Points of Experience
Feb. 17th, 2004 11:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7I have not been this excited, reading a piece of literature, since the first time i re-read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. D.T. Suzuki's writing style and understanding of Zen make me giddy, in all honesty, and there's always the the feeling that, when i turn the page, there will be that one accepting thing that Zen has, seemed to always lack. He goes as far to say the Self≡0, 0≡∞, and, therefore, the Self≡∞, but he doesn't accept a key proposition that i hold, so it's still only "Almost." It's the closest any Zennist has ever come, to explaining this in a way that I fully accept, for myself, but it's not there.
The proposition i mean, of course, is that the Dichotomy into which We (as the Self≡∞) have split ourself is completely and totally an integrational point, with the nature of all things. That we must realise and recognise our individual preferences of Self and Not Self, as important, and retain those While remembering that Self≡~Self. "≡" meaning "is identical to." Retaining it all, and understanding the dichotomies of yes no, light dark, &c., while integrated, again, into total Beingness, is extraordinarily important, in my mind. It is the thing that allows us to retain the point and purpose of our bringing ourselves into being, and opposition. It reminds us of the interaction. The perception and Being is that which connects all thing, and the Infinite, yes, but that infinite can also be experienced as Particulate. Infinite combinations of perspectives on itself, and thus are Souls. And Zen doesn't accept that.
Zen holds that the dichotomies are, while a fact, something to be removed, and worked past, regaining, ultimately, the state of Being. I think that retaining the dichotomies are Equally important.
As to what i said about "the way that i fully accept, for myself," it has to be understood, that i totally accept the tenets of Zen, within its own context, which is to say within the Suchness of Everything, as regarding itself as the base nature of all things, including myself. I have no problem with that. My problem is that it's not the perspective i hold, it is not an understanding of totallity, and infinity which, yet, provides me with a window into what i need to see. To put it another way: While i accept it in its own context, i don't accept it in mine.
And my mind is running at a very fast rate, and i still have a business plan to write, for my dad, so i'm going to go, for now. I did, however, get that disk, and my language problems are solved. Huzzah.
Back later.
The proposition i mean, of course, is that the Dichotomy into which We (as the Self≡∞) have split ourself is completely and totally an integrational point, with the nature of all things. That we must realise and recognise our individual preferences of Self and Not Self, as important, and retain those While remembering that Self≡~Self. "≡" meaning "is identical to." Retaining it all, and understanding the dichotomies of yes no, light dark, &c., while integrated, again, into total Beingness, is extraordinarily important, in my mind. It is the thing that allows us to retain the point and purpose of our bringing ourselves into being, and opposition. It reminds us of the interaction. The perception and Being is that which connects all thing, and the Infinite, yes, but that infinite can also be experienced as Particulate. Infinite combinations of perspectives on itself, and thus are Souls. And Zen doesn't accept that.
Zen holds that the dichotomies are, while a fact, something to be removed, and worked past, regaining, ultimately, the state of Being. I think that retaining the dichotomies are Equally important.
As to what i said about "the way that i fully accept, for myself," it has to be understood, that i totally accept the tenets of Zen, within its own context, which is to say within the Suchness of Everything, as regarding itself as the base nature of all things, including myself. I have no problem with that. My problem is that it's not the perspective i hold, it is not an understanding of totallity, and infinity which, yet, provides me with a window into what i need to see. To put it another way: While i accept it in its own context, i don't accept it in mine.
And my mind is running at a very fast rate, and i still have a business plan to write, for my dad, so i'm going to go, for now. I did, however, get that disk, and my language problems are solved. Huzzah.
Back later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I...think...this is what I wanted to say...
Date: 2004-02-17 09:34 pm (UTC)If that's the case, then ~Self º ¥. And if total Beingness is being both nothing and everything - or 0 º ¥ - Then you'd want to retain the Dichotomy…*cocks head to side*…wouldn't you?
Of course that's probably exactly what you just said, but I figured I should point out that I think I have a clue what you were talking about, since I've never actually studied zen to any extent.
Re: I...think...this is what I wanted to say...
Yes. You need it all, and none of it. And only a bit of it.
w00t!
Date: 2004-02-17 09:42 pm (UTC)Re: w00t!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 09:54 pm (UTC)Re:
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 10:24 pm (UTC)*pitches* *SCORE*
Re:
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 07:44 am (UTC)Re:
Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
Date: 2004-02-23 05:39 am (UTC)I could be rephrasing you... I'm not sure. (it's still early for me)
Hrm?
Re: Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
Re: Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
Date: 2004-02-23 04:59 pm (UTC)Of course one is retain the extremes of self if one is to work past them. Eradication is not part of the plan insofaras one's state of enlightenment goes. Perhaps you are thinking of the Buddha state that is the eventual goal of all beings: trandcendance of the self in this world so that one may no longer even have ties (emotional of egotistical) to the teaching or helping of others. The state before Buddhahood is that of the Boddisatva - one who refuses to renounce his ties to man and chooses to forgoe Buddhahood in order to guide others. Zen itself does not promote Buddhahood ONLY but it is considered to be the end goal (if only for the reincarnated Buddha himself). The most anyone else can hope to attain is Boddisatva nature. Thus, no average human is realistically expected to eradicate all ties to this world, only work towards that state of being above, beyond or "worked past" the extreme natures of sentience.
I maintain, Buddhism does not ask that you eradicate extreme self states, only rise above them, which you could not do if you ignored or destroyed them.
Re: Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
Being a Boddhisatva is a noble and worthy goal, but it is a choice, not a given, from what i understand.
I still think that "Rising above" the states of self is something that will, in the end, remove a certain level and Quality of experience and existence.
Re: Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
Date: 2004-02-23 07:39 pm (UTC)Anyway, I just don't understand why you seem to believe that Zen promotes a philosophy of eradicating, or ignoring the dichotomous states of Self-hood. "Rising above" something implies by its definition that you retain awareness and understanding of it while not LIVING it. The only type of eradication you ought be considering is that of eradicating emotional/spritual TIES to the dichotomies of Self.
Re: Keeping in mind that I was raised Buddhist (and therefore am inherently biased against Zen)
What i'm saying is that the emotional and spiritual ties to Dichotomy are Important. That Everything is important, including the things that may "detract" from experience.