Making peace with femininity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Ataraxia »

Thanks for pointing me to the correct thread Laird,you're memory was better than mine on this occassion.Some time was saved.
Clyde:pointing with words is using concepts.
Kevin:It doesn't matter what you use to point, whether it be a pointing finger, words, or whatever. What matters is what is being pointed at.
Ataraxia:Well thats true.But it doesn't negate the fact that in the act of pointing, in your case, you use concepts.
Kevin:Let's say I point at the moon with my finger. What "concepts" am I using?

Likewise if I use the word "moon" - which is no different to pointing with my finger.
My reading of that is Kevin's final question is rhetorical(as in no concepts are being used).I replied to that post but no response was forthcoming,and assumed it was his final word on the matter.

ie " Pointing at the moon is not conceptual."

Can it be considered a concept or can't it?My contention is if "mu" can then,pointing at the moon can be too.(if done by someone 'wise' )

Edit: Dan appears to agree with me.
Dan Rowden wrote:Pointing is necessarily conceptual, that's why it's only called "pointing".
Last edited by Ataraxia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Sapius »

Dan Rowden wrote:Pointing is necessarily conceptual, that's why it's only called "pointing".

Emperor Wu certainly didn't know what Bodhidharma meant by "I don't know". But Bodhidharma knew what he meant, otherwise it wouldn't have meant anything to say it. Know what I mean?
Of course, but he must have surely asked, WTF do you mean by “I Don’t Know” when obviously, and LOGICALLY, I can see that you mean at least something by it? And that would necessarily entail an explanation until Wu understood that “I ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING AT ALL”, and yet here “I AM”. End of story.

However, one could still linger on and on with questioning HTF can one claim to "know nothing?", and the only answer to such a person would be - 'mu'. IMHO.
---------
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

But you end up knowing something: that you can't capture reality in any concept. And, what's more, you know why. There can be no "knowing" beyond that.
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Laird »

Ataraxia wrote:Thanks for pointing me to the correct thread Laird,you're memory was better than mine on this occassion.Some time was saved.
Yes, no probs, although my memory obviously failed me because just before reading your latest post I remembered clearly that you were completely right in your former post: Kevin not only denied "modelling" the Totality, but he also denied "conceptualising" it, he denied that it was possible to "imagine" it and he failed to acknowledge that he even "thinks about" it. Cognitive dissonance alright!
Ataraxia wrote:My reading of that is Kevin's final question is rhetorical(as in no concepts are being used).I replied to that post but no response was forthcoming,and assumed it was his final word on the matter.

ie " Pointing at the moon is not conceptual."

Can it be considered a concept or can't it?My contention is if "mu" can then,pointing at the moon can be too.(if done by someone 'wise' )

Edit: Dan appears to agree with me.
Dan Rowden wrote:Pointing is necessarily conceptual, that's why it's only called "pointing".
Yes, Dan and David are clearly at odds with Kevin on this issue, but then my bet is that Kevin took the position that he did in that thread not because he truly believed it but because to admit that he was modelling or conceptualising would have been to admit to the possibility that the model or concept might be flawed or at odds with reality, and he wants his philosophical assertions to be beyond the possibility of error. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

David Quinn wrote:Robert and Nat's use of "mu" is confusing because they insist that the very word itself is without meaning. They are confusing the finger for the moon. The pointing finger necessarily has meaning by virtue of the fact that it is pointing to the moon. The very act of pointing creates the meaning. To deny such an obvious reality as this isn't intelligent or healthy. It's very deluded, in fact.

David,

No one is disputing the virtue of the finger, but rather than Nat and myself it is you who are confused. Useful concepts are the finger but you insist they are the moon itself. 'Don't know' is a finger, 'A=A' is an imaginary, useless finger, and the moon is beyond them both.

There is conventional truth (samvriti) and there is ultimate truth (paramartha). In conventional truth are our methods, and they lead to ultimate truth = 'emptiness', and emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. It is a way of living. Ultimate truth is not the finger, so ultimate truth is not 'A=A', 'Totality', or any of your other arguments.

I don't insist the word 'mu' is without meaning - can you fudge some quotes where I said that? I argue the word 'mu' is without absolute meaning; I insist its meaning is only conventional (relative); I insist 'mu' is empty. If you weren't being simple-minded about it you might start to realize that the fact you and I must converse through words does not itself bestow upon words or concepts any absolute truth or any absolute necessity for their own existence; words are always conventional. If you knew Nagarjuna you'd know he dealt with this area. Could it be however that in having made yourself a grand edifice based on words being absolute truth, you just can't give that up?

One can find out on the Internet how 'mu' is used in Zen.

One can examine the Wikipedia article, Mu (negative).
In his 1974 novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig translated mu as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero". That's silly!

Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu-state.

I am pointing out here for the more literal-minded among us, like Quinn, that my use of Robert Pirsig is tongue in cheek. That does not however mean you cannot learn something from it. Pirsig might well be amusing here, but note 'the circuits are in a mu-state' and 'the ultimate truth is not even to think'.

To deny such an obvious reality as this isn't intelligent or healthy. It's very deluded, in fact. - David Quinn on Unidian and RobertGreenSky, above.

Casting aspersions like that is very un-Buddhalike. I don't think that was very healthy and it sure as hell wasn't intelligent - if you want to make mental health an issue, let's go. :D For future reference in any quotes Quinn makes, observe the 'grin'.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:But you end up knowing something: that you can't capture reality in any concept. And, what's more, you know why. There can be no "knowing" beyond that.
You're scaring me, Dan. That looks so reasonable ...

If I can't criticize you whatever will I do?
_____

Some fingers are useful; discussing which fingers are and which aren't is perhaps not a bad way to pass the time. I think that Zen thinks that 'don't know' is a fine finger. What do you think, Dan?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely.
Ah, so you do claim to know something, after all. Does this mean we can now ditch the whole "don't know" joke talk out the window?

And what about some of the other things you claim to "know", such as that the word "mu" has no meaning. As you now saying that you don't really know if that is the case?

-
Quinn,

Bodhidharma and Hui-neng are chiefly responsibile for the use of 'don't know' in Zen. Are you in agreement with them or not?
I fully agree with their understanding of "don't know". But their understanding is infinitely removed from yours.

If we look at the life story of Hui-Neng, we see that he was only confirmed by his teacher as being enlightened after he rejected the stop-all-thoughts outlook that you and Nat espouse:
The Patriarch one day assembled all his disciples and said to them, "The question of incessant rebirth is a momentous one. Day after day, instead of trying to free yourselves from this bitter sea of life and death, you seem to go after tainted merits only (i.e. merits which will cause rebirth). Yet merits will be of no help if your Essence of Mind is obscured. Go and seek for Prajna in your own mind and then write me a stanza about it. He who understands what the Essence of Mind is will be given the robe (the insignia of the Patriarchate) and the Dharma (the esoteric teaching of the Zen school), and I shall make him the Sixth Patriarch. Go away quickly. Delay not in writing the stanza, as deliberation is quite unnecessary and of no use. The man who has realized the Essence of Mind can speak of it at once, as soon as he is spoken to about it; and he cannot lose sight of it, even when engaged in battle."

Having received this instruction, the disciples withdrew and said to one another, "It is of no use for us to concentrate our mind to write the stanza and submit it to His Holiness, since the Patriarchate is bound to be won by Shen Hsiu, our instructor. And if we write perfunctorily, it will only be a waste of energy."

Upon hearing this all of them made up their minds not to write and said, "Why should we take the trouble? Hereafter, we will simply follow our instructor, Shen Hsiu, wherever he goes, and look to him for guidance."

Meanwhile, Shen Hsiu reasoned thus with himself. "Considering that I am their teacher, none of them will take part in the competition. I wonder whether I should write a stanza and submit it to His Holiness. If I do not, how can the Patriarch know how deep or superficial my knowledge is? If my object is to get the Dharma, my motive is a pure one. If I were after the Patriarchate, then it would be bad. In that case, my mind would be that of a worldling and my action would amount to robbing the Patriarch's holy seat. But if I do not submit the stanza, I shall never have a chance of getting the Dharma. A very difficult point to decide, indeed!"

In front of the Patriarch's hall there were three corridors, the walls of which were to be painted by a court artist, named Lu Chen, with pictures from the Lankavatara Sutra depicting the transfiguration of the assembly, and with scenes showing the genealogy of the five Patriarchs for the information and veneration of the public.

When Shen Hsiu had composed his stanza he made several attempts to submit it to the Patriarch, but as soon as he went near the hall his mind was so perturbed that he sweated all over. He could not screw up courage to submit it, although in the course of four days he made altogether thirteen attempts to do so.

Then he suggested to himself, "It would be better for me to write it on the wall of the corridor and let the Patriarch see it for himself. If he approves it, I shall come out to pay homage, and tell him that it is done by me; but if he disapproves it, then I shall have wasted several years in this mountain in receiving homage from others which I by no means deserve! In that case, what progress have I made in learning Buddhism?" At 12 o'clock that night he went secretly with a lamp to write the stanza on the wall of the south corridor, so that the Patriarch might know what spiritual insight he had attained.

The stanza read:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

As soon as he had written it he left at once for his room; so nobody knew what he had done. In his room he again pondered: "When the Patriarch sees my stanza tomorrow and is pleased with it, I shall be ready for the Dharma; but if he says that it is badly done, it will mean that I am unfit for the Dharma, owing to the misdeeds in previous lives which thickly becloud my mind. It is difficult to know what the Patriarch will say about it!" In this vein he kept on thinking until dawn, as he could neither sleep nor sit at ease.

But the Patriarch knew already that Shen Hsiu had not entered the door of enlightenment, and that he had not known the Essence of Mind.

In the morning, he sent for Mr. Lu, the court artist, and went with him to the south corridor to have the walls there painted with pictures. By chance, he saw the stanza. "I am sorry to have troubled you to come so far," he said to the artist. "The walls need not be painted now, as the Sutra says, 'All forms or phenomena are transient and illusive.' It will be better to leave the stanza here, so that people may study it and recite it. If they put its teaching into actual practice, they will be saved from the misery of being born in these evil realms of existence. The merit gained by one who practices it will be great indeed!"

He then ordered incense to be burnt, and all his disciples to pay homage to it and to recite it, so that they might realize the Essence of Mind. After they had recited it, all of them exclaimed, "Well done!" At midnight, the Patriarch sent for Shen Hsiu to come to the hall, and asked him whether the stanza was written by him or not.

"It was, Sir," replied Shen Hsiu. "I dare not be so vain as to expect to get the Patriarchate, but I wish Your Holiness would kindly tell me whether my stanza shows the least grain of wisdom."

"Your stanza," replied the Patriarch, "shows that you have not yet realized the Essence of Mind. So far you have reached the 'door of enlightenment', but you have not yet entered it. To seek for supreme enlightenment with such an understanding as yours can hardly be successful.

"To attain supreme enlightenment, one must be able to know spontaneously one's own nature or Essence of Mind, which is neither created nor can it be annihilated. From ksana to ksana (thought-moment to thought-moment), one should be able to realize the Essence of Mind all the time. All things will then be free from restraint (i.e., emancipated). Once the Tathata (Suchness, another name for the Essence of Mind) is known, one will be free from delusion forever; and in all circumstances one's mind will be in a state of 'Thusness'. Such a state of mind is absolute Truth. If you can see things in such a frame of mind you will have known the Essence of Mind, which is supreme enlightenment.

"You had better go back to think it over again for couple of days, and then submit me another stanza. If your stanza shows that you have entered the 'door of enlightenment', I will transmit you the robe and the Dharma."

Shen Hsiu made obeisance to the Patriarch and left. For several days, he tried in vain to write another stanza. This upset his mind so much that he was as ill at ease as if he were in a nightmare, and he could find comfort neither in sitting nor in walking.

Two days after, it happened that a young boy who was passing by the room where I was pounding rice recited loudly the stanza written by Shen Hsiu. As soon as I heard it, I knew at once that the composer of it has not yet realized the Essence of Mind. For although I had not been taught about it at that time, I already had a general idea of it.

"What stanza is this?" I asked the boy.

"You barbarian," he replied, "don't you know about it? The Patriarch told his disciples that the question of incessant rebirth was a momentous one, that those who wished to inherit his robe and Dharma should write him a stanza, and that the one who had an understanding of the Essence of Mind would get them and be made the sixth Patriarch. Elder Shen Hsiu wrote this 'Formless' Stanza on the wall of the south corridor and the Patriarch told us to recite it. He also said that those who put its teaching into actual practice would attain great merit, and be saved from the misery of being born in the evil realms of existence."

I told the boy that I wished to recite the stanza too, so that I might have an affinity with its teaching in future life. I also told him that although I had been pounding rice there for eight months I had never been to the hall, and that he would have to show me where the stanza was to enable me to make obeisance to it.

The boy took me there and I asked him to read it to me, as I am illiterate. A petty officer of the Chiang Chou District named Chang Tih-Yung, who happened to be there, read it out to me. When he had finished reading I told him that I also had composed a stanza and asked him to write it for me.

"Extraordinary indeed," he exclaimed, "that you also can compose a stanza!"

"Don't despise a beginner," said I, "if you are a seeker of supreme enlightenment. You should know that the lowest class may have the sharpest wit, while the highest may be in want of intelligence. If you slight others, you commit a very great sin."

"Dictate your stanza," said he. "I will take it down for you. But do not forget to deliver me, should you succeed in getting the Dharma!"

My stanza read:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

When he had written this, all disciples and others who were present were greatly surprised. Filled with admiration, they said to one another, "How wonderful! No doubt we should not judge people by appearance. How can it be that for so long we have made a Bodhisattva incarnate work for us?" Seeing that the crowd was overwhelmed with amazement, the Patriarch rubbed off the stanza with his shoe, lest jealous ones should do me injury.

He expressed the opinion, which they took for granted, that the author of this stanza had also not yet realized the Essence of Mind.

Next day the Patriarch came secretly to the room where the rice was pounded. Seeing that I was working there with a stone pestle, he said to me, "A seeker of the Path risks his life for the Dharma. Should he not do so?" Then he asked, "Is the rice ready?"

"Ready long ago," I replied, "only waiting for the sieve." He knocked the mortar thrice with his stick and left.

Knowing what his message meant, in the third watch of the night I went to his room. Using the robe as a screen so that none could see us, he expounded the Diamond Sutra to me. When he came to the sentence, "One should give rise to the mind that dwells nowhere," I at once became thoroughly enlightened, and realized that all things in the universe are the Essence of Mind itself.

"Who would have thought," I said to the Patriarch, "that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically pure! Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically free from becoming or annihilation! Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically self-sufficient! Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically free from change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the Essence of Mind!"

Knowing that I had realized the Essence of Mind, the Patriarch said, "For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning Buddhism. On the other hand, if he knows his own mind and sees intuitively his own nature, he is a Hero, a 'Teacher of gods and men', 'Buddha'."
The deluded stanza by the head monk expresses your own outlook, focusing on wiping away the dust from the mirror (putting an end to thought and trying to experience reality "directly"). The enlightened stanza by Hui Neng rejects that completely, pointing to the truth that trying to stop thought, or trying to go beyond thought, is inherently deluded from the outset. The very attempt to do this kind of thing is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:But you end up knowing something: that you can't capture reality in any concept. And, what's more, you know why. There can be no "knowing" beyond that.
You're scaring me, Dan. That looks so reasonable ...

If I can't criticize you whatever will I do?
The only responses to that I can think of are entirely un-Buddha like. But then, you knew that already.
Some fingers are useful; discussing which fingers are and which aren't is perhaps not a bad way to pass the time. I think that Zen thinks that 'don't know' is a fine finger. What do you think, Dan?
Where you're concerned, Robert, I'm rather partial to the bird, ya know? :)

I don't believe in relying on the same finger all the time; you end up with RSI. Which one you employ depends on the context and the recipient. "Don't know" seems reasonable enough to me in given contexts, so long as the recipient understands it as something upon which to meditate and not just think: "What a dumbarse."
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

Laird wrote:Yes, Dan and David are clearly at odds with Kevin on this issue, but then my bet is that Kevin took the position that he did in that thread not because he truly believed it but because to admit that he was modelling or conceptualising would have been to admit to the possibility that the model or concept might be flawed or at odds with reality, and he wants his philosophical assertions to be beyond the possibility of error. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.
No, there is no conflict there. Despite the fact that reality cannot be conceptualized or modelled, we can still talk about it, point to it, direct people's minds to it, teach people how to open their minds to it, etc. No trouble at all.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Robert wrote:
There is conventional truth (samvriti) and there is ultimate truth (paramartha). In conventional truth are our methods, and they lead to ultimate truth = 'emptiness', and emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. It is a way of living.
But conventional and ultimate truth are one and the same, right?
Ultimate truth is not the finger, so ultimate truth is not 'A=A', 'Totality', or any of your other arguments.
In what parallel universe are you imaging that we think they are?
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:
Some fingers are useful; discussing which fingers are and which aren't is perhaps not a bad way to pass the time. I think that Zen thinks that 'don't know' is a fine finger. What do you think, Dan?
Where you're concerned, Robert, I'm rather partial to the bird, ya know? :)

I don't believe in relying on the same finger all the time; you end up with RSI. Which one you employ depends on the context and the recipient. "Don't know" seems reasonable enough to me in given contexts, so long as the recipient understands it as something upon which to meditate and not just think: "What a dumbarse."
Dan, those jokes are clever when I write them, but not when you steal them, i.e., I stole them first.

Why would you write that 'don't know' is something to meditate upon? That rather implies one would be thinking about 'don't know' as a subject of some kind, wouldn't it? Try to avoid making 'I don't know' your answer.

Which fingers do you advocate, Dan? I can certainly think of a good finger for you, and I did owe you that. Serious question, however, do QRS have any good fingers you'd like to mention?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Robert and Nat's use of "mu" is confusing because they insist that the very word itself is without meaning. They are confusing the finger for the moon. The pointing finger necessarily has meaning by virtue of the fact that it is pointing to the moon. The very act of pointing creates the meaning. To deny such an obvious reality as this isn't intelligent or healthy. It's very deluded, in fact.

David,

No one is disputing the virtue of the finger, but rather than Nat and myself it is you who are confused. Useful concepts are the finger but you insist they are the moon itself. 'Don't know' is a finger, 'A=A' is an imaginary, useless finger, and the moon is beyond them both.

The quality of "don't know" and "A=A", as fingers, wholly depends on the quality of the individual employing them. In and of themselves, neither of these words are any more useful than the other. It just depends on how wise the teacher is, the depth of his understanding, what the circumstances are, the level of delusion of those to whom he is speaking, etc.

To insist that "don't know" is inherently a good finger, while "A=A" is inherently a bad finger, is to fall into the trap of thinking that words have absolute meaning .......

There is conventional truth (samvriti) and there is ultimate truth (paramartha). In conventional truth are our methods, and they lead to ultimate truth = 'emptiness', and emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. It is a way of living. Ultimate truth is not the finger, so ultimate truth is not 'A=A', 'Totality', or any of your other arguments.

To be consistent, then, you would have to say that "don't know" is not ultimate truth either.

I don't insist the word 'mu' is without meaning - can you fudge some quotes where I said that? I argue the word 'mu' is without absolute meaning; I insist its meaning is only conventional (relative); I insist 'mu' is empty. If you weren't being simple-minded about it you might start to realize that the fact you and I must converse through words does not itself bestow upon words or concepts any absolute truth or any absolute necessity for their own existence; words are always conventional. If you knew Nagarjuna you'd know he dealt with this area. Could it be however that in having made yourself a grand edifice based on words being absolute truth, you just can't give that up?

Oh, the irony.

By insisting that some words/fingers are good (e.g. "don't know") and others bad ("A=A"), or that certain words like "mu" are fixedly empty of absolute meaning, you are in effect violating the truth that words are conventional tools and only have relative meaning. For example, you are implying above that the word "mu" is an absolute entity with only one inviolate meaning - namely, that it is empty.

The irony of this is it forces you to reject my penchant for bestowing and withdrawing whatever meaning I want to in relation to "mu".

RobertGreenSky wrote:One can examine the Wikipedia article, Mu (negative).
In his 1974 novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig translated mu as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero". That's silly!

Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu-state.
No, they're just in a dormant state.

I am pointing out here for the more literal-minded among us, like Quinn, that my use of Robert Pirsig is tongue in cheek. That does not however mean you cannot learn something from it. Pirsig might well be amusing here, but note 'the circuits are in a mu-state' and 'the ultimate truth is not even to think'.

Well, a person would certainly have to be thoughtless to be happy with such a vague, meaningless, quasi-religious answer.

It would be an interesting psychological exercise to analyze why it is that so many people instinctively equate vagueness with profundity.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:Which fingers do you advocate, Dan? I can certainly think of a good finger for you, and I did owe you that. Serious question, however, do QRS have any good fingers you'd like to mention?
Yeah, they're called "posts". Lots of fingers involved in each and every one, and in more ways than one.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

David Quinn wrote:The deluded stanza by the head monk expresses your own outlook, focusing on wiping away the dust from the mirror (putting an end to thought and trying to experience reality "directly"). The enlightened stanza by Hui Neng rejects that completely, pointing to the truth that trying to stop thought, or trying to go beyond thought, is inherently deluded from the outset. The very attempt to do this kind of thing is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

So you're telling us that despite the canon Hui-neng agrees with you? 'If we look at the life story of Hui-Neng, we see that he was only confirmed by his teacher as being enlightened after he rejected the stop-all-thoughts outlook that you and Nat espouse ...' Can you back up that interpretation in the literature? Of course not. You're shoveling it so thick that you're burying yourself in it. I have to celebrate for a while the arrival of my dear friend Jens safe in Melbourne, united with his love, but I'll get back to it.


However, I must note that your ridiculous misquotation and misinterpreation of me has not been answered despite you for some reason making it the beginning of your post, including the omission of the smilie. Are you insisting the joke should be taken seriously, or are you going to drop it?
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:Which fingers do you advocate, Dan? I can certainly think of a good finger for you, and I did owe you that. Serious question, however, do QRS have any good fingers you'd like to mention?
Yeah, they're called "posts". Lots of fingers involved in each and every one, and in more ways than one.
You know that's not what I meant, so here's a post for you.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:Robert wrote:
There is conventional truth (samvriti) and there is ultimate truth (paramartha). In conventional truth are our methods, and they lead to ultimate truth = 'emptiness', and emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. It is a way of living.
But conventional and ultimate truth are one and the same, right?
Not according to Nagarjuna. Are they, according to you?
Dan wrote:
Robert wrote:Ultimate truth is not the finger, so ultimate truth is not 'A=A', 'Totality', or any of your other arguments.
In what parallel universe are you imaging that we think they are?
If I've misunderstood you I'll gladly admit it. I had thought you took your arguments to be absolutely true. I have no objection to that state of affairs and I beg forgiveness for the error. My concerns would be then whether your arguments are really useful, whether they are 'fingers' or only 'pretend fingers'. I'm sure all your enlightened successors can testify to the efficacy of your fingers.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Robert wrote:
There is conventional truth (samvriti) and there is ultimate truth (paramartha). In conventional truth are our methods, and they lead to ultimate truth = 'emptiness', and emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. It is a way of living.
But conventional and ultimate truth are one and the same, right?
Not according to Nagarjuna. Are they, according to you?
Yes, as seen through undeluded eyes. The distinction evaporates when one sees the emptiness in things.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The deluded stanza by the head monk expresses your own outlook, focusing on wiping away the dust from the mirror (putting an end to thought and trying to experience reality "directly"). The enlightened stanza by Hui Neng rejects that completely, pointing to the truth that trying to stop thought, or trying to go beyond thought, is inherently deluded from the outset. The very attempt to do this kind of thing is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

So you're telling us that despite the canon Hui-neng agrees with you? 'If we look at the life story of Hui-Neng, we see that he was only confirmed by his teacher as being enlightened after he rejected the stop-all-thoughts outlook that you and Nat espouse ...' Can you back up that interpretation in the literature?
The meaning is clearly expressed in the passage itself. Can't you see it?

As for what the "canon" has to say on these matters, here is what Hakuin thought:
The Importance of Kensho

At present, we are infested in this country with a race of smooth-tongued, worldly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. "Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?" they ask you. "It is," they answer, "because words and letters are a coast of rocky cliffs washed constantly by vast oceans of poison ready to swallow your wisdom and drown the life from it. Giving students stories and episodes from the Zen past and having them penetrate their meaning is a practice that did not start until after the Zen school had already branched out into the Five Houses, and they were developing into the Seven Schools. Koan study represents a provisional teaching aid which teachers have devised to bring students up to the threshold of the house of Zen so as to enable them to enter the dwelling itself. It has nothing directly to do with the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers."

An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.

If you don't have the eye of kensho, it is impossible for you to use a single drop of the Buddha's wisdom. These men are heading straight for the realms of hell. That is why I say: if upon becoming a Buddhist monk you do not penetrate the Buddha's truth, you should turn in your black robe, give back all the donations you have received, and revert to being a layman.

Don't you realize that every syllable contained in the Buddhist canon - all five thousand and forty-eight scrolls of scripture - is a rocky cliff jutting into deadly, poison-filled seas? Don't you know that each of the twenty-eight Buddhas and six Buddhist saints is a body of virulent poison? It rises up in monstrous waves that blacken the skies, swallow the radiance of the sun and moon, and extinguishes the light of the stars and planets.

It is there as clear and stark as could be. It is staring you right in the face. But none of you is awake to see it. You are like owls that venture out into the light of day, their eyes wide open, yet they couldn't even see a mountain were it towering in front of them. The mountain doesn't have a grudge against owls that makes it want to hide. The fault is with the owls alone.

You might cover your ears with your hands. You might put a blindfold over your eyes. Try anything you can think of to avoid these poisonous fumes. But you can't escape the clouds sailing in the sky, the streams tumbling down the hillsides. You can't evade the falling autumn leaves scattering spring flowers.

You might wish to enlist the aid of the fleetest winged demon you can find. If you plied him with the best of food and drink and crossed his paw with gold, you might get him to take you on his back for a couple of circumnavigations of the earth. But you would still not find so much as a thimbleful of ground where you could hide.

I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of some dimwit of a monk (or barring that, half such a monk) richly endowed with a natural stock of spiritual power and kindled within by a raging religious fire, who will fling himself unhesitatingly into the midst of this poison and instantly die the Great Death. Rising from that Death, he will arm himself with a calabash of gigantic size and roam the great earth seeking true and genuine monks. Wherever he encounters one, he will spit in his fists, flex his muscles, fill his calabash with deadly poison and fling a dipperful of it over him, drenching him head to foot, so that he too is forced to surrender his life. Ah! what a magnificent sight to behold!

The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.

When a person who has not had kensho reads the Buddhist scriptures, questions his teachers and fellow monks about Buddhism, or practices religious disciplines, he is merely creating the causes of his own illusion - a sure sign that he is still confined within samsara. He tries constantly to keep himself detached in thought and deed, and all the while his thoughts and deeds are attached. He endeavors to be doing nothing all day long, and all the while he is busily doing.

But if this same person experiences kensho, everything changes. Although he is constantly thinking and acting, it is totally free and unattached. Although he is engaged in activity around the clock, that activity is, as such, non-activity. This great change is the result of his kensho. It is like water that snakes and cows drink from the same cistern, which becomes deadly venom in one and milk in the other.

Bodhidharma spoke of this in his Essay on the Dharma pulse:

If someone without kensho tries constantly to make his thoughts free and unattached, he commits a great transgression against the Dharma and is a great fool to boot. He winds up in the passive indifference of empty emptiness, no more able to distinguish good from bad than a drunken man. If you want to put the Dharma of non- activity into practice, you must bring an end to all your thought-attachments by breaking through into kensho. Unless you have kensho, you can never expect to achieve a state of non-doing.
Guess who he was talking about.

-
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan wrote:But conventional and ultimate truth are one and the same, right?
Robert wrote:Not according to Nagarjuna. Are they, according to you?
Dan wrote:Yes, as seen through undeluded eyes. The distinction evaporates when one sees the emptiness in things.
You see through undeluded eyes? Why I would never have imagined. Unfortunately, such statements amount only to pronouncements and so unless you can back up your observation it's once again another useless bit of posturing yourself as enlightened although the home crowd is likely eating it up.

Dan Dan he's our man!
Knows Enlightenment like the back of his hand.
Yay!

The rest of us don't see through undeluded eyes and Nagarjuna says to us, there is a distinction, and so that is how we should pursue it, right, us folk who see it through the eyes of delusion? So what the fuck good was your post, Dan, other than blowing your own horn?

By the way, Dan:
Nagarjuna wrote:
Those who do not understand
The distinction drawn between these two truths
Do not understand
The Buddha's profound truth.

Without a foundation in the conventional truth,
The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate,
Liberation is not achieved.

- Fundamental Wisdom, ibid., p. 298.

Dan, your post was entirely useless.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

David Quinn wrote:
Guess who he was talking about.
-
People who misinterpet Zen stories?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:By the way, Dan:
Nagarjuna wrote:
Those who do not understand
The distinction drawn between these two truths
Do not understand
The Buddha's profound truth.

Without a foundation in the conventional truth,
The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate,
Liberation is not achieved.

- Fundamental Wisdom, ibid., p. 298.
Good to see you now stressing the importance of understanding and knowing, and acknowledging Nagarjuna's own stressing of it.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Guess who he was talking about.
-
People who misinterpet Zen stories?
Exactly.

It would be pretty hard to misinterpret Hakuin's piece, though, such is its clarity. Did you actually read it?

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
Dan wrote:But conventional and ultimate truth are one and the same, right?
Robert wrote:Not according to Nagarjuna. Are they, according to you?
Dan wrote:Yes, as seen through undeluded eyes. The distinction evaporates when one sees the emptiness in things.
You see through undeluded eyes? Why I would never have imagined.
I see through sufficiently undeluded eyes to know that conventional and ultimate reality are the same thing and that one must gain an appreciation of each to see this. You know, the whole "form is formlessness; formlessness is form" thingamee.
Unfortunately, such statements amount only to pronouncements and so unless you can back up your observation it's once again another useless bit of posturing yourself as enlightened although the home crowd is likely eating it up.
You asked me a very straightforward question, Robert. You're like Emperor Wu declaring Bodhidharma to be a dumbarse. I knew I just should have just said "yes". If you want explanation and padding, you need to ask for it.
Dan Dan he's our man!
Knows Enlightenment like the back of his hand.
Yay!
Nice to see the true nature and extent of your intellect finally coming out, Robert.
The rest of us don't see through undeluded eyes and Nagarjuna says to us, there is a distinction, and so that is how we should pursue it, right, us folk who see it through the eyes of delusion? So what the fuck good was your post, Dan, other than blowing your own horn?
It was an answer to your question, Again, you sound like Wu chastising Bodhidharma for not giving him the answer he wanted. I really think your "mu" ought be spelt "moo", Robert.
By the way, Dan:
Oh noez! Another Larkin "by the way"!
Nagarjuna wrote:
Those who do not understand
The distinction drawn between these two truths
Do not understand
The Buddha's profound truth.

Without a foundation in the conventional truth,
The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate,
Liberation is not achieved.

- Fundamental Wisdom, ibid., p. 298.


Yes, I agree with Nagarjuna entirely. The conventional and the ultimate must be understood in their own right before their emptiness can be fathomed. This means nothing more than understanding duality, non-duality, that one cannot be without the other, then eventually the fact that there's actually no difference between them.
Dan, your post was entirely useless.
Really? It seemed to give you an opportunity to ply your trade in sanctimony. How is that useless?
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

On 'Hui-neng and Shen-hsiu vs. David Quinn', Quinn botched the interpretation not only badly but in a self-serving manner. The story has been told for centuries and it has been well-discussed.
The most famous incident in Huineng’s story concerns a dharma contest. One day Hongren challenged his charges to each write a verse (gatha) distilling their understanding of their “original natures.” He promised to read them and award his robe (a symbol of dharma transmission; some versions of the story include Hongren’s begging bowl) and the title “Sixth Patriarch” to the student demonstrating true realization. The task quickly devolved onto the shoulders of the head monk, Shenxiu, who, it was assumed, would be the Master’s likely successor. Shenxiu, however, was full of doubt and spent a tortured night considering his options. Finally he stole out and wrote his verse anonymously on the wall of the new dharma hall:

The body is the bodhi tree.
The heart-mind is like a mirror.
Moment by moment wipe and polish it,
Not allowing dust to collect. ...

A straightforward articulation of the necessity of diligent practice, Shenxiu hoped this verse would show the Master that his students had at least some understanding.

The next morning Hongren read the verse and praised it before the community. He burned incense before it and ordered them all to recite it before calling Shenxiu for an interview. In private he commended Shenxiu for his insight, stating that the verse showed he had reached the “gates of wisdom” but had yet to enter. He then suggested Shenxiu take a few more days to compose another verse worthy of being awarded the robe.

Meanwhile, Huineng was still working in the threshing room when a novice wandered by reciting Shenxiu’s verse. Immediately Huineng realized the author of the verse lacked full understanding. Venturing out to the dharma hall, he got someone to write his reply:

Bodhi originally has no tree.
The clear and bright mirror also has no support.
Buddha-nature is constantly purifying and clearing.
Where could there be dust? ...

Very soon word of this new verse spread and eventually the news reached Hongren. The Master came to read it and immediately recognized it as the work of Huineng and that this unknown prodigy was truly enlightened. However, he knew that passing his robe to an uncouth peasant would upset the monastic hierarchy. Therefore he publicly dismissed it as “not complete understanding.” Later, under cover of darkness, Hongren summoned Huineng for a secret audience in which he gave him further teachings. Passing on his robe, the Master admonished him to flee for his life, predicting, however, that eventually he would transmit the teachings. With that, Huineng fled south. After some months, Huineng was traced to a mountain by a band of pursuers intent on killing him and stealing the robe. Most of the pursuers turned back after climbing only halfway but one, Huiming (a former general) reached him on the summit. There, rather than slay the young master, he received the teaching and became enlightened. Thus being recognized as a true Chan Master, Huineng dispatched his new disciple to the north to spread the dharma and convert the populace.

- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Huineng (Hui-neng) (638-713 CE), emphasis mine.

Quinn might like that version since he can pretend that Robert is the type of man who would have killed not only Socrates and Jesus but also Hui-neng.

Note that the author refers to Shen-hsui's support of 'diligent practice' rather than to putting an end to thought and trying to experience reality "directly", as Quinn described Shen-hsiu's position. Note that neither 'putting an end to thought' nor 'trying to experience reality directly' are mentioned as parts of 'diligent practice'. Note also 'trying to experience reality directly' and about which see below.
Huineng's central insight is in pointing out the transient or "illusory" nature of the physical world. "Bodhi has no tree," he said. Why not? Because our immortal souls are an entity apart from the physical bodies we inhabit temporarily. Wisdom, awakening and enlightenment are the attributes of this immaterial spirit, and exist with or without the body.

"Clear mirror" isn't the stand. Why not? Remember that Shenxiu compared the heart to the stand, which holds the soul - the mirror - in place. Huineng points out that this is but an artificial constraint. The soul is there whether or not there's anything holding it up. The heart - the stand - isn't required or even particularly important!

Huineng further points out that all the defilements and distortions of the material world are just as transient or illusory as these temporary mortal forms we assume. The polluting influences of the physical world come and go and cannot last, unlike the immortal soul. In other words, our essential, eternal selves are the only real entities in the universe. Money, material possessions, fineries, precious jewels... none of these are things we can take with us when we pass beyond. For all practical intents and purposes, they may as well not exist!

If one can completely come to grips with this basic truth expressed by Huineng (easier said than done... you still wanna win the Lotto and you know it), enlightenment can happen in an instant. Hence, the true path to Buddhahood isn't the direction of hard work and the acquisition of even more knowledge and scriptures, as indicated by Shenxiu. The truer path is along the road of intuitive insight, where we progress beyond mere logic and reasoning and become one with wisdom and understanding.

- At Truetao.org, How Huineng Became the Sixth Patriarch, emphasis mine.

Note that in Hui-neng's view 'enlightenment can happen in an instant', clearly showing that Quinn botched that part of the interpretation. Note also, 'the true path to Buddhahood isn't the direction of hard work and the acquisition of even more knowledge and scriptures, as indicated by Shenxiu', and which is what is 'diligent practice', clearly showing not only that Quinn mistakenly compared Shen-hsiu with Unidian and myself but that David Quinn agrees with Shen-hsiu. The issues between Hui-neng and Shen-hsui are the issues discussed here, and not disagreement on 'putting an end to thought' as Quinn absurdly interpreted. If there is conflict between major Zen figures on 'putting an end to thought', let's see it. Hui-neng is the proponent of 'Sudden Enlightenment' and David Quinn not only didn't know it, he also falsely attributed it to Shen-hsiu, and he also criticized it thinking it was Shen-hsiu's position. David botched the whole of this. He didn't know Zen history or Zen philosophy and he ridiculously interpreted the material for his own ends.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan wrote:Nice to see the true nature and extent of your intellect finally coming out, Robert.

I admit that writing humour is compelling for me, but it was this intellect which caught you uselessly preening. What you 'saw' has never been established to be a constituent of enlightenment, unless anyone wants to believe the preening. Did Nagarjuna say that 'the distinction evaporates when one sees the emptiness in things'? Who said that? How do you back that up? If you can't, then your post was - can I get away with writing it? - 'absolutely' worthless.
Locked