Sorry,Lenny,but I'm having trouble making sense of any of your posts
today.
We seem to be speaking straight past each other.
> >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" ?
I don't follow your reasoning at all.You seem to be talking about
something entirely different,and I don't know what it is.
Look,I was trying to explain that words can only take a person so far
when it comes to zen,and a deeper understanding of the meaning of a
persons existence.
It's not such a big deal.If you accept that zen is something that you
do,like swimming or riding a bike is something you do,then surely anyone
can recognise that talking or writing about zen or swimming is not the same
as actually doing it.But it does not follow that somehow speech or thought
about zen or swimming is forbidden or impossible.It's just that you can't really
get much of an understanding of zen or swimming by talking or reading.To really
understand,you have to do the practice,to jump into water.
> >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!
I'm not certain what you mean,but yes,I suppose a person could reflect
in that way.
Why not just get on with doing it ?
> >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!?
I don't agree at all,but I can't think of a way that would make it clear
to you,at this moment.
> >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!
Well,I have known people for whom rock and roll was a matter of life and
death,but I've never been able to take it quite that seriously myself.
> >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!
Again,your reasoning seems mighty strange to me.I thought you just told
me that my proposal would be inevitably "contaminated by humanity",but now
I'm "anti-human " ? I don't understand.Presumably,you're lines of reasoning
are in conformity with an understanding of your own,which I don't share.
> >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.
Well,perhaps so,but I insist that I have tried to give you a fair
hearing and made an effort to understand what you said.
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|