A story about a father and son meeting with a dog barking fiercely. The son
said, 'dad, you told me barking dogs don't bite. so we should not be afraid.'
However, the father replied, 'son. You know barking dogs don't bite. I know it
too. But does this particular dog know barking dogs don't bite?' So they walked
carefully away from the animal.
I would do the same. Probably Bill would say that the animal and the barking
are illusion. So we go face it.
--- On Fri, 29/10/10, ED <seacrofter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: ED <seacrofter...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Zen] Zen, Self, I, Me and Mine
Date: Friday, 29 October, 2010, 12:27 AM
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, <billsm...@...> wrote:
> 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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
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.