10.02
children almost always understand koans in their true spirit also.

Try it out. Use a hackneyed old cliche (to you and I) on a child from about 6 or 7 years old (who will have never heard it before) and see what they *do*.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:59 / 22.10.02
Who has any thoughts on the "Sudden enlightenment" v.s. "gradual enlightenment" arguement? I don't think it could ever be just one or the other. Sure, satori will shatter preconceptions, but it doesn't neccessarily help you cultivate detachment. It can do the opposite if you're not careful.

One would think this would be obvious. But I must be missing something if there is still such a seperation between the two schools of thought.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:13 / 22.10.02
So to try to get back on track, is it even possible to point towards Zen from an Aristotelian starting point?
Or is the whole process one of backing up beyond that starting point?

It is possible to point towards it, yes. But it would be sort of like someone asking you to point to Britain while you are both standing in London. You're pointing to it, yeah, but who's gonna see it? Everyone. But who's gonna know what they're looking at? Everyone. But who's going to realize, you know, be aware that they know what they're looking at? Not nearly as many. So it's kind of a "both yes and no" answer, or "neither yes nor no", or "sometimes yes and sometimes no" answer.
 
 
—| x |—
08:04 / 23.10.02
Every statement in this post is a lie.

I have a pair of Docs, do you?

“Here, move over there and hear nothing of value so dear.”
Said the Pupil to Iris.

Iris is at risk.

*

What isn’t that cow: true or false?

But at worst I said, “Mine eye digress,” distressed at best, at once first in last words.

Words are worlds without one, whereas worlds are words with one.

An I for an I; a truth for a truth.

I’ve me a rat rant: it’s for the birds.

Zen is just, being clever.

I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time—I meant to post this here.

Predictable, I’m sure.

*
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:49 / 23.10.02
From another thread:

"I only live in half-hour chunks."

My head was filled with images of little parcels of time. At the same time I was thinking that everyone lives in fragmented time, but probably far smaller ones, in terms of physics and analytical philosophy, whilst still another thought was never realised, but hovered in the background - I think that time is a subjective experience as well, so the post is quite true. I could also see little images on the sides of the pile of cubes, and I was reminded of a conversation with Tom a few weeks ago about envisioning four-dimensional objects as three-dimensional fragments and ways of seeing time as a dimension in space.

Which, for my own little fragment of time, threw me at the boundaries of my head.

Nice one.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:16 / 23.10.02
If I wasn't such a stranger to Zen, I'd suggest that it's not a great reflection on the ancient art - Haus

I know I shouldn't contribute, but the state and mode of the discussion intrigues me.

Principally, there is something worrying about the idea that criticisms of the philosophy are automatically invalid. The main justification seems to be that they rely on analytical techniques that do not apply to Zen. But it seems that all criticisms are put into this "box". I'm also enjoying the "contradiction" of saying that there is no right and no wrong while at the same time being adamant that some people "don't get it". Very Zen, no doubt.

Also, there a few areas of thought where the only demonstration of knowledge is the ability to rule someone's disagreement a "misunderstanding". I can think of them, but it tends to serve as a criticism.

Perhaps its like listening to a joke. You either find it funny, or you don't. In this situation, not finding it funny seems to be the same as not understanding the joke. Perhaps some of you have had the experience of understanding a joke and not finding it funny?
Absolutely fascinating.
 
 
.
09:36 / 24.10.02
The main justification seems to be that they rely on analytical techniques that do not apply to Zen.

Of course there is a huge body of buddhist logic that is just as methodical and analytical (if not more so) than traditional western philosophy. Just because buddhist thought relies on more logical truth values than the western true-false couple doesn't mean it's any less strict about the application of logic. See Nagarjuna for example.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:49 / 24.10.02
No one's saying you can't talk about Zen analyitically. I'm just at pains to point out that talking about Zen analytically is like talking about orgasm analytically. It may throw up a whole lot of interesting stuff, but it won't get you a great deal closer to an orgasm of your own, you may stop other people feeling sexy, and it isn't really what orgasms are all about.

There's also the fact that Zen sets itself up on the same level as analytical reason. They are co-equal alternatives. Analysis cannot logically call on Zen to account for itself analytically; the inherent assumption in such a call is that Zen is subject to analysis, which has yet to be proven. It's a familiar problem.
 
 
.
10:07 / 24.10.02
RE: The orgasm analogy- I think the interesting thing then is that zen is both a philosophy and an experience, which is pretty unique. Which is the core element? Is zen an experience that leads to a certain epistemological belief, or is it a certain epistemological belief that leads to an experience? Is there such a thing as "enlightenment" in this way? And if so, how does one achieve it?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:33 / 24.10.02
At the risk of being told to go away and read lots of books...

Just because buddhist thought relies on more logical truth values than the western true-false couple doesn't mean it's any less strict about the application of logic. - iivix23

I think that is quite interesting. However, it doesn't come across in this thread at all. If I were to caricature the flavour of thought here, it would be to say that multiple truth values are used to deny the validity of any form of logic.

Analysis cannot logically call on Zen to account for itself analytically; the inherent assumption in such a call is that Zen is subject to analysis, which has yet to be proven - Nick

Nick seems to be agreeing with my first post. The way this is presented does not seem to propose different forms of analysis - even though we are told they are there. As I said before, it does seem as if any act of criticism or analysis is automatically invalid. The standing assumption that comes across is that any logical train of thought is "Western" and hence non-applicable. I find it hard to accept this kind of separation. Nick, I thought your response to a possible parallel with respect to Christianity unconvincing.

Also, I'm wondering whether it is really unique to have an interplay between philosophy and experience? Aren't all epistemological systems difficult to separate from the experiences they "validate".

I disagree about orgasms, by the way.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:37 / 24.10.02
The way this is presented does not seem to propose different forms of analysis - even though we are told they are there.

Don't understand. And who is telling whom what?

As I said before, it does seem as if any act of criticism or analysis is automatically invalid.

Well, yeah, in the most literal sense, it would be 'invalid'. Reason is incomplete. It has no special claim to truth outside its own mechanisms, and Zen doesn't invoke those mechanisms. If Zen wanted to lay claim to rationality, then it would have to satisfy Reason - but it doesn't. Zen sets itself up at the same level in the hierarchy of seeing the world as Reason; they're peers, dealing in different things; Reason cannot traffic with the essence of Zen, only with the trappings, history, effects, and so on.

The standing assumption that comes across is that any logical train of thought is "Western" and hence non-applicable.

No. Logical trains of thought are logical, and Zen isn't concerned with logic. Logic has no traction on Zen. Would it makes sense to look at the following:

a) all whales are mammals
b) all mammals are bear live young

therefore

c) all whales bear live young;

and challenge it on the basis that it is neither revelatory nor experiential? No. One might reasonably object that those qualities have nothing to do with the syllogism, which is tautologous in form and deductive in nature, and deals in concepts and qualities rather than excitative states and immanent experience. Why then is it so hard to accept the corollary, that there is just no point putting Zen through the analytical process? It's not that I'm trying to forbid you, or that I'm irked at your presumption - it's just that it seems to me to be both logically unsound and actually pointless to do so.

Nick, I thought your response to a possible parallel with respect to Christianity unconvincing.

Well, before I explain why it is that you're wrong, perhaps you might like to go into greater detail regarding your error?

I'm wondering whether it is really unique to have an interplay between philosophy and experience? Aren't all epistemological systems difficult to separate from the experiences they "validate".

It's not an interplay. This is not a praxis or hermeneutic net. It's more like the uniting of philosophy with experience - not an internalisation, but a union of immanent "I" and learned "I". But even that is a gross mistatement. Again. You persist in applying the dictates of one notion of what is real, valuable, and useful to the judgement of another notion. You're trying to reckon a distance of ten yards with a metre stick and complaining you've got bits left over. Why so beholden?

I disagree about orgasms, by the way.

I'd rather not know that, thank you.
 
 
cusm
16:01 / 24.10.02
The "enlightenment" touted in zen is certainly an experiential matter, while the practice of Zen as a philosophy is a means to attain that experience. While the philosophy may be analyzed, the experience can not be. I think that is the inherent difficulty with logic here. The experience is one beyond logic, so by attempting to describe it in terms of logic, you are not in the experience (he who pursues zen is not in zen). But logic is used to describe and point to it, as we need some sort of language to point the way. Although, Zen is not proven in logic so much as in the places where logic fails. Hence, the use of paradox. By attempting to resolve a paradox, the intention is that one makes an intuitive leap beyond the confines of the logical structure the paradox is presented in, and rather than seeing two things which can not co-exist, one sees a larger system that includes both elements as true. 1+1=3
 
 
Reference
14:41 / 25.10.02
Yes. No. Maybe.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:53 / 26.10.02
I think I'm pondering what you're pondering, Nick...but where are we going to find a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night?

Syllogisms. Hmmm. Let me throw one back at you.


All diseases should be treated and, if possible, cured.
Homosexuality is a disease.

Therefore, homosexuality should be treated and, if possible, cured.


Now, although this syllogism is formally correct, I think one might reasonably challenge it on grounds that have little to do with logic. Just as one might, and should, challenge science on grounds that aren't scientific.

The key here is whether a point of view, a philosophy, has any impact beyond its own realm. If it doesn't, then I can accept that the combination of incommensurability and isolation make external criticisms rather pointless. Does Zen fall into this category?

Christianity is in many ways discursive. There are mystical versions of it which are indeed inaccessible to reason. You can talk about any mystical religion as much as you like. You will learn its tennets, its construction, its history, and still not really understand it.

Understanding is not the issue. One need not "understand" that "Jesus saves", in order to challenge the Jehova's Witness stance on blood transfusion. Moreover, such a challenge could be useful internally despite it's external origin.

Although, Zen is not proven in logic so much as in the places where logic fails. Hence, the use of paradox. - cusm

Actually, that makes a lot of sense to me. Though I suspect that my response to paradox is vastly different from yours.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:56 / 26.10.02
All diseases should be treated and, if possible, cured.
Homosexuality is a disease.

Therefore, homosexuality should be treated and, if possible, cured.


Now, although this syllogism is formally correct, I think one might reasonably challenge it on grounds that have little to do with logic.

Which changes nothing. You're talking about challenging the content of a syllogism. That's part of the way they work - that the content is not relevant to how logical they are. It wouldn't be rational to challenge the logic of the syllogism on that basis, just the posits. And even if you were to challenge deductive logic itself on this basis, it would be on the grounds of reason. No score.

The key here is whether a point of view, a philosophy, has any impact beyond its own realm. If it doesn't, then I can accept that the combination of incommensurability and isolation make external criticisms rather pointless. Does Zen fall into this category?

By definition, no philosophy can reach beyond its own realm - that's how such a realm is defined.

Understanding is not the issue. One need not "understand" that "Jesus saves", in order to challenge the Jehova's Witness stance on blood transfusion. Moreover, such a challenge could be useful internally despite it's external origin.

Understanding is precisely the issue. You're coming at this from the point of view of another philosophy - "one need not understand in order to..." - in other words, instrumental reason. But Zen - and incidentally Daoism - reject that instrumentalism and concentrate on understanding. They simply do not care about use value.

You don't get to set the agenda according to a particular philosophy and then judge others by it. That's my whole point. Zen can look at Reason and say 'but it brings you no closer to enlightenment', just as much as Reason can look at Zen and say 'but it's no use to anyone'.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:03 / 26.10.02
Yes I am talking about the content of syllogisms. And I am perfectly aware that this doesn't change the logic of them. But people use this kind of reasoning in areas beyond abstract logic. In fact, the example I gave is not without precedent. I find it odd that you can say on another thread that science should reflect on morality, whereas here you are saying that logic, even when applied, need not.

I get the impression that you are thinking of logic without context - strictly formal logic, if you will. It is a false comparison in my view, but I don't really expect you to accept that. However, your next assertion

And even if you were to challenge deductive logic itself on this basis, it would be on the grounds of reason. No score.

is just plain wrong. Ironically, the more you try to deny the non-logical elements of logic, the more wrong it becomes. As many on this thread will tell you, logic by itself is insufficient and self referentiality cannot be "logical".

By definition, no philosophy can reach beyond its own realm - that's how such a realm is defined.

Yes. Very sloppy of me. What I meant to say was that a philosophy is isolated if it has no impact on any other realm.

As for your last paragraph, I would point to science again. We agree that morality (which is not science) should inform science. So it comes down to which discourses "may" comment on each other. This is a rather arbitrary choice which you seem to think is clear. I presume you believe Zen has a symmetric relation with other philosophies? That is, Zen is unable to comment about History, Science, ethics, logic, feminism, christianity etc, etc?
 
 
Stone Mirror
17:06 / 26.10.02
I find it vaguely disheartening to see a thread on Zen (soi disant) at three pages in length.

You know the instant between the moment that you whack your thumb with a hammer and the moment you realize just how much it hurts?

That's Zen.

(Did you actually intend to dissect me with that blunt little instrument...?)
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
07:45 / 27.10.02
Everyone go right now and read mod's posts. follow his links.








do you get it?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:46 / 27.10.02
Yes, you are probably right Wolf. I suppose I was encoraged by cusm's

The answer at the end of the long journey is that the journey was never necessary in the first place. Yet, you still have to walk it and make that mistake.

And also people talking about multi-valued logics, quantum theory and relativity - all of which are highly logical. I think I'm getting that Zen "logic" is logic only in the sense that it isn't. Fair enough. I think I'll stop poking now and let everyone get on being Zen now.
 
 
Pepsi Max
11:18 / 27.10.02
Lurid>

That is, Zen is unable to comment about History, Science, ethics, logic, feminism, christianity etc, etc?

I think it would be fair to say that Zen as a project carried out by individuals over the course of history has little interest in these topics as such. It is unable to comment on them in that is has no machinery to do so.

However, I do find some the some of the contentions put forth that absolutely break off areas of human activity from each other - e.g. certain traditions of rationalist enquiry vs. traditions of mystical relevation. I do not agree with this.

There's also the fact that Zen sets itself up on the same level as analytical reason. They are co-equal alternatives. Analysis cannot logically call on Zen to account for itself analytically; the inherent assumption in such a call is that Zen is subject to analysis, which has yet to be proven. It's a familiar problem.

The language you use here is interesting, Nick. It's all about territory, juristiction and power. You posit Zen and Reason as sovereign states that can have no contact with each - except through acts of war presumably. I don't think this fair or useful.

Whilst I can understand scepticism about using rational tools on daosim and zen, I don't quite follow the blanket proscriptions.

Anyway, I don't think I have any more to add.

Happy meditating everyone.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:58 / 28.10.02
"All diseases should be treated and, if possible, cured.
Homosexuality is a disease.

Therefore, homosexuality should be treated and, if possible, cured."


Now, although this syllogism is formally correct, I think one might reasonably challenge it on grounds that have little to do with logic.

This syllogism is not "formally correct", it's just "valid". The truthfulness is easily challenged. Does truth have anything to do with logic?
 
 
grant
19:32 / 28.10.02
Maybe the Zen deal might be better analyzed by looking at those 'zero' ink & brush drawings that Japanese Zen masters do - voiding everything for a moment and summing up that moment by briefly - very briefly - drawing a perfect circle. Can't remember the Japanese name for that art, but it's pretty well known.
It takes place outside linear time. There's no beginning and no end - it's not working toward anything, just circumscribing an outline of something instantaneous and other.

Zen's only comment on History, Science, ethics, logic, feminism, christianity etc, etc is by its exclusion from those things. They're all part of the mundane world where logic works, where things progress in lines from causes to effects.

If I try to write any more, I'll start sounding like Derrida, and that would (in my case) be tragic, so I'll stop.

I will say, though, that even from a Zen perspective, there's nothing wrong with trying to analyze the meaning of the Zen experience. It's just that it exists independent of the concept of meaning.
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:15 / 28.10.02
I think it would be fair to say that Zen as a project carried out by individuals over the course of history has little interest in these topics as such. - Pepsi

Point taken, and very interesting.

This syllogism is not "formally correct", it's just "valid". - Johnny AWOL

I suspect that I am using "formally correct" to mean the same as you mean by "valid". And does truth have anything to do with logic? Interesting question, that I couldn't possibly go into on this thread. While it is tempting to say "no", I believe it may be more complicated than that. But then, I didn't mention truth (or even "Truth").

grant: quick question. Do you really think of the logical (or perhaps rational?) as mundane? Curious.
 
 
grant
16:21 / 29.10.02
Well, within the context of this split between "no mind" and "mind," yeah, I'd put logic in the "mind" box, which contains all that illusory, worldly, mundane stuff in it.
Of course, it's possible (necessary?) to reach that "no mind" state through operating on a very mundane level - in the sense of routine, simple tasks executed with mindfulness of the present moment and nothing but the present moment.
But that's not the sense of "mundane" I was trying for.
The "mundane" would be the expectation and anticipation of what comes next, the creation of continuity of identity... that babble that meditation attempts to quiet, temporarily. Logic is based on continuity and progress and linking thoughts one to the other - the very stuff that Zen is trying to break up, to tear through.

Maybe part of the deal with that word is its use in Christian mysticism, as the foil for the "spiritual" - but that's a slightly different split than the divide between "mind" and "no-mind."
 
 
cusm
17:06 / 29.10.02
Here's one way to consider the experience. When we think logicly, we create an internal representation of the external ideas we are considering. We create a map of existence which we can manipulate, follow logical structures, and come to conclusions with. However, this map is not the reality, it is a seperation from reality. If we live in the map, we are not experiencing reality but our own representation of it. The only way to break out of that to experience reality directly and simple "understand" is to loose the map, to simply look at things as they are.

The other bit is in conscious/subconscious processing. In Zen, the conscious mind is quieted, leaving processing to the unconscious mind. So, one does not think things through using discrete logical process, one lets the subconscious figure it out and live in the results only. In a way, it is an internal seperation, though in another way, it is a unification of the conscious and unconsciouss so that you no longer need a filter between them. You act basicly on instinct and reflex. You simply know the answer, not the process of its discovery. You are one with what you are doing, and simply think of your intent and the rest happens on auto-pilot. Thus, you can experience a one-ness with the moment and what you are doing, and benefit from the increased reflexes and processing that are allowed to take place without the interference of the logical conscious mind. The mind only slows you down from your full processing potential.

Example: If you are thinking about how to do a task, you are slowed down by it. If you are driving and you had to think about each change to the gas an brake or the wheel, your reflexes would be substantially reduced, much as they were when you first learned to drive. But with skill, you stop thinking about the details, and abstract to the intention. I am going this way, I am the car, I move. The skill drops to the subconscious, to the reflexive, freeing the mind to enjoy the experience of doing it rather than the process of it. This is an example of Zen that I think may be more approachable that the parables or meta-logic discussion.
 
 
Reference
15:20 / 20.11.02
Every word that is written here drags you further away from what you are looking for.
 
 
grant
12:49 / 18.03.08
I've just been reading a pretty good book on Zen called The Flowing Bridge: Guidance on Beginning Zen Koans by Elaine MacInnes. She's a nun - a Catholic nun - who's also a student of Koun Yamada and a Zen teacher in her own right. The book is a collection of commentaries on Zen koans, along with a couple of commentaries on famous commentaries (teisho) on the most famous koans, including the one mentioned up this thread: Does a dog have the Buddha nature? Mu.

There are many pages defining what "Mu" might mean - it's the "gateless gate" of Zen, the one barrier that keeps people from understanding Zen. It's sort of translated as "not-no," but it really is a signpost to non-duality. Any answer is wrong, is what "Mu" means.

Here's a teisho on the verse:
Dog! Buddha Nature!
The perfect manifestation, the absolute command;
A little "has" or "has not,"
And body is lost! Life is lost!

And here's a snip from MacInnes explaining the teisho:

"A little has or has not" is the concept of discrimination. Sitters who are this far along in their practice know that insight and freedom are not attained in the world of having or not having.

...We are being told that "a little" discrimination throws the whole Zen world out of whack. That shows how destructive mental and intellectual procedures can be to our sitting. Even a little, even a little.

We frequently come across that phrase, "a little" in our Zen studies, and eventually we come to understand that it has an absolute meaning. It absolutely says that there must be no intellection at all. This is rather difficult to swallow and can almost seem devastating when we have spent most of the waking hours during our life intellectualizing.

...If you find yourself in the area of the dualistic world, not totally but rather "somewhat," then don't give up. Godos in our zendos frequently shout, "Gambatte!" which means "persevere," "stick to it."

...

John of the Cross tells us that there is often just a thin thread holding back a bird from flying where it will, but it might as well be a steel cable! Sometimes, it is just a little bit of delusion that keeps us from being free. It so often means that we have only a little bit further to have true insight.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply