Joe, 'Truth is Beauty' and 'Beauty is Truth' only tells half of the story. It's the most pleasing half but it is still only half.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > I think, too, that's there's wisdom in certain Folk Expressions (although > that wisdom cannot to be applied in all circumstances, and requires > discernment when it comes to cases). > > For example, the expression, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", shows > that everybody understands *in our culture* that beauty is relative, and is > not necessarily as infallibly true for all as Truth itself is. > > (at closing time, and at last calls -- I hear tell -- people even joke about > it's being in the eyes of the beer-holder). > > It takes "Poetry in the soul" to join Truth and Beauty, and Merle has done > this. But I think we all agree that the words have different meanings, and > that sometimes a referent does indeed exemplify BOTH, and not always. > > Pretty simple stuff, overall, but I wanted to bring in the presence of, and > the long-standing establishment of, Folk Wisdom. Cultural antiquities!, > often with no certain provenance; but Human. And not always based on > illusion(s): that's why it's called "wisdom" (I keep the "w" small, here). > It's practical wisdom, tried and true, transmitted down the generations. > > --Joe > > PS The US Supreme Court needs to re-think the "Citizen's United" decision, > and probably will be impelled to. This is the decision that effectively > equates Money with Speech. Now, Folk Wisdom sometimes morphs into commands, > or suggestions: for example, "Put your money where your mouth is!" If money > were speech, it would *already* be in the mouth, and there would never have > been any need, over ALL the centuries that this expression has been extant in > English, for this expression to exist, to form, and to survive, and no > occasion to use it. Nor could it be hoped that speech could ever be > understood, suffering such an oral impediment. > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Edgar, > > > > You're right. My statement below, as most of my statements are, is > > constructed using prose in a fairly strict subject/object-oriented language > > (English). When I said "Buddha Nature experiences Reality just as it is." > > I could have better said it the way you did below. > > > > But even that phraseology "Truth is the manifestation of Buddha Nature..." > > is not quite right either. Buddha Nature doesn't manifest anything. > > Buddha Nature, Truth, Reality, Experience are all IMO just different names > > for the same thing. That's why I ended my post with the phrase which is as > > close as I can come in English prose to describing Buddha Nature: 'Just > > This!'. > > > > But I think we also agree that Beauty is another thing entirely. Beauty is > > a dualistic, relative human judgement. > > > > ...Bill! > ------------------------------------ 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/
