You come across as mean and pendantic with this endless word splitting. You don't come across as a person knowing that thoughts words and beliefs are unimportant illusory phenomenon. Merle was very clearly not talking about a soul as you argued against but some less rigid concept more akin to the root store of consciousness or something, even despite the URLs I think she was reasonably clear, to my reading at least.
What one knows and experiences cannot adequately put into any words. I cannot show you what a soulful stream of experience I inhabit, I can merely help you experience what world you inhabit. So your question to show a soul, outside of a teacher student relationship, seems either naif, you don't know showing is impossible, or mean, you act like you know Merle's experience better than she knows it. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Apr 11, 2013 8:10 AM, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote: > Edgar, > > You may be right, too. ;-) > > To me it's clear that Merle is referring to "soul" as a mood of > vivaciousness, and "swing", and that's why she brings in Jazz music, and > says she's "got" soul. Maybe akin to James Brown, who sings a line, "I've > got SOUL, and I'm super-bad!". Good track, that "I've Got Soul". > > I think James Brown defined soul as his church did, but also as a spirit > that enabled African-derived slaves to persist and survive under their > oppression, and then the freed-slaves' descendents afterward during Jim > Crow years, American "apartheid". > > But key in our discussion is not a rightness or wrongness of any speaker > -- nor the decisions of any Umpire. Nor are we jostling for such a title > -- key is whether "a" soul is important to a beginning practitioner. > Should the issue of a soul (and I say "a" soul because one's otherwise > having spirit, or swing, is immaterial to the discussion, though having it > serves to animate Practice, and Human relations), be a deciding factor in > whether one sits with others? > > I say, "no", because I have not found it to be an issue. Neither for > myself, nor for any other Zen practitioner, even while they still profess > to practice the Abrahamic religion of their family. > > But it's an emotional issue, and a dicey one for someone who feels that > they want a roadmap in advance of what they may discover later. That's a > formula for self-defeat, even of one's feet. And it's a self-blinding. > Better to off blind-folded, as long as one goes. Blind people have > climbed Mount Everest. The view along the trail and the vantage from any > local bump on the landscape is personal, and can't even be imagined. A > blind person can still smell the wind and taste the snow, feel the sun, and > hear the silence. > > If you discover there's no "you", and no "soul", as Buddha did, you don't > even need to accept it, and you are not disappointed. Instead, you are > simply awake. If you discover a soul, instead, then I'll just ask, as > others have been doing here, too, that "you" please show it to me! In > whatever way you can. But don't refer me to an article by people dozing at > Wikipedia. > > Well, we need not discuss this ("soul"-thing) here. A survey book on > comparative religion will answer all Merle's questions about the background > and history and beliefs of religion, in case she wants to visit teachers > and be not entirely "cold" about the traditions. I suggest the book by > Prof. Huston Smith. > > But to practice Zen, it's not necessary to follow a religious approach, > nor to have beliefs, nor dis-beliefs. Practice will clarify things. But, > that is a faith that not everyone can muster, at least not on "command". > If one musters it, and undertakes to practice, one can drop the faith, and > just practice. "Begin, and continue", as I say. > > The Zen way is marked by "experience". I'll say nothing about experience. > For experience, one must practice. Merle thinks she knows this already, > and says she "knows" she has "soul" (note: she does NOT say she has *A* > soul, but "soul"). If she has A soul, and means to tell us she has a soul, > and knows she has a soul, I say, asking in sincerity, "Pls. show it to us". > No Wiki articles! > > But don't let any of this be a stumbling block to practice. > > On the other hand, some people only enter practice after a lot of nagging > doubt, and then they do well and take to it, and do well some more. > > --Joe > > -> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Merle and Joe, > > > > Like most such discussions this one hinges on how 'soul' is defined by > each of you. Without clarifying that it's a useless discussion.... > > > > I suspect Joe defines it as Catholics do as something that resides in > the body during life but persists after death going either to heaven or > hell. If so Joe is right. That kind of soul obviously doesn't exist. > > > > Hopefully Merle on the other hand is defining it as a spiritual aspect > of her present being sort of like another name for Zen mind. If so Merle is > right. That type of 'soul' does exist though I wouldn't use that word for > it nor do Buddhists in general. > > > > So there is a chance you are BOTH RIGHT. > > > > Well guys? > > > > Edgar > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
