Edgar,
Nope, I'm not talking about intellectualizing.
I'm talking about our subject.
I know you're up to it, so c'mon! When you have a chance; if you want.
--Joe
> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Boy, talk about intellectualizing!
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Joe wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > I wouldn't know about bad English.
> >
> > But I suspect that philosophizing by someone not native to or rigorously
> > trained in a language is fraught with the possibility or near occasion of
> > misinterpretation.
> >
> > Even a good language translator cannot give a good translation if the
> > translator is not also a Zen adept. It's dicey. So is making any firm or
> > confident interpretation. And, the Roshi is dead. No one has identified the
> > Translator (if there was one).
> >
> > In any case, the Roshi would remind you: "There is no fixed Dharma, anyway,
> > so don't hang on my words, nor anyone's: ours is not the Teaching School"
> >
> > But my interpretation is not subject to any doubt, just as I wrote in my
> > reply.
> >
> > I am confident in my interpretation of the wording as I have modified it.
> > In fact, the wording then speaks for itself, and need not be dubiously
> > interpreted. I append it again, below, for review:
> >
> > "As soon as there is seeing, you already start to intellectualize it. As
> > soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer the sight."
> >
> > Again, though, the second clause of the first sentence does not follow, if
> > one is awake. So note, again, too, that the Roshi is not speaking about the
> > experience of his few current or past awakened disciples -- nor even about
> > himself -- but about the experience of the majority of his students, in the
> > state they are in now, and as they work toward entering the door of Ch'an,
> > perhaps for the first time.
> >
> > To those people, what he says is spot on, yes.
> >
> > And, again, his is not a metaphysical statement. He is not establishing
> > "objects", or "things". Re-read the re-wording.
> >
> > I think that Bill!, not being the one with the soundness of the thesis of a
> > 300-page unedited manuscript to defend in advance, will see the
> > reasonableness of my interpretation, and the clarity and correctness of my
> > observations on these points. You should also!
> >
> > --Joe
> >
> > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
------------------------------------
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/
