Neutral Milk, Just for the record, even though my name is used below implying I was the author of the >>post, I am not - or at least do not recall writing any such post.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Neutral Milk <neutralm@...> wrote: > > On 7/28/05, Bill Smart <Bill@...> wrote: > > > > Your parapgraph above is a mish-mash of absolute vs. relative > > rhetoric. I thought we already got through that. Clarity is the > > ability to see things as they are. > > Clarity is the ability to realize that there is no such thing, nor > could there ever be such thing as 'things as they are', 'the ability > to see', and finally, 'clarity' itself. > > > Clarity is absolute. Things-as- > > they-are are relative. The smoke appears. The smoke does what it > > does (cloud/sting). Then the smoke dissipates into the sky. The > > smoke does not cease to exisit. It looses its relative qualities > > and is subsumed by the absolute. I am affected by the smoke when it > > is here. I am unaffected when it goes away - unless I become > > attached to it. Then it permeates my clothes and I reak of smoke. > > This is all wishy-washy self-indulgent daydreaming. What smoke, what > sky, what relative, what absolute? Where's the clarity in that? It's > only one giant mess. > > > My whole point in this thread is that I don't have to 'refer to the > > Diamond Sutra' to find clarity. I acheive that by sitting. > > If by sitting you achieve an insight that there is something called > 'clarity' over here and then there is something else called > 'muddleness' or 'non clarity' over there, then I'm afraid you may be > just kidding yourself. That state certainly is millions of kalpas away > from anything even resembling clarity. > > > I've > > read the Diamond Sutra and many other sutras - many times. I've > > memorized and chanted them. They did not bring me clarity. They > > brought me a false sense that an UNDERSTANDING of the sutras was > > clarity. It wasn't. It was clutter. > > And that's your crown argument that it's the Sutras' fault? Have you > ever contemplated the possibility that the clutter is coming from you, > not from the sutras? > > > I've understood that by > > finding clarity through zazen. > > If you truly did, you'd no doubt realize the true role of those Sutras. > > > The clarity I get through zazen is not the same as the understanding > > I got from studying the sutras. > > The clarity you get through zazen should definitely enable you to get > the full clarity from studying the Sutras. There is absolutely no > difference between the two. > > As a matter of fact, it's actually the most perfect test -- people who > have attained perfect clarity through zazen can perfectly well explain > the Sutras, down to the very deepest level of detail. If a > practitioner can't do that, it's time for her to go back to the > 'drawing board' (in this case, back to the meditation cushion). > > > Maybe its differnt for you; or > > maybe as you suggest you are on a different path, or a different > > section of the same path. Bon voyage. > > Thanks. No, we're all on the same path. How could it ever be different? > > > > ...snip... And > > > we naively believe that we are the masters of the words, while > > > actually being totally ensnared and enslaved by them. > > > > Now it's my turn to not understand one of your postings. The > > statement above seems to agree with what I've been saying. Are we > > violently disagreeing, or are you just giving self-referencing > > example of the garble of words? What gives? > > If you ask any sufficiently mature person what's their level of > mastery of the world, most of them would admit that, try as they > might, they've managed to master only a tiny portion of this world. > Yes, they can master, to a certain degree of predictability, the > temperature fluctuation in the room they're sitting in, and also the > inflow of food and water that they can put on a table, etc. But if > they are mature enough, they must realize and admit it to themselves, > and to others, that all those 'certainties' are very fragile, and may > unpredictably break at any moment. An earthquake, a > fire/flod/tsunami/volcano/vile epidemic etc., not to mention any > human-made disasters (such as a terrorist attack), can quite easily > put a kibosh on any and all of those 'certainties' of life. > > So, a grown-up, mature person is pretty much resigned to the > unavoidable suffering in this world. Even if everything else goes > perfectly fine, as if in a fairy tale, at least no one is getting any > younger, and eventually all, even the luckiest ones, will die. > > However, there is one facet of this world where all, even the most > resigned, jaded and skeptical people agree that the mastery is theirs > -- and that's language. At least, people say, come hell or high water, > I have managed to master one thing in my life: the language. I know > how to articulate it, how to use it perfectly. > > This is the deadliest of all delusions! This is what the Buddhist > teaching is all about. Wake up, and allow yourself to realize that not > only are you nowhere near to mastering the language, you are actually > totally ensnared, totally enslaved by the language. The language is > your true master! > > Once you realize that, you'll be able to clearly see that even those > 'wordless' aspects, such as someone twirls the flower and someone else > smiles in full understanding, are part of the language. One doesn't > have to speak, write or read in order to be exercising language, to be > ensnared by the language. Every act, from the raw sensory input all > the way to the most complex cognitive constructs, is nothing but > language. > > If you stare at the wide open blue sky, try to realize at that moment > that that experience is governed by the language. Everything is > conceptual, even the seeming forrays into the non-conceptual > territory. > > This is basically all that the Buddha was talking about. It is > crucially important for us to wake up to that fact. Otherwise, we're > merely kidding ourselves. > > > I actually like the word 'whim'. It means an urge that is un- > > planned, not bound by reason, immpermanent, spontaneous, pre- > > thought. Sound familar? > > No. I guess what you're aiming at is some mythical, mystical territory > beyond the terror of words? Those are nothing but castles in the sky. > Flowers in the sky, that never emit any fragrance. You may chase after > them, you're of course free to do that, but in the end you'll return > empty handed. > > Why waste time? > > > The difference is all those words you read come from other people > > and attempt to describe THEIR thoughts and THEIR experiences. My > > whims come from me. > > So long as you think that you are different from other people and that > your whims are separate from their whims, you'll continue to waste > your time. > ------------------------------------ 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/
