Here's an exchange recently leaving the guy's name out of it and shortening it up, here is the Case being discussed: http://home.pon.net/wildrose/gateless-11.htm
I thought this was an interesting example of somebody asking hard questions about the texts and what's the point of r/zen in fair way:
Guy:
So both Mumon and Joshu, according to you, are purposefully being obscure and deceptive? Mumon for giving the impression that his stories were solvable by themselves and Joshu by not using a method that would otherwise be seen as reliable for discernment? They are just hiding the truth?
Why?
ewk:
Look how fun that is: yes, they are being obscure and deceptive... If you think they are obligated to explain a method for distinguishing head monks from masters.
But if there is no such method, then they are not being obscure and deceptive at all, in fact they are insisting that the point of the story is that there is no method, and thus no way to force Zen Masters to do your thinking for you.
Guy:
All I see are shaking closed fits, beckoning me to fellow as there might be something fundamentally necessary within them if I only chased after them.
That is the training ground of here; people coming to you and trying to convince you they are an authority as they desperately shake their empty fists in front of your face, telling you how far or how close you are from completion, tempting you into the narrative that will make them feel powerful as you sell your own integrity for the risk of something more or different.
ewk:
I dont think you see that... because you'd have to be told what to shake your fist at, and you weren't told, so you can't follow. So they aren't trying to convince you of their authority, and you can't say they are, because you have no way to depend on them and have an answer. You can say you depend, but you can't say how. Or you can say how, which would immediately.mean you don't depend.
Guy:
Are you calling me a liar? Or saying that I am not seeing things clearly? I am telling you what I see. Accurate or not.
ewk:
Christian and Buddhist and Hindu, they are told explicitly what legit looks like so they can shake their fist in legit imitation.
Zen says imitation is not legit, and won't give you something to imitate.
So if you say you can trust Zhaozhou, that's dishonest. How? Trust him to what? Not explain?
If you say you can't trust him, that's dishonest too... in that he doesn't share your belief about what trust means. He says there is ONLY trust in mind; to not trust that is to betray yourself before you can claim he betrayed your trust and became untrustworthy.
Guy:
I was referring to the /r/Zen community in my description of what I saw.
The overarching cultural identity here is to want to play the mysterious and enigmatic trickster because they have no idea how to value themselves when not having their d*ck sucked or acknowledged as being big.
Why do you think r/zen is so insulated? So self referential? It is group cannibalism, dude. It has its fads, sure, but in the name of 'dharma combat' dishonesty and secret or open barbs are the understand prerequisites to play king of the mountain.
It's a total "If you are not first your last" kind of reductionist dynamic. This place breeds co-dependency like no tomorrow as the identities people LARP here have little to no use or acknowledgement outside of this small community. The overarching cultural identity here is to want to play the mysterious and enigmatic trickster because they have no idea how to value themselves when not having their d*ck sucked or acknowledged as being big.
ewk:
You'd have to give me some examples... often there are two sides to an argument like mysterious/unknowable v/s Enigma LARPer but it turns out one side totally fails when you kick the tires.
For my example, somebody complained to me in great detail about a mod not having a public debate about an off topic issue... I said, it's off topic, to debate it would be to make it the topic, the literal opposite of the entire point of moderation. So what looks like a refusal to engage is simply an enforcement of the rules we all agreed to follow. I then tested my argument by suggesting places where the debate would be on topic to see if the debate was really the issue...
Guy:
Have I ever changed your mind? I don't think I ever have.
I don't mean offering up some new access to data that you previously were unaware of, but has my arguments or perspective 'ever' shifted your own?
Can you name any examples where it has?
I think you are brilliant (in your ways) and I've always greatly appreciated your perspective, advice and assistance over the years. But from my point of view you are as flexible as adamantium. You are the principled immovable object incarnate.
I try testing to see how far you can see my perspective (in what I can see of them myself and intend to share of myself) every once in a while and end up failing miserably despite getting sharper over the years within our dialogues.
I've talked and shared our conversations with my girlfriend countless times to get additional perspective to increase the range of my ability to reflect on what you say, how I've phrased and how I 'will' phrase to be best understood.
ewk:
What would you change my mind about? I read a book, I talk about what the book says. Why would I insert myself or my opinions into that? Why would I need a "perspective"? I'm not sure what that would even be.
See? What "mind" is there for you shift? Where would it shift to?
Submitted September 08, 2021 at 12:50PM by ewk https://ift.tt/3BPTylt
No comments:
Post a Comment