--- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> The outcomes of self-enquiry cannot be communicated without a common
> understanding of key words used in describing the outcomes.
>
> It appears silly to talk so seriously about subjects when we we do not
> have a common agreement about what we are talking about.
>
> --ED
Hi ED. Oh, it's not silly, it passes the time. And it's kind of fun.
In my opinion, the outcomes of self-enquiry cannot be communicated,
period. Anything we say will be misleading on some level. But you've
got to say something! We can talk endlessly about sugar, but until
you've tasted it, it will be beside the point. And even after you have
tasted it, will "sweet" mean anything to someone who has never tasted
anything sweet? Language presupposes the duality of subject and object.
The analytical reason presupposes that everything is composed of parts
which can be deconstructed, compared and contrasted. But if reality is
One Bright Jewel, as Dogen put it, how can this mean anything? As
Huang Po noted, "In truth, our original Buddha Nature is nothing which can be
intellectually understood. It is glorious and mysterious peacefulness, and that
is all that can be said. You, yourself, must awaken to it, fathoming it's
depths! That which is before you is it in it's entirety, with nothing
whatsoever lacking!"
IMO.
Steve
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
