Bill, What you two still don't seem to get is that your daily life IS PART OF (or should be part of) your Zen.
So long as you falsely claim that rationality is incompatible with Zen, and that much of your daily life is rationality, you will remain unable to bring Zen into your daily life.... It's quite simple even though it remains unrealized for you and Joe.... Edgar On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:36 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > Neither Joe nor I said we don't use rationality in our daily lives. In fact > we both remarked on how important it was to our professional lives. It is > important to our mundane lives also. > > What both Joe and I did say was that rationality is NOT IMPORTANT (and I > would add sometimes actually DETRIMENTAL) in realizing Buddha Nature which I > believe is the essence (marrow) of zen - which happens to be the topic of > this forum. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Merle, > > > > Yes, of course. Bill and Joe are completely hypocritical when it comes to > > rationality. They use rationality every day to function and survive, then > > deny it on this forum.... > > > > True Zen doesn't deny using reason, it uses reason as a tool while > > remaining mindful... > > > > A lesson Joe and Bill need to learn.... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > you have to be rational to survive joe...merle > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > I agree with you about all this. > > > > > > I too was educated in and used rationality intensely in my profession - > > > computers/data analysis. It's very useful for making a living. > > > > > > Modern Western education is primarily about memorization and secondarily > > > about rationality. > > > > > > Zen is about experience. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > It's my training in Philosophy and formal logic talking. > > > > > > > > A concept may be rational -- in every sense -- even if no empirical > > > > proof or demonstration is yet available for it. > > > > > > > > For example: "String Theory" in modern Physics may be a rational theory > > > > and "strings" may be a rational concept, even if experiments to > > > > demonstrate the existence of strings have not been devised, or have > > > > thus far shown negative results. Those Physicists working on "strings" > > > > think they are being UTTERLY rational and that their science is > > > > rational, even if, perhaps, they've been wasting their time for the > > > > last 35 years in the development of the theory, or find, finally, that > > > > it is un-testable. > > > > > > > > Of course I know where you're coming from with regard to Zen practice > > > > and to our lived experience, especially in regard to realization. I > > > > hope I'm coming from there too! ;-) > > > > > > > > But my Philosophical training sometime asserts myself and wants to see > > > > the world adhere to technical understanding and use of Philosophical > > > > technical terms. ;-) > > > > > > > > I know it's "unreasonable" of me. But, hey, my education was very > > > > expensive and pretty painful! ;-) > > > > > > > > Just wait until somebody tells me that I or somebody has "a VALID > > > > point": drives me up the wall! ;-) > > > > > > > > Strong practice, now, > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > > > Right, sort of. > > > > > > > > > > To be a 'rationalist' is to be someone who depends on rationality > > > > > which is clearly illusory. > > > > > > > > > > As someone who practices zen which is based entirely on experience I > > > > > would hope I would be an 'experientialist' - or a 'realist'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
