Alex writes: > The so-called Alex Conundrum deals with my insistence that > intellect is our sharpest, most powerful tool for > staging the so-called breakthough.
lol. Well said, Alex. Approaching with the intellect is all "stage", and no "break-through." It is the approach I used (and still do to a lesser extent) so please take my accusation with the least bit of vinegar. Of course, my "breakthroughs" result in a reduction in unecessary intellect... and thus it is a sad kind of mischeif when I intellectually analyze a breakthrough ;> Rod Scholl > > > As one would suspect, most people on this list > violently oppose that. Intellect for them is a dirty > word, it is the witch, the boogeyman that is the > culprit for all our woes, and as such must be hunted > down, beaten violently, tortured, then hanged, then > burned, then tossed to the dogs, etc. > > Many people react the same way. I remember when I was > starting to teach my first course on Madhyamika, a > Buddhist friend asked me what would my approach be, > and, upon hearing that it will be 100% based on > intellectual reasoning, simply flew off the handle. > Much to my shock, he started reviling me, calling me > stupid and immature and so forth. Such is the fear of > half-baked Buddhist practitioners towards anything > intellectual. > > > And now, what's your take on Buddha's statement > > about arguing? > > Don't leave me hanging man! As I said before, > > different opinions are > > how we learn. Thanks for the comments, Guy. > > The best way to explain this is to use an analogy > (with a caveat that all metaphors, analogies, > similies, illustrations and such are valid only up to > a point, after which they invariably tend to break; > plus, this is going to be a slightly far-fetched > example, so please bear with me): > > Let's say that I go with a friend to the train > station. The station is completely empty, so we pick a > spot and stand there on the platform chatting, waiting > for the train to come. Suppose we see two strangers > enter the station and pick a spot several paces away > from us. Obviously, the two newly arrived people don't > know each other. > > Now, as I'm chatting with my friend, I happen to catch > the most startling event: I see how one person placed > his hand in another person's pocket and took some > money out of it, placing the stolen money quickly in > his own pocket. Alarmed, I ask my friend: "Did you see > that?" "See what?" replies my friend. Oviously, he > didn't catch the fleeting moment. Agitated, I rush to > the phone and call the police. > > The police arrives in a minute, luckily before the > train managed to arrive. They immediatelly put > everything on hold, instructing everyone to stay put, > and then start interrogating us. First, they talk to > the caller (me) and ask me to repeat what I saw. Then, > they talk to the thief. The thief flatly denies the > accusations. The police search him, and sure enough > find a hundred dollar bill in his pocket. > > Then they turn and talk to the victim. Much to his > shock, the victim realizes that the hundred dollar > bill that he had in his pocket has now disappeared! > > Of course, the thief claims that the hundred dollar > bill belongs to him, he took it with him when he left > the house this morning. So, it's his word against the > other guy's word. > > So now the police has no recourse but to talk to my > friend. My friend claims that he didn't see that the > money was stolen from that person's pocket. Now, it's > my word against my friend's word. In addition, > unfortunatelly the security cameras were out of range > in this case. > > We have now reached an impasse. This is a fertile > ground for argumentation. Pretty soon, the lawyers may > get involved, and then the whole thing may end up in > the court. What's at stake here is the investigation > in the nature of evidence. What kind of evidence would > be sufficiently strong to reach an objective, reliable > verdict in this case? > > Of course, as we know, the opinions will always differ > on these matters. But, the can of worms of arguing has > been opened, and it will be very hard to reach a > general consensus on the matter. > > Now, let's shift gears and examine a variation of this > scenario. In this new scenario, I will be the person > who suffers from impaired perception. I will arrive at > the same train station with the same friend. We will > pick a spot and begin chatting, waiting for the train. > Now, because I have these bouts of hallucinations, I > will start imagining that two strangers arrive at the > station. I will then imagine that one person stole the > money to another person.I will then rush to the phone > and call the police. > > Upon arriving, the police will find a different scene > than they had in the previous scenario. Now, they will > see only me and my friend standing on the platform. In > my hallucinatory state, I will claim that the two > strangers are still standing over there, in that > corner. The police will look worriedly at me, and so > would my friend. > > "Acost the thief!" I would yell, pointing my finger at > the imaginary person. > > Would there be any grounds for argumentation in that > case? There will certainly be grounds for putting me > in the mental (or detox, as the case may be) > institution, but no further argumentation will ever > take place regarding this incident. > > Now, the Buddha had been, throughout the 49 years of > his teaching career, forced to face many practitioners > and people from all walks of life, who would approach > him and ask him to clarify certain situation for them. > The Buddha could invariably clearly perceive that all > these people were suffering from severe > hallucinations. Thus, he couldn't see any grounds for > even beginning an argument with these people. Same as > if someone wakes up from a nightmare where the > terrorists have attacked the city we live in, and > starts mobilizing everyone to flee to the country > side, no one is going to entertain their warnings. > > However, deluded people would get agitated by the > Buddha's refusal to entertain their hallucinations, > and would start to argue with him. To which the Buddha > would say: "You may argue with me, but I'm not arguing > with you." > > Basically,what he was saying is, "there is nothing to > argue about. If you'd like to argue about something, > please bring something substantial before us, and I > will gladly oblige you." > > However the problem is, no one has ever been able to > find anything substantial to present for the argument, > and consequently the Buddha never argues about > anything. There is absolutely no point in arguing with > someone about the dream they had. > > Alex > > > ===== > No karma was produced during the composition of this letter > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Would you Help a Child in need? > It�s easier than you think. > Click Here to meet a Child you can help. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------~-> > > Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right > Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right > Concentration, Right Livelihood > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It�s easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> 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/
