Hi Steve,
IMO, there is no excuse for not trying to be as near the mark as one can get. --ED --- In [email protected], "SteveW" <eugnostos2000@...> wrote: > 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. --- In [email protected] </group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=7x-i_i4i6f66H8PAEMelGNgOd-qyf_PO6wLuONphPu\ VaOz39tU7Z6MfKQFYRN5gQvhgNPxjnkfti8C9Ry0lKTGo> , "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
