A sign of someone who understands Zen is that he doesn't talk about what other people have said about Zen (i.e., Zen Masters) as much as he talks about Zen itself.

The emphasis in most discussion here on what people said about Zen dozens of generations ago is an oddity not unlike, say, the woodworking subreddit endlessly discussing they writings of ancient woodworkers. Like, it's certainly within the purview of the forum but isn't addressing woodworking itself a more pragmatically beneficial venture than the rather academic curiosity of reading its first practitioners?

Similarly, Zen itself, being an objective thing independent of Zen Masters, is readily available for discussion here. But instead I largely see discussion focused on the writings of Zen Masters and on users here themselves.

When are we gonna talk about Zen in our own language completely? Why not add to the glossary, add to the lineage texts? Why not become Zen Masters? I understand the risk of presuming to know more than one's experience and study warrants, but I'd posit that a greater risk might be in presuming to never be able to fully know the truth of what one studies--the risk of not becoming an autonomous Zen Master in and of yourself.

I want to state categorically that I believe there may be regular posters here who have more depth and insight than some of the Zen Masters that they study and revere. That's not to suggest that studying them is a misguided act--just that your own depth and insight might be a more reliable source of knowledge regarding Zen than some potentially ambiguously translated or transcribed texts from a different culture and time.

Submitted December 08, 2017 at 04:09AM by pohw http://ift.tt/2zZS7Bw