--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, <billsm...@...> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> Austin's description below is a pretty good one as far as written
> explanation go – but it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that you note that
it is ONLY
> A DESCRIPTION.

Bill,

Austin knows that; I know that; everybody knows that.



> It's the same difference as eating a delicious meal and just
> looking at a menu or at the recipes.

Yes.



> This is not a criticism of Austin's
> writing ability, it just highlights a fundamental problem of trying to
use
> words to describe this experience, ...

I'm sure Austin is aware of that.



> ... and worse yet trying to understand it - put it in a logical
framework.

Austin/Mike/I undertand 'understand' differently than you do. No, no
logical framework, but knowing that the phenomenon is natural affirms
our faith in zen.


> Because it is a description after-the-fact and a description using
words and
> concepts it is necessarily dualistic and logical. In short, Austin is
> trying to communicate an alogical experience using logical terms.


Not logical terms, but verbal descriptions of an ineffable experience,
which for some function as fingers pointing to the moon.

> For example when he says that in the experience the "entire view
acquires
> three qualities: Absolute Reality, Intrinsic Rightness, Ultimate
Reflection"
> he is speaking after-the-fact. He is speaking using his rational mind,
the
> very thing that was absent when he had this experience he is now
trying to
> describe.

Yes.

> When this experience manifested there was no "Absolute Reality,
> Intrinsic Rightness, Ultimate Reflection" , there was only
`Mu', only `The
> Oak Tree in the Garden', only `A dried Shit-stick', only a
single finger
> being raised, or as I say `Just THIS!'.


Yes, and still, I and possibly Mike and others find it useful in
affirming our faith in zen.


> Austin is absolutely wrong when he claims "that there is little
conflict
> between Zen Buddhism and scientific rigor." An experience of this sort
in
> which the - discriminating mind disappears - and `scientific
rigor' - which
> is completely based on logic and the rational mind - are as about as
> complete opposites as there can be.
>
> …Bill!

You are right, Austin is right, Mike is right - to our own selves. And,
I do not perceive any fundamental differences in our understandings of
zen.

--ED






Reply via email to