-
Does it require someone claim they are enlightened to be playing the part of an enlightened person? Faith in the words of another is something common to us, regardless of whether we consider it as more rational or free -- it is what it is.
-
The human mind is known not to be a "single" thing but an amalgamation of processes, words (including written words) aren't much different than other forms, they are difficult to "understand" insofar as we find their origins (evolution of language and mind, the reasons behind someone saying something) impossible to track meaningfully (e,g we understand the 'precepts' of evolution and of the brain, but that does not increase our ability to detect backwards in time). So then, why the emphasis on avoiding the words of others as law, or adhering to the fundamental oppression of dialogue by binding things with words and names?
-
The "thing itself", a tree for example, is an image produced by the brain -- this images appearance is influenced (or better put reliant on) all the other processes of the brain, including complex emotional and logical relationships to other things including words. The word "tree" and the image of a tree are intertwined not as some kind of failure but a feature. How is this reconciled with Zen teachers? Are they not simply a kind of therapist in the sense that they wish to redirect some harmful extraneous features of human behavior towards something else that is positive? If not, is their purpose to deliver truth? Art? Philosophy? Self-help? The un-graspable?
-
If someone says the un-graspable is that which is not graspable, wouldn't you say they still have a "grasp" on this concept and adhere to it, like is want for humans to do? What is the origin in this confidence that there is more than this? Or even the reverse?
-
Is the general distaste for the use of words, thoughts, precepts, "grasping" not simply moving the "grasping" to other brain processes or human thought constructs(at best?). My first question is similar to this, by simply stating that "this and this is not this, it is this or that not this" is fine but it is not existing in a vacuum, a human mind is an amalgamation. To this effect, some Zen writings feels as more of a word-game or piece of artwork, is Zen writing closer to art than to philosophy or psychology? Do people believe they gain "truth" or valuable knowledge from it and how does that fit in with the writings general distaste with "truth" and value?
-
Is there really much value in the belief that transmission of information via language is lesser? And is the answer that "Oh, that actually is not it" always satisfactory? Was the decision to take hold of the value in Zen based on much else than pure whim or dissatisfaction with previous truth-grasping methods?
-
What would it take for a Zen contestant to begin to find anti-value in Zen texts and Zen ways?
-
If Zen participants say that Zen is not this or that on what authority do they claim it? Prior sources? But many sources self-admit to either be unable to communicate or know anything?
-
Do Zen writers make any ethical claims and how do they reconcile that with non-grasping?
-
The Zen examinees often will have a "peace" and following-nature-as-a-guide flavoring to them, is this not feel-good cultural bias that hasn't aged well(without acknowledgement of how the human mind operates thoroughly within nature including social relationships, or that there is no implicit rule to be found from searching hence no reason to prescribe guidance)?
-
If Zen is not an attempt to be right, what is the desired result of the Zensters of Zen thought on the people? If nothing, then I think that is either a lie on their parts or they think of themselves as above human (In that they operate outside from the normal human, who is dependent on things like social interaction and grasping -- ergo it wasn't Zen that made them understand Zen but nature in the form of someone told them about it OR nature told them about it through other means like the beauty of a still pond or something).
12.
Mumon's Verse 頌曰
他弓莫挽 Don't draw another's bow,
他馬莫騎 Don't ride another's horse,
他非莫辨 Don't discuss another's faults,
他事莫知 Don't explore another's affairs.
What if I wanna?
Submitted January 25, 2019 at 05:17AM by ratchild1 http://bit.ly/2DwVGmR
No comments:
Post a Comment