Joe, If you really think this is matter of bad English then he shouldn't write something in English that wasn't correct. That would be unbecoming of a Zen teacher.
But the statement is both good English AND good Zen. It's your's and Bill's interpretation that seems to be off. Edgar On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > You make a dubious interpretation; I'll make one that can't be doubted. > > It need not be that the Roshi means there is a "something". > > The Roshi starts: "As soon as you see something... ". > > He need not have said it this way, and neither do we. He and we might have > spoken as the Buddha did: > > "As soon as there is Seeing... ". > > If the Roshi meant this, the rest of what he says still fits. > > Where I think the quote is incomplete in its appreciation of experience is in > the second clause. It need not be (happen) that one "...already starts to > intellectualize". > > The Roshi taught ways of awakening so that this condition need not obtain. > That is, so intellectualization need not follow from seeing, or upon seeing. > > Thus, his quote pertains to those who are not in the awakened condition. > > I claim his quote is not about Existence, or Metaphysics, and does NOT point > beyond Experience; it is about phenomenology in persons who are not awake > (i.e., most of his students, at any time). > > Read the line like this, and you will see that he is advising hearers NOT to > do what you do: > > "As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon > as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight." > > It's known that S. Suzuki's English was barely good enough for him to be > understood in the Zendo during Teisho. I have some audio tapes, and I know > this. There may be translation problems with what he said, if he spoke the > quoted line in Japanese, and if he spoke it in English, well, his "something" > might not be a Metaphysical inference, as you choose to interpret it, but may > refer, as I recommend, to the seeing itself: the having of the experience of > the seeing, which seems natural. > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Sure, but the point you miss in what Suzuki says is that there actually was > > a SOMETHING that you originally saw that originated the illusion. You deny > > there is anything 'out there' in an actual world of forms and believe your > > delusions arise spontaneously in your mind with no external source. > > > > That's where you are wrong and Suzuki and I are right... Suzuki clearly > > agrees with me on this as do all Zen masters back to Buddha himself.... > > > > Edgar > > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As > > > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw. ~ > > > Sunryu Suzuki > > > > > > I call these intellectualizations 'perceptions' or 'delusions'. > >
