--- In [email protected], <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
