-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: "Zen archaeology"
Hello Chris,
>Lenny wrote:
>
>> The paradox arises in that the silence of the Zen mind belies a language
>> and, in as much as consciousness is being linked inextricably with
language,
>> denies as well a Zen reality that embraces either consciousness or
language.
>> This forces a realization of kinds of reality, and, further, a question
over
>> any assertion about "a firm base for reality"!
>
>
>Hello Lenny,
>
>This paradox arises only when one attempts a fairly superficial analysis
>using words and logic.
I don't think there is anything "superficial" about it! I think there is
something fundamentally in error in the reliance upon "consciousness" as an
avenue into any consensual understanding of the so-called "zen mind!"
Ironically, zen teachers would point out the fallacy of your non-superficial
analysis "using words and logic" to approach the understanding of it, too!
>[snip]
>
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with rational,logical,verbal thought.
>[snip]
Ironically, that is just what you are doing!?
>[snip]
>It's just that rational thought is not the tool which can do that.
>
Then, how do you reconcile this idea with ... "conscious awareness can
approach a deeper understanding" ?
>
>When you come out of that experience,you are back in the world of words and
reason
>again,a world of relativities.Mostly,the way that we explain reality to
ourselves,is in
>terms of opposites.Up/down,Yes/no,right/wrong,life/death,good/bad,etc.
>That's not what reality is like.It's not all clear cut black/white.But our
minds like those
>simple polar opposites,and our language is built up on that kind of logic.
>This has been common knowledge in many traditions for thousands of years.
>It seems to be something that contemporary Western culture has forgotten or
>overlooked,with few exceptions.
>
Then reflect upon the possibility of the other waiting for you there!
>When one has pursued the zen path for some time,some of the above becomes
very
>clear.With practice,one can retain the 'zen mind' cultivated in sitting
meditation,
>throughout daily life.That means that one does not get caught up in the
world
>of conceptual reasoning and the opposites.One just sees 'what is'.
>It doesn't mean that one becomes incapable of thought,or speech,or
irrational,or an
>imbecile.It is entirely compatible with science,or any other pursuit one
may choose.
>But there is a change in the relationship between oneself and 'all the
rest'.
>
I understand, but that was not my point! Even if there were such a thing
independently "knowable" through practice to all of us, there is no other
way to share this "understanding" except through socially held, consensual
meanings! So even your "explanation" is contaminated by humanity! No value
judgement is intended here. Just that it 'is', eh!?
>As I see it,this has implications for anyone who thinks seriously about
life,existence,
>their place in the world,and what it all may mean.
So does rock-and-roll, go figure!
>Instead of imposing our ideas about 'what the world is like' upon
reality,we can allow
>reality to be what it is.Or we can approach that ideal.
>
Only thing is, you can't talk about it! This method is inherently
anti-human!
>Trying to apply logical analysis,or insisting that the proposition is
'impossible'
>because you don't understand it,misses the whole point.
>
I don't think I implied any such a thing. This seems more like a stereotype
of the critique rather than a serious attempt to understand the nature of
it.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|