![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The dreams were a jumbled mess. Not even worth mentioning, really, except that i already did. I bought myself two books, yesterday: "Count Zero," by William Gibson, and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," by Phillip K. Dick. I bought these because i was almost done with the book i was reading. It was a good book...
So I've recently-- as in yesterday-- finished reading "Zen in the Art of Archery." I like Zen, as a school. You've all heard me, here, as one of the School's highest supporters.... or something. But i've found an objection, within myself, to Zen, and it's the same objection i have when people tell me to give myself over to a higher power, and let "It" take it's course: Why the hell should i, and why is my "I" such a horrendous detriment and taboo?
For those of you who study Zen, you know, or know of, everything upon which i'm about to expound. For the rest of you, here's this: One of the major tenants of the Zen Buddhist practise is the losing of the Self. The [non-Freudian] Ego, must be lost-- merged and given over to the All-- if there is to be any connection, whatsoever, with the All. Now, at the beginning, this is all well and good; we are without the Self, and the attachments there-to, and this can and will help us to overcome many obstacles. Losing the self is a wonderful step in the process, and it is exactly that: A step. Another step is the integration of "opposites."
In the school of Zen, there are many sayings that, upon first glance, seem oblique, and, perhaps, extremely evasive. These sayings include "The Gateless Gate," the "Artless Art," "Master and No-Master," and so on. These are all phrases that try to show the All/Nothing encompassing nature of the "It", and to help along the path to becoming that same relation. There are many dichotomies to be perceived, in the universe, but, supposedly, when we have "It", these dichotomies will resolve themselves into the unbroken resoluteness of a perfect circle. The whole encompasses itself. But in this merger of dichotomies-- mind you, while retaining and accepting the individual nature of the parts-- one crucial pair has been missed.What of the Self, and the All?
Some will say that i have contradicted myself, here, and have missed my own point. Did i not already say that part of the process was the merging of the self and the all into one? I did say that, indeed, but the merger of which i spoke, before, leaves nothing of the individual, and everything of the Godhead Soul. What of the Preferences our souls had to Choose, in order to become incarnate, on this plane, in the first place? In order to detach ourselves from the Cosmic All, we had to decide that A was preferable to B, and that Blue=Up. Don't mind me, i'm rambling a bit. The point is that without the retention of the self, after the merger and acceptance, if we are not allowed, by Zen to have the Self and Not-Self, then what is the point? How are we to learn any lesson?
But, then again, i'm not a Zen Master.
Day Dream
So I've recently-- as in yesterday-- finished reading "Zen in the Art of Archery." I like Zen, as a school. You've all heard me, here, as one of the School's highest supporters.... or something. But i've found an objection, within myself, to Zen, and it's the same objection i have when people tell me to give myself over to a higher power, and let "It" take it's course: Why the hell should i, and why is my "I" such a horrendous detriment and taboo?
For those of you who study Zen, you know, or know of, everything upon which i'm about to expound. For the rest of you, here's this: One of the major tenants of the Zen Buddhist practise is the losing of the Self. The [non-Freudian] Ego, must be lost-- merged and given over to the All-- if there is to be any connection, whatsoever, with the All. Now, at the beginning, this is all well and good; we are without the Self, and the attachments there-to, and this can and will help us to overcome many obstacles. Losing the self is a wonderful step in the process, and it is exactly that: A step. Another step is the integration of "opposites."
In the school of Zen, there are many sayings that, upon first glance, seem oblique, and, perhaps, extremely evasive. These sayings include "The Gateless Gate," the "Artless Art," "Master and No-Master," and so on. These are all phrases that try to show the All/Nothing encompassing nature of the "It", and to help along the path to becoming that same relation. There are many dichotomies to be perceived, in the universe, but, supposedly, when we have "It", these dichotomies will resolve themselves into the unbroken resoluteness of a perfect circle. The whole encompasses itself. But in this merger of dichotomies-- mind you, while retaining and accepting the individual nature of the parts-- one crucial pair has been missed.What of the Self, and the All?
Some will say that i have contradicted myself, here, and have missed my own point. Did i not already say that part of the process was the merging of the self and the all into one? I did say that, indeed, but the merger of which i spoke, before, leaves nothing of the individual, and everything of the Godhead Soul. What of the Preferences our souls had to Choose, in order to become incarnate, on this plane, in the first place? In order to detach ourselves from the Cosmic All, we had to decide that A was preferable to B, and that Blue=Up. Don't mind me, i'm rambling a bit. The point is that without the retention of the self, after the merger and acceptance, if we are not allowed, by Zen to have the Self and Not-Self, then what is the point? How are we to learn any lesson?
But, then again, i'm not a Zen Master.
Day Dream
