Confusion Part 3

What I read when I read - Foyen, Waking Up In The Present

Discussion of principles in Foyan passage, off the cuff, riffing toward disaster:

"Even if you trust directly in the rightness of reality this very moment, already you are called a dullard; how much the more if you cannot trust directly— what are you good for then?

• Principles: 1) Trusting your senses. 2) Enlightenment isn't trusting your senses

1. Zen Masters teach the principle of accord with circumstance, that is recognition of and trust in "rightness of reality" as it appears.
2. Foyan is pointing out that merely trusting reality isn't sufficient for enlightenment... and saying so will be enough to convince people you are a bozidiot.
3. But if you can't even get to the directness of trusting your senses, then you are a bozidiot^2, and will likely be unable to hold down a job.

If you directly trust the rightness of reality, why are you called a dullard? When have you been coming and going all this time?

• Principles: 1) You know you sometimes don't function on the sensory level.

1. Wait, Foyan will explain everything.
2. Why are you called a dullard for trusting the sense? When Zen Masters tell people to trust in reality? Are you always operating on the sensory level? No. You obviously wander in and out of memory and get caught up in experience and thinking things. How could you not know you are wandering in and out of the sensory level?

You should know you’ve lost one part; then you see that what you had hitherto not comprehended turns out to be a view that has no relevance to you.

• Principles: 1) Be reasonable in your thinking; 2) The sensory world is authoritative

1. "You should have figured it out" that since you aren't living always in the senses that living in the senses isn't enlightenment.

As I observe the ancients since time immemorial,

• ^{there were those who attained enlightenment from confusion; all of their statements are teachings on attaining enlightenment from confusion.}
• ^{Then there were those who came to understand confusion after becoming enlightened; all of their statements are teachings on understanding confusion after becoming enlightened.}
• ^{Then again, were were those for whom there is neither confusion nor enlightenment; all o f their statements are teachings on freedom from both confusion and enlightenment.}
• ^{Next, those who attained enlightenment outside of confusion were also very numerous, so they are not worth talking about.}

• Principles: none

1. It's basically just a list of the possibilities... probably he is doing this so as not to leave anybody out and create confusion about why they weren't included.

How much less worthwhile for those who neither know enlightenment nor understand confusion! These latter are, properly speaking, merely ordinary mortals. "

• Principles: Dont' !@#$ around

1. If you never examine your confusion and you never get enlightened, then what they heck are you doing? Sleeping all day?

  

.    

(Welcome link) (ewk^who?) note: Let's see you dig us out of that!

Submitted May 19, 2020 at 04:34PM by ewk https://ift.tt/2zV27k8