Thanks, --Chris [email protected] +1-301-270-6524
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > Have it your way, then. > > Not disagreeing; we may be just emphasizing different things at different > times, taking too much effort to emphasize, and not using enough effort to > read. > I don't see the difference. > > Tell me, but only if you want, where you think we disagree in any of our > wide discussion so far, because I really don't know. Maybe pick just one > thing, to start. I do know that it is very, very helpful to express ideas > clearly, especially in a print medium where replies may naturally take > hours or days. > Talking about before awakening or after awakening, talking about the work of practice, all wrong. Sudden awakening, works for some, for some the idea causes them to miss the wonder of life. For some, it appears to foster a lack of psychological sight: thinking that because such an awakening experience has been in their past they will never get caught up in illusion again, they then pretend not to be caught up in illusion the next time it happens: and then they are hosed, because now they are deceiving themselves. A great awakening, but "to encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment." Zen stories are full of people who thought they had achieved some great awakening only to be brought back to ordinariness by their friends and teachers. Now for some fun: Clarity minimizes the chance of simple awkward misunderstanding. > I don't agree that there is a real line between disagreeing and misunderstanding. > And in the realm of discussion of topics related to Zen, clarity is > especially important because of the differences between practice(s), > experience(s), and the various levels of understanding and awareness we > bring, even at different times, of what we call reality. > It's more important not to think any words can convey the reality. And I disagree that separating awareness into levels is valid. I further disagree that drawing lines between practice and experience is valid. > > Then, there are the differences, too, between statements made by teachers > -- which are meant as pedagogy -- and the expressions of practitioners, > which are meant as reports. > I further disagree that there's some solid line between teachers and practitioners. I will also note a distinct lack of pedagogy on the part of my teachers. > Then also there are expressions made by philosophers and theologians, > which are meant as syntheses and generalizations. > So many categories! Do you know some person that is not a theologian? Some dog that is free of philosophy? > > It can all be a vague business, if we are not clear. > Clear words? What would that be. As my teacher notes: "There's just two words you need to remember about zen: Not Always So." > > And, even then... . ;-) > > So, I think, to say we already disagree is just gratuitous. I don't think > we disagree yet; I don't think we've earned the right. That's the laziness > talking. ;-) > I hope I have clarified the ways in which I find your many categories floating around the picture of the moon to be unreflective of the light of the moon. > > --Joe > > > Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > > > It reads to me as disagreement; your mileage may vary :-) > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
