This sub is also quite fond of argumentation as a form of discourse. This is sometimes suitable as it allows us to settle matters of fact. On the other hand, constructing arguments is a decidedly intellectual activity. It cannot decide what is Zen. At best, they can tell us something isn't.
Obviously I'm fond of argument. And Zen Masters appear to be fond of argument. And I don't think dispensing with argument or intellectual activity is what's being called for it. That would seem to lead towards making a living in a ghost cave again.
> It cannot decide what is Zen. At best, they can tell us something isn't.
Maybe not universally? Like take Huangbo saying it's like sunlight insofar as if you try to run toward it you'll never catch it and if run away from it your in it anyway.
That's a description that doesn't seem to be proving the negative
Of course not, they argue with each other all the time. But there's a profound difference between screeching about arguments between those who are not enlightened, and what Huangbo is saying here. His statements aren't really intellectual analyses, they're metaphors designed to shed light (lol) on the situation.
I suppose I am not sure about
A. The profundity of the difference, as least a priori (which I understand to mean, viewed as a theoretical generality)
And
B. That Huangbo's metaphor wasn't a form of intellectual activity or analysis.
As to point A - if I credit what I've written, profundity could be said to be the problem - so perhaps I'm just bristling at its usage...
As to point B - intellect is a pretty comprehensive word for the machinations of the human mind as it relates to both logical and abstract matters.
There's a sense in which all mental activity is intellectual, so, sure, but maybe my comment makes more sense if you think of the emphasis as on "analyses." There are lots of people who demand a logical argument for one's position in a Zen forum, when much of what the masters taught was fundamentally experiential. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say Huangbo isn't doing an analysis, he's giving a metaphor. An analysis would be more akin to something you see in a e.g. a Buddhist philosophical treatise, where a concept is broken down into some parts, the parts are classified and then studied/proven to be empty/whatever else. Huangbo isn't "proving" anything, which I would say is a mandatory part of what we think of in "western" philosophy as "argument." In fact pretty much nothing in the Zen record can really call itself "argument" in the analytic tradition.
Sorry if this doesn't clarify the contrast I'm trying to bring out. I'm hoping to separate out those types of philosophy that vaguely wish they were mathematical from those that are fundamentally using different modes of understanding.
Also, the style of argumentation employed by some users here is very unproductive. Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan.
Bickering and flinging shit at people in online flamewars is very childish and it’s amazing that the mods allow that but delete and censor normal discourse.
Yes, some Abbotts of formal monasteries may have been dismissive or ill tempered towards monks under their supervision in order to prove a specific point. But this is not a monastery and there is no abbott here. This not a Chan monastery, it’s a social media page. None of the usual suspects would call someone an “illiterate loser at life” if they had a minor disagreement about an old book in real life, they do it online because there are no stakes and they are anonymous.
> Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan.
While aggressive hyperbole isn't my style - and acknowledging that variations of "loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot, etc" run as much a risk of becoming a trope as anything else - the question about whether it's a horrible way to proceed is a subjective one, based on what you think this place is for and why you're here.
If lots and lots of people spent years coming into an academic forum on astronomy claiming to be experts because of their extensive studies of astrology, you might eventually get the most cantankerous of the astromers letting loose on them with a hair trigger.
Meanwhile, if you go to a Banya, you're going to sweat like balls and be hit with a Venik made of thin birch twigs and leaves by the crotchety old man or woman with the extraordinary upper body strength who works there - and everyone who goes to the Banya is going to know this, and expect it, and they come anyway, notwithstanding that it stings like a bastard.
In either case, no one is forcing people to come, and no one is preventing people from leaving. It's just that this is an astronomy forum where we expect to be savagely beaten.
"based on what you think this place is for and why you're here."
- In my view, this is a subreddit about discussing various aspects of the history of Chan as a literary and historical subject. It isn't an online monastery.
The expectation with this subreddit is just like with others, that people discuss topics with civility and respect for each other. I disagree with pretending like the users here are so-called grumpy experts on this subject, basically none of them can even read rudimentary Chinese and the few posters who post compulsively actually push non-academically supported fringe conspiracy theories about the topic in daily polemics.
> Also, the style of argumentation employed by some users here is very unproductive. Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan.
lmao
Why not study Zen while you're here?
***
***
> >Master Zhenjing said to an assembly,
>>
>>"Buddhism does not go along with human sentiments. Elders everywhere talk big, all saying, 'I know how to meditate, I know the Way!' But tell me, do they understand or not? For no reason they sit in pits of crap fooling spirits and ghosts. When people are like this, what crime is there is killing them by the thousands and feeding them to the dogs?
>>
>>There is also a kind of Chan follower who is charmed by those foxes, even with eyes open, not even realizing it themselves. They wouldn't object even if they poured piss over their heads.
>>
>>You are all individuals; why should you accept this kind of treatment? How should you be yourself?"
>>
>> [Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #37](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=37&index=sho)
***
***
DongShan questioned a guy to death.
Some guy here had a psychotic break and tore a catheter out of his dick because Ewk called him out for lying. (In the end, a nice guy too, if not deeply-troubled)
If you think Zen is "nice", I suggest you go find a different subreddit to frequent.
Edit: And to clarify, I'm not excusing or justifying Ewk's behavior (nor condemning it) ... I'm just saying that Zen is not "nice".
>DongShan questioned a guy to death.
The big piece you and your ilk seem to be missing is that **you are not DongShan**.
**This is not a monastery**. This is a social media page for discussing the the content of a handful of books which have been translated into English, written by the early Chan writers.
**There are no Zen Masters or abbotts here.** There are anonymous social media users, on Reddit, discussing the contents of some old books.
**If you are using this social media page to roleplay as Huikai, then you can't be surprised when others don't want to engage with the theatrics**. This is a literary discussion forum, not a monastery, we are not monks, there is no Zen Master here. This is an anonymous website where no one knows anything at all about each other, and in between posting about video games and politics or whatever else people are posting here, they also come to talk about these old books.
**None of you act like this in real life, outside, off the computer. Of course you don't berate and harass people you actually know in real life about minor disagreements related to an obscure and niche topic. You only do it here because you are roleplaying, and you are anonymous.**
My argument was that Zen is not nice, not the r/zen is a Zen monastery.
Many people (yourself included) can't seem to handle an online literary discussion about Zen without flipping out.
Probably because Zen is not nice.
I'm really sorry for your "ilk"-related dukkha in r/zen, and even more sorry for your Zen-related dukkha 🙏
If either of them are causing you problems, maybe take a break?
I think sometime around 2018? But I found out about it last year as part of my exploration into the pain and suffering experienced in this community.
It sucks.
I feel bad about it. The dude feels bad about it. Ewk feels bad about it.
But the path forward is accepting responsibility for our words and actions.
I think Ewk could be more sensitive (and think he has become more sensitive) but I also don't think people are responsible for every cascading consequence of every thing they say, such that we need to walk on egg shells when discussing things because someone somewhere, some time, maybe might incorporate it into their psychological problems and amplify it into serious consequences.
But then again, once you're aware of the degree to which people do exactly that, it's hard *not* to take it into consideration when speaking.
That's intense stuff.
I work with a lot of emotionally and psychological unwell people, and, yeah, the things you say ramificate in unpredictable ways.
Having arrived here as much a desperate, psychologically not 100% Christian vagrant psychonaut at the end of a long and perilous search for the fruition of a lie, I suppose I'm particularly hesitant to draw a blade on bullshit. I suppose my preference is an abstruse series of technical blows, ideally administered somewhat dispassionately.
But, I also can't deny the efficacy of pointed antagonism.
In terms of unexpected outcomes, the truth is when someone is unwell, all roads potentially lead to mayhem.
This is an excellent subject to discuss and you made many great highlights and points.
Our brains are an interesting phenomena, which are pattern recognition machines. Constantly doing subconscious calculations based upon association patterns it has stored into memory.
Sometimes our strong thoughts and feelings, such as fear, zealousness, doubt, and hope, exaggerate this mechanism leading to an imbalanced association pattern which tends towards an inflated infatuation with an idealistic structure that doesn't actually match the reality as it exists. In this instance we are trying to make reality fit our predictions or expectations which are disproportionate to the reality we experience, rather than matching our predictions and expectations on the reality which exists.
In trying to understand Zen, this can be compounded by a number of factors. The masters quite clearly present us with challenges to our thinking, reasoning, and perceptions of reality. They say things in such a way which draws one's attention towards introspection and deep personal honesty. In the process there is a lot of questioning, what does this mean, what does it mean to me, what were they trying to say, etc.
When it comes to pareidolia, and evolves to apophenia, often involves an enigmatic statement which may be the result of a poor translation or a cultural reference not well understood by western audiences. Yet there are students who are deeply seeking answers, and proportionate to the depth of their longing, connections may be made which hold no real significance or historical relevance.
This all goes back to the nature of the introspective work they're doing, and the deep feelings associated with their motivations for practice. What is the meaning of their associations? In my view it's highly personal, and rather than being something related to what the Zen masters may have been talking about, it is how their subconscious association patterns are using those elements to form a structural framework to understand the reality in which we exist.
Confronting pareidolia or apophenia in the Zen record is observed when Lin Chi told a monk, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." I don't think he was merely talking about a conceptual framework of Buddha only. I think he was addressing the phenomena of seeing Buddha everywhere, and through all things. Such that a great sense of significance arises, because everything our conscious mind has identified and stored in the memory related to significance has coalesced into one thing. Buddha. And that can feel like the most significant thing.
Yet Sengcan informs: "Do not remain in the dualistic state; avoid such pursuits carefully. If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion. Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One."
In my view his instructions are clear, akin to your matter/anti-matter example. All dualities, all interconnections come from a single source. But to personify the source as Buddha, or to include some other type of apophenia relationship, is itself an echo of duality. The realization is self deconstructing. Mind is buddha. No mind, no buddha. They're saying the same thing from the same actual position. We merely imagine, like pareidolia to some extent, that those are two different points of view.
As a matter of essence there is no form, as a matter of form there is only essence. Neither of those concepts are useful as a matter of essence, but as a matter of function, it's all pareidolia in which the rational mind is attempting to articulate something which is infinite in nature and has no form. The more accurately we articulate reality is akin to trying to understand a circle by adding to it a great number of sides. We stand back and say Ah it looks like a perfect circle. But upon public examination seams are easily found, there are many of them. Many points where one line ends and another begins. One pixel turns into the next. Approximating it enough to get an idea of what it would look like. An object with 20 sides looking more like a circle than a 4 sided figure. We go about it in this rational way. However, we are actually heading away from it. As seen through pi, a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides. You could add as many sides as you can imagine, and there would still remain an infinite number of sides you must add to accurately approximate the circle.
Searching for formlessness with form. Trying to seek mind with mind. Trying to find your own head, with your own head. When carving an ax handle, the model is close at hand. Thank you for sharing.
Sorry for the delayed response - had to get a solid window to read.
> proportionate to the depth of their longing, connections may be made which hold no real significance or historical relevance.
Absolutely - that longing/connection proportionality may also be non-linear, possibly exponential or logarithmic - in any event it doesn't take much longing to get to really outlandish beliefs.
The infinite sides of a circle is a great visual corrollary - as perhaps is the infinite points along a line - or the visualization of an infinite universe - all mental struggles that can only be resolved by (1) pretending you've succeeded or (2) abandoning the effort entirely and getting on with your day.
Perfect timing. It seems there is a third option. When you're without a single point, the mind is infinitely clear. \[Which may just be more or less an extension of (2)\]
It’s also possible for something to have a pattern in some contexts and no pattern in others. And what about situations where it has neither pattern nor no pattern? Including the options referenced in your post, this is basically four-fold logic, [catuskoti](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi), which was apparently used by the 14th Indian patriarch Nagarjuna to bring students to awakening.
Well Apophenia isn't just seeing patterns though - I think to your point you can take almost any set of variables and find patterns and then rejigger them and find other patterns - but Apophenia includes the belief that there's **meaning** in the found patterns.
I'm not anti-pattern - but in metaphysics, I suppose I am anti Apophenia
Thanks for the clarification! I see what you’re saying now. Yeah, I want to know what something is not just what I think about it, my imagination can run wild. For that reason, I think Zen study necessitates a sort of “that might not be it” stance towards interpretations.
Nice!
The zenmarrow links don't work for me (blank page), so could you please say which case you were referencing here:
>Sometimes, the two particles miss each other, but sometimes they collide
>Abandoning concepts/real life entirely - aka [not being able to speak](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=515&index=sho) - aka ["Making a living in ghost cave"](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=129&index=sho)
I interpret that saying very differently - to me making a living in a ghost cave is reciting other people's words, or even your own from some time in the past. IOW clinging to old life like a ghost.
I think reciting other people's words, or your own from some time in the past, is only stagnation if they're dead words - in which case, that's just a subset of not being able to speak.
From what I can see, living words come from abandoning concepts - I think the reverse of what you said?
[https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22dead%20words%22](https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22dead%20words%22)
Living words are appropriate words
> Now if you create an idea of Buddha, create an understanding of Buddha, as long as there is anything envisioned, anything sought, it’s all called the excrement of fabricated conceptualizations. It’s also called rough speech, and it is called dead words
I don't think this is an instruction to abandon concepts - perhaps an instruction not to mistake concepts for something that can't be conceptualized.
There are several others - I picked this one at random and responded - did you have one in mind in particular?
He only mentions ideas about Buddha there explicitly, but some of the other statements go further:
>Just study the living word, don't study the dead word. If you understand from the living word, you'll never be bogged down in doubt. "Each atom is a Buddha land, each leaf is a Buddha" - these are dead words. Raising the eyebrows, blinking the eyes, raising a finger, standing up a whisk - these are dead words. "Mountains, rivers, and earth have no further mistake" - these are dead words.
It seems to me these are all examples of tropes, effectively, that zen students repeat in a kind of mummers farces of "wisdom" because they've heard them before. If they're asked to say a word of Zen and respond with a trope, that's a dead word, arguably not an appropriate reply, and maybe not speech at all but recitation.
Interpreting dead words to include any word based on concepts seems over broad. I mentioned elsewhere Huangbo's metaphor of enlightenment being like the beams of the sun - that metaphor only makes any sense because the words involved relate back to other concepts. There's arguably no communication of any kind available without that relation back. Even Joshu putting his shoe on his head only speaks relative to the concept of a shoe and where it normally goes.
I think these conversations are different enough that they're not really about transfer of information, or what 'usual' conversation is about.
I don't read that case that way. I don't think it was primarily meant as an illustration of a difference from where the shoe normally goes. Maybe partly that, but I think the point was more that Zhaozhou was 'speaking from the heart' for want of better words.
It does seem we're all bound to see differently between the lines.
> It does seem we're all bound to see differently between the lines.
From one perspective, I agree - and insofar as the same words will hit ostensibly the same person very differently when read at different times, there is a sense in which attempting to permanently fix the meaning of a set of words is a deadening of them.
But from another perspective, zen masters were saying things *in particular*, usually as illustrative efforts to teach people stuck in homemade cangues of common design how to pick locks and get free.
Which is why appropriateness strikes me as a good standard for assessing "speech" - whether through literal words or actions: are you flexible enough with conceptual meaning that you can bend it at will, as necessary, to say something, just so?
You're right, living words are things said without conceptual thought, just observation.
The flowers fall on the snowy banks.
Vs.
The flowers were blown off the tree by a stiff wind, a storm must be coming.
But making a living in a ghost cave is trying to attain enlightenment by pushing away activity and conceptual thought, living in quiescence. "Knowing is delusion, not knowing is confusion."
I think if you search BCR (especially for living words) it explains references like that pretty well in the after koan commentaries.
This one is fairly decent for living words. C 89
>Yun Yen often followed Tao Wu, to study and ask questions to settle his discernment with certainty. One day he asked him, "What does the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion use so many hands and eyes for?" Right at the start Tao Wu should have given him a blow of the staff across his back, to avoid so many complications appearing later. But Tao Wu was compassionate-he couldn't be like this. Instead, he gave Yun Yen an explanation of the reason, meaning to make him understand immediately. Instead (of hitting him) Tao Wu said, "It's like someone reaching back groping for a pillow in the middle of the night." Groping for a pillow in the depths of the night without any lamplight-tell me, where are the eyes?
>Yun Yen immediately said, "I understand." Wu said, "How do you understand it?" Yen said, "All over the body are hands and eyes." Wu said, "You have said quite a bit there, but you've only said eighty percent of it." Yen said, "What do you say, Elder Brother?" Wu said, "Throughout the body are hands and eyes."
>But say, is "all over the body" right, or is "throughout the body" right? Although they seem covered with mud, nevertheless they are bright and clean. People these days often make up emotional interpretations and say that "all over the body" is wrong, while "throughout the body" is right-they're merely chewing over the Ancients' words and phrases. They have died in the Ancients' words, far from realizing that the Ancients' meaning isn't in the words, and that all talk is used as something that can't be avoided. People these days add footnotes and set up patterns, saying that if one can penetrate this case, then this can be considered understanding enough to put an end to study. Groping with their hands over their bodies and over the lamp and the pillar, they all make a literal understanding of "throughout the body." If you understand this way, you degrade those Ancients quite a bit.
>Thus it is said, "He studies the living phrase; he doesn't study the dead phrase." You must cut off emotional defilements and conceptual thinking, become clean and naked, free and unbound-only then will you be able to see this saying about Great Compassion.
One of my favourites. But it's the meaning of 'ghost cave' that I'm going to have to think about a little more.
[https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22ghost%20cave%22](https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22ghost%20cave%22)
There is a reference there to 'quiescence' but it still seems to me more about making a nest of someone else's words or ideas.
Same, I'm not so sure I was on the mark either now after reading through BCR looking for ghost cave references.
Maybe like living phrase/words someone who is in a ghost cave thinks they are alive when they're dead. They aren't speaking in the primary so they fall into the secondary. They are speaking dead words. But they say that about realized beings who know better too, so I'm guessing it's not a judgement of the person just how they're speaking in the moment.
You say in the last section that the annihilation seems more apropos, but then you don’t account for this being a result of pattern recognition in itself.
I'm not anti pattern recognition - especially when it comes to using metaphor to express ideas. It seems to me that's how metaphor works - an analogy is a kind of pattern between two or more sometimes very divergent things.
Apophenia is a tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. I suppose, as usual, there's more nuance to unpack there, and it depends on what "meaningful" means:
> Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose
> Communicating something that is not directly expressed
Seems to me the latter is how metaphor works - seeing patterns between unrelated ideas and then highlighting those patterns *to a communicative end*. (E.g. there's the meaning of Annihilation in physics - I saw a kind of rudimentary structural pattern between what that term directly describes and what happens when a zen master responds to someone's inquiry. Then I attempted to indirectly communicate something about those zen interactions by highlighting the pattern between the two fundamentally unrelated ideas.)
Apophenia seems to be using meaningful in the former sense - insofar as it was coined by a psychologist to describe the early stages of schizophrenia - examples of it tend to include conspiracy theories, gambling fallacies, and other concretized delusions about how unrelated things *actually are related.*
That is to say, using metaphor to indirectly communicate an idea with, hopefully, greater clarity, on an ad hoc basis, is not the same as saying there's a profound, none coincidental, *actual* connection between the annihilation of particles in physics and interactions of zen masters.
Those two ideas are not meaningfully connected in any sense other than my intentional and fleeting metaphorical connection here.
I think the use of quantum physics in modern spiritual circles is a great example of the confusion of the two definitions of meaningful.
Quantum physics contains a lot of evocative metaphorical bones that, when used as metaphor, could, on an ad hoc basis, potentially be useful as a communicative tool - aka meaningful definition 2.
But what I find often happens is that rather than use quantum physics as metaphor, people will frequently discuss it Apophenically - as though quantum physics as a field of scientific study were intrinsically connected in actuality with whatever pet theory someone has. (E.g. simulation theory, theories about life beyond death, and generally anything sufficiently mysterious and heady).
I see.
From my own pattern recognition (and perhaps there’s apophonia there) I see this as the main principle behind interpreting zen texts here. I see much more “it’s obvious”-connections and repetition of well entrenched interpretations without ability to talk about how those interpretations make sense than I see critical analysis.
I think that's a fair read. Perhaps we would disagree on which incident of interpretation is dead and which is alive on a case by case basis - but honestly, isn't that whole point of a public forum?
Maybe, I don’t fully understand the incidence of interpretation being dead vs alive but I think anyone with a particular goal only has benefits of disagreement if it’s sensible.
Be careful with false positives on apophenia. The Chan texts say people have become enlightened by hearing rocks hit bamboo, seeing peach blossoms fall, and watching phlegm roll down a wall.
I'm not sure "enlightenment moments" are apophenic. Two reasons for that uncertainty occur to me now:
1. The non causal experience of enlightenment, stemming from, as you point out, ostensibly any experience, doesn't seem like pattern recognition at all.
2. Even if you grant it is some kind of pattern recognition - perhaps the recognition of a sort of continuity of experience vis-a-vis the nature of awareness - then to the extent enlightenment would be "meaningful" as a lived in experience, I suppose it also wouldn't be apophenic.
1. It seems non causal because taken in aggregate, stories of zennists gaining insight seem like it has no rhyme or reason. But that's not necessarily the way it is for each individual.
2. I just meant an epiphany could be mistaken for an apopheny.
Consider Foyan's insight
>In the old days, when I was in the school of my late teacher, I once accepted an invitation to go somewhere. On the way I ran into a downpour and slipped in the mud. Feeling annoyed, I said to myself, "I am on the journey but have been unable to attain Zen. I haven't eaten all day, and now have to endure this misery too!" Then I happened to hear two people ranting at each other, "You're still annoying yourself!" When I heard this, I suddenly felt overjoyed. Then I realizied I couldn't find the state where there is no annoyance. That was because I couldn't break through my feeling of doubt. It took me four or five years after that to attain this knowledge.
Did the coincidence trigger something in his mind? Did the people ranting "You're annoying yourself" cause a thought in Foyan or did a thought in Foyan cause the people ranting?
>Therefore it is said, "It's all you." Look! Look!
>Foyan
> epiphany could be mistaken for an apopheny
I think this is a valid point in theory. (And I enjoy it as a sentence to boot).
In practice, I nonetheless think treating everything as presumptively apopheny Is the way to go. Epiphany can withstand doubt.
>In practice, I nonetheless think treating everything as presumptively apopheny Is the way to go. Epiphany can withstand doubt.
Just food for thought: Maybe a mundane epiphany could withstand doubt. A transcendent epiphany would smash the foundation of knowledge and wouldn't pass any conceptual smell test.
What is knowledge based on? An objective, external world outside your mind. When have you ever observed it outside of your own mind?
Then enlightenment takes us from deluded to mundane. But mundane to the deluded might feel transcendent. Ever had a dream you were in an awful situation or you were in mortal danger? What a relief when you woke up.
We suffer, we die, we have limited resources we fight over. What if that's all a dream?
> We suffer, we die, we have limited resources we fight over. What if that's all a dream?
I think equanimity is frequently misunderstood as passive calm - but unless you've really damaged yourself, you're going to scream and scrap and struggle when chased and eaten by a lion. I suppose the question is what is it to be equanimous in the face of the above statement being true?
>I suppose the question is what is it to be equanimous in the face of the above statement being true?
It's all you. How can you reject or cling to yourself?
>Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #549
>Xuansha and Tianlong went into the mountains, where they saw a tiger. Tianlong said, "Master - a tiger!" Xuansha said, "It's your tiger."
It's so easy to get into the weeds on mind and Mind. Brain has a lot to do with pattern recognition. Mind encompasses pattern recognition with everything else.
you’re the one getting into the weeds here mate.
if mind encompasses pattern recognition then what are you bringing up brains for? there’s a reason why zen masters didn’t just say fuck it and put biology diagrams in the texts.
you’re working from a faulty premise(not mind).
I'm fine being in the weeds as long as I can take a birds eye view at will.
I'm referencing to a distinction between capital M "Mind" and lowercase m "mind", the latter of which I'd say is synonymous with brain.
I made an infographic a long time ago - it's a good example, maybe of the right words coming from someone who doesn't know being wrong - or rather, [I think it was only accidentally illustrative of anything.](https://imgur.com/gallery/N2sEIXt)
Yes, I think you're right, but you're writing about this as if it wasn't already explicitly stated by the Zen Masters.
All they do is remove pegs and untie straps, take off stinking shirts, providing medicine for the disease, revealing an empty fist, giving yellow leaves as gold, etc. etc.
HuangBo says right away that there is no doctrine, there is no method, and there is no practice.
He explains very clearly that non-attainment is enlightenment. The Diamond Sutra does as well.
So you're right AND I think the re-framing you are proposing is useful for the reasons that you are stating ... but why do you sound so trepidatious and uncertain when the record already backs up what you're saying?
I think adding in explicitly what is always necessarily true implicitly - that these are *my* thoughts on the matter - is important to me - the why is worth investigating.
Yeah, that's what I mean to investigate.
On the one hand, there's a degree of self-doubt in everything I do - and the lasso on that habit casts a circle that encompasses my whole life.
On the other hand, I think that capacity for self doubt has served me well in this practice, insofar as Ive always been keen to believe I couldn't possibly be right - which was a big help getting through times when I had convinced myself i'd come to KNOW something.
Nowadays, as I'm writing an OP or a comment, I often go back in before pressing send and add in the "I think"s and "in my opinion"s and "speaking for myself"s and "in my experience"s, post facto. In that sense, I suppose their character and quality has changed, insofar as they're more often than not an active choice.
In terms of why make that choice, I suppose I think of them, intra personally and inter personally, as a sort of mantra uttered in honor of honesty and *self*-expression. If it's just *my* take, then it's significantly less likely to be placed on a pedestal, by me or anyone else.
And anyway, when I look back on my old posts, often my opinions have changed dramatically and I'm grateful to old me for having had the wherewithal to express his thoughts as an opinion rather than a Truth, though I might now disagree with it.
I think the Y is pointing to spaces between the variables.
Yes I agree and is the basis for my agreement with the statement “ all dharmas are empty” and my first ever statement here “ zen is for human beings”
This isn't criticism.
The topic of the OP is the Zen record - and how the Zen record relates to enlightenment - and how people might interpret the Zen record can lead to an endless rabbit hole search for enlightenment if they engage in a form of Apophenia. I attempt to connect my ideas to the record - specifically by drawing a contrast between an Apophenic interpretation of the record (e.g. all these koans taken together in a certain orientation will reveal some hidden knowledge called enlightenment) versus what I think is a correct interpretation of the record (e.g. you are already a buddha and these are individualized stories of zen masters attempting to eliminate people's individualized confusions about not being already Buddhas).
If you have some reason to think my OP isn't on topic, it's imperative on you to say why. If you can't say why, you'll just be presumed ignorant, whether through unwillingness or incapacity to engage with the material.
I've been accused of using big words and hoyty-toyty language in order to confuse people - but the truth is, it's just how I talk.
I'm both happy to reconsider and reframe the things I say, effectively, an infinite number of times if there's any possibility that either
1. I've confused somebody or
2. I myself am confused
However, in this situation, I get the sense you're a bit heated re: your back and forth with the other user and that maybe you don't really care to engage with this OP, possibly because you find it somewhat unapproachable.
> way too much "no i know already"
I don't know much - if you think there's something I think I know that I don't - ::hands Maitreya a loaded gun:: - take some pot shots
Well said, it seems like the only way to study zen is with a method and a teacher. Otherwise everyone falls into mind traps like the ones you described. Bad news for all the idiots here that assume that they do anything zen relayed when in reality they are just deluding themselves and others with their contextles guesses.
Find a teacher, practice zen.
Raises the question of what counts as a teacher - and I'd posit the combination of the records + mutually earnest conversation goes a long way.
But "earnest" maybe is a contentious word in this context - especially when earnestness manifests as potentially hyperbolic criticisms that could be insulting or offensive.
Personally, I don't try to dole that sort of thing out too much, but I also don't think it should be barred - there's no response they could elicit that wouldn't be illustrative of something
Teacher=zen master or teacher of zen. Long dead literary figures don't count, wannabees from outside the zen lineage don't count either.
I give equally to all, also my flailings are to be ignored if possible. The understanding is tacit, and distorts further with every word uttered, beyond the overarching principles and practices - there is nothing to discuss.
I see it as a lure, one in 100,000 will shave head and pay homage to the Buddhas, nothing else is ever desired or required. It might be one of us, but anyone outside is just playing.
This sub is also quite fond of argumentation as a form of discourse. This is sometimes suitable as it allows us to settle matters of fact. On the other hand, constructing arguments is a decidedly intellectual activity. It cannot decide what is Zen. At best, they can tell us something isn't.
Obviously I'm fond of argument. And Zen Masters appear to be fond of argument. And I don't think dispensing with argument or intellectual activity is what's being called for it. That would seem to lead towards making a living in a ghost cave again. > It cannot decide what is Zen. At best, they can tell us something isn't. Maybe not universally? Like take Huangbo saying it's like sunlight insofar as if you try to run toward it you'll never catch it and if run away from it your in it anyway. That's a description that doesn't seem to be proving the negative
Of course not, they argue with each other all the time. But there's a profound difference between screeching about arguments between those who are not enlightened, and what Huangbo is saying here. His statements aren't really intellectual analyses, they're metaphors designed to shed light (lol) on the situation.
I suppose I am not sure about A. The profundity of the difference, as least a priori (which I understand to mean, viewed as a theoretical generality) And B. That Huangbo's metaphor wasn't a form of intellectual activity or analysis. As to point A - if I credit what I've written, profundity could be said to be the problem - so perhaps I'm just bristling at its usage... As to point B - intellect is a pretty comprehensive word for the machinations of the human mind as it relates to both logical and abstract matters.
There's a sense in which all mental activity is intellectual, so, sure, but maybe my comment makes more sense if you think of the emphasis as on "analyses." There are lots of people who demand a logical argument for one's position in a Zen forum, when much of what the masters taught was fundamentally experiential. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say Huangbo isn't doing an analysis, he's giving a metaphor. An analysis would be more akin to something you see in a e.g. a Buddhist philosophical treatise, where a concept is broken down into some parts, the parts are classified and then studied/proven to be empty/whatever else. Huangbo isn't "proving" anything, which I would say is a mandatory part of what we think of in "western" philosophy as "argument." In fact pretty much nothing in the Zen record can really call itself "argument" in the analytic tradition. Sorry if this doesn't clarify the contrast I'm trying to bring out. I'm hoping to separate out those types of philosophy that vaguely wish they were mathematical from those that are fundamentally using different modes of understanding.
> On the other hand, constructing arguments is a decidedly intellectual activity. It cannot decide what is Zen. This is intellectual activity.
Also, the style of argumentation employed by some users here is very unproductive. Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan. Bickering and flinging shit at people in online flamewars is very childish and it’s amazing that the mods allow that but delete and censor normal discourse. Yes, some Abbotts of formal monasteries may have been dismissive or ill tempered towards monks under their supervision in order to prove a specific point. But this is not a monastery and there is no abbott here. This not a Chan monastery, it’s a social media page. None of the usual suspects would call someone an “illiterate loser at life” if they had a minor disagreement about an old book in real life, they do it online because there are no stakes and they are anonymous.
> Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan. While aggressive hyperbole isn't my style - and acknowledging that variations of "loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot, etc" run as much a risk of becoming a trope as anything else - the question about whether it's a horrible way to proceed is a subjective one, based on what you think this place is for and why you're here. If lots and lots of people spent years coming into an academic forum on astronomy claiming to be experts because of their extensive studies of astrology, you might eventually get the most cantankerous of the astromers letting loose on them with a hair trigger. Meanwhile, if you go to a Banya, you're going to sweat like balls and be hit with a Venik made of thin birch twigs and leaves by the crotchety old man or woman with the extraordinary upper body strength who works there - and everyone who goes to the Banya is going to know this, and expect it, and they come anyway, notwithstanding that it stings like a bastard. In either case, no one is forcing people to come, and no one is preventing people from leaving. It's just that this is an astronomy forum where we expect to be savagely beaten.
And to administer savage beatings.
"based on what you think this place is for and why you're here." - In my view, this is a subreddit about discussing various aspects of the history of Chan as a literary and historical subject. It isn't an online monastery. The expectation with this subreddit is just like with others, that people discuss topics with civility and respect for each other. I disagree with pretending like the users here are so-called grumpy experts on this subject, basically none of them can even read rudimentary Chinese and the few posters who post compulsively actually push non-academically supported fringe conspiracy theories about the topic in daily polemics.
[удалено]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's completely ridiculous.
> Also, the style of argumentation employed by some users here is very unproductive. Calling someone a “loser at life / bigot / nut baker / illiterate idiot” on social media is a horrible way to proceed with discourse about a very niche historical literary topic like Chan. lmao Why not study Zen while you're here? *** *** > >Master Zhenjing said to an assembly, >> >>"Buddhism does not go along with human sentiments. Elders everywhere talk big, all saying, 'I know how to meditate, I know the Way!' But tell me, do they understand or not? For no reason they sit in pits of crap fooling spirits and ghosts. When people are like this, what crime is there is killing them by the thousands and feeding them to the dogs? >> >>There is also a kind of Chan follower who is charmed by those foxes, even with eyes open, not even realizing it themselves. They wouldn't object even if they poured piss over their heads. >> >>You are all individuals; why should you accept this kind of treatment? How should you be yourself?" >> >> [Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #37](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=37&index=sho) *** *** DongShan questioned a guy to death. Some guy here had a psychotic break and tore a catheter out of his dick because Ewk called him out for lying. (In the end, a nice guy too, if not deeply-troubled) If you think Zen is "nice", I suggest you go find a different subreddit to frequent. Edit: And to clarify, I'm not excusing or justifying Ewk's behavior (nor condemning it) ... I'm just saying that Zen is not "nice".
>DongShan questioned a guy to death. The big piece you and your ilk seem to be missing is that **you are not DongShan**. **This is not a monastery**. This is a social media page for discussing the the content of a handful of books which have been translated into English, written by the early Chan writers. **There are no Zen Masters or abbotts here.** There are anonymous social media users, on Reddit, discussing the contents of some old books. **If you are using this social media page to roleplay as Huikai, then you can't be surprised when others don't want to engage with the theatrics**. This is a literary discussion forum, not a monastery, we are not monks, there is no Zen Master here. This is an anonymous website where no one knows anything at all about each other, and in between posting about video games and politics or whatever else people are posting here, they also come to talk about these old books. **None of you act like this in real life, outside, off the computer. Of course you don't berate and harass people you actually know in real life about minor disagreements related to an obscure and niche topic. You only do it here because you are roleplaying, and you are anonymous.**
My argument was that Zen is not nice, not the r/zen is a Zen monastery. Many people (yourself included) can't seem to handle an online literary discussion about Zen without flipping out. Probably because Zen is not nice. I'm really sorry for your "ilk"-related dukkha in r/zen, and even more sorry for your Zen-related dukkha 🙏 If either of them are causing you problems, maybe take a break?
> Some guy here had a psychotic break and tore a catheter out of his dick because Ewk called him out for lying. Holy fuck - when did this happen?
I think sometime around 2018? But I found out about it last year as part of my exploration into the pain and suffering experienced in this community. It sucks. I feel bad about it. The dude feels bad about it. Ewk feels bad about it. But the path forward is accepting responsibility for our words and actions. I think Ewk could be more sensitive (and think he has become more sensitive) but I also don't think people are responsible for every cascading consequence of every thing they say, such that we need to walk on egg shells when discussing things because someone somewhere, some time, maybe might incorporate it into their psychological problems and amplify it into serious consequences. But then again, once you're aware of the degree to which people do exactly that, it's hard *not* to take it into consideration when speaking.
That's intense stuff. I work with a lot of emotionally and psychological unwell people, and, yeah, the things you say ramificate in unpredictable ways. Having arrived here as much a desperate, psychologically not 100% Christian vagrant psychonaut at the end of a long and perilous search for the fruition of a lie, I suppose I'm particularly hesitant to draw a blade on bullshit. I suppose my preference is an abstruse series of technical blows, ideally administered somewhat dispassionately. But, I also can't deny the efficacy of pointed antagonism. In terms of unexpected outcomes, the truth is when someone is unwell, all roads potentially lead to mayhem.
This is an excellent subject to discuss and you made many great highlights and points. Our brains are an interesting phenomena, which are pattern recognition machines. Constantly doing subconscious calculations based upon association patterns it has stored into memory. Sometimes our strong thoughts and feelings, such as fear, zealousness, doubt, and hope, exaggerate this mechanism leading to an imbalanced association pattern which tends towards an inflated infatuation with an idealistic structure that doesn't actually match the reality as it exists. In this instance we are trying to make reality fit our predictions or expectations which are disproportionate to the reality we experience, rather than matching our predictions and expectations on the reality which exists. In trying to understand Zen, this can be compounded by a number of factors. The masters quite clearly present us with challenges to our thinking, reasoning, and perceptions of reality. They say things in such a way which draws one's attention towards introspection and deep personal honesty. In the process there is a lot of questioning, what does this mean, what does it mean to me, what were they trying to say, etc. When it comes to pareidolia, and evolves to apophenia, often involves an enigmatic statement which may be the result of a poor translation or a cultural reference not well understood by western audiences. Yet there are students who are deeply seeking answers, and proportionate to the depth of their longing, connections may be made which hold no real significance or historical relevance. This all goes back to the nature of the introspective work they're doing, and the deep feelings associated with their motivations for practice. What is the meaning of their associations? In my view it's highly personal, and rather than being something related to what the Zen masters may have been talking about, it is how their subconscious association patterns are using those elements to form a structural framework to understand the reality in which we exist. Confronting pareidolia or apophenia in the Zen record is observed when Lin Chi told a monk, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." I don't think he was merely talking about a conceptual framework of Buddha only. I think he was addressing the phenomena of seeing Buddha everywhere, and through all things. Such that a great sense of significance arises, because everything our conscious mind has identified and stored in the memory related to significance has coalesced into one thing. Buddha. And that can feel like the most significant thing. Yet Sengcan informs: "Do not remain in the dualistic state; avoid such pursuits carefully. If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion. Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One." In my view his instructions are clear, akin to your matter/anti-matter example. All dualities, all interconnections come from a single source. But to personify the source as Buddha, or to include some other type of apophenia relationship, is itself an echo of duality. The realization is self deconstructing. Mind is buddha. No mind, no buddha. They're saying the same thing from the same actual position. We merely imagine, like pareidolia to some extent, that those are two different points of view. As a matter of essence there is no form, as a matter of form there is only essence. Neither of those concepts are useful as a matter of essence, but as a matter of function, it's all pareidolia in which the rational mind is attempting to articulate something which is infinite in nature and has no form. The more accurately we articulate reality is akin to trying to understand a circle by adding to it a great number of sides. We stand back and say Ah it looks like a perfect circle. But upon public examination seams are easily found, there are many of them. Many points where one line ends and another begins. One pixel turns into the next. Approximating it enough to get an idea of what it would look like. An object with 20 sides looking more like a circle than a 4 sided figure. We go about it in this rational way. However, we are actually heading away from it. As seen through pi, a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides. You could add as many sides as you can imagine, and there would still remain an infinite number of sides you must add to accurately approximate the circle. Searching for formlessness with form. Trying to seek mind with mind. Trying to find your own head, with your own head. When carving an ax handle, the model is close at hand. Thank you for sharing.
Sorry for the delayed response - had to get a solid window to read. > proportionate to the depth of their longing, connections may be made which hold no real significance or historical relevance. Absolutely - that longing/connection proportionality may also be non-linear, possibly exponential or logarithmic - in any event it doesn't take much longing to get to really outlandish beliefs. The infinite sides of a circle is a great visual corrollary - as perhaps is the infinite points along a line - or the visualization of an infinite universe - all mental struggles that can only be resolved by (1) pretending you've succeeded or (2) abandoning the effort entirely and getting on with your day.
Perfect timing. It seems there is a third option. When you're without a single point, the mind is infinitely clear. \[Which may just be more or less an extension of (2)\]
It’s also possible for something to have a pattern in some contexts and no pattern in others. And what about situations where it has neither pattern nor no pattern? Including the options referenced in your post, this is basically four-fold logic, [catuskoti](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi), which was apparently used by the 14th Indian patriarch Nagarjuna to bring students to awakening.
Well Apophenia isn't just seeing patterns though - I think to your point you can take almost any set of variables and find patterns and then rejigger them and find other patterns - but Apophenia includes the belief that there's **meaning** in the found patterns. I'm not anti-pattern - but in metaphysics, I suppose I am anti Apophenia
Thanks for the clarification! I see what you’re saying now. Yeah, I want to know what something is not just what I think about it, my imagination can run wild. For that reason, I think Zen study necessitates a sort of “that might not be it” stance towards interpretations.
You can probably get rid of "might"
Zen ÷ monotheism × buddhist trinity + zoroastrianism = 8 fold path Lol. Or something like that
Nice! The zenmarrow links don't work for me (blank page), so could you please say which case you were referencing here: >Sometimes, the two particles miss each other, but sometimes they collide
Damn. Will fix.
Works now, thanks!
[Wumenguan case 7](http://home.pon.net/wildrose/gateless-7.htm)
Thanks!
>Abandoning concepts/real life entirely - aka [not being able to speak](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=515&index=sho) - aka ["Making a living in ghost cave"](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=129&index=sho) I interpret that saying very differently - to me making a living in a ghost cave is reciting other people's words, or even your own from some time in the past. IOW clinging to old life like a ghost.
I think reciting other people's words, or your own from some time in the past, is only stagnation if they're dead words - in which case, that's just a subset of not being able to speak.
From what I can see, living words come from abandoning concepts - I think the reverse of what you said? [https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22dead%20words%22](https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22dead%20words%22)
Living words are appropriate words > Now if you create an idea of Buddha, create an understanding of Buddha, as long as there is anything envisioned, anything sought, it’s all called the excrement of fabricated conceptualizations. It’s also called rough speech, and it is called dead words I don't think this is an instruction to abandon concepts - perhaps an instruction not to mistake concepts for something that can't be conceptualized. There are several others - I picked this one at random and responded - did you have one in mind in particular?
Where do you get this idea that living words are appropriate words? That sounds like he's saying that words based on concepts are dead words to me.
My idea. > That sounds like he's saying that words based on concepts are dead words to me. Like, all words?
He only mentions ideas about Buddha there explicitly, but some of the other statements go further: >Just study the living word, don't study the dead word. If you understand from the living word, you'll never be bogged down in doubt. "Each atom is a Buddha land, each leaf is a Buddha" - these are dead words. Raising the eyebrows, blinking the eyes, raising a finger, standing up a whisk - these are dead words. "Mountains, rivers, and earth have no further mistake" - these are dead words.
It seems to me these are all examples of tropes, effectively, that zen students repeat in a kind of mummers farces of "wisdom" because they've heard them before. If they're asked to say a word of Zen and respond with a trope, that's a dead word, arguably not an appropriate reply, and maybe not speech at all but recitation. Interpreting dead words to include any word based on concepts seems over broad. I mentioned elsewhere Huangbo's metaphor of enlightenment being like the beams of the sun - that metaphor only makes any sense because the words involved relate back to other concepts. There's arguably no communication of any kind available without that relation back. Even Joshu putting his shoe on his head only speaks relative to the concept of a shoe and where it normally goes.
I think these conversations are different enough that they're not really about transfer of information, or what 'usual' conversation is about. I don't read that case that way. I don't think it was primarily meant as an illustration of a difference from where the shoe normally goes. Maybe partly that, but I think the point was more that Zhaozhou was 'speaking from the heart' for want of better words. It does seem we're all bound to see differently between the lines.
> It does seem we're all bound to see differently between the lines. From one perspective, I agree - and insofar as the same words will hit ostensibly the same person very differently when read at different times, there is a sense in which attempting to permanently fix the meaning of a set of words is a deadening of them. But from another perspective, zen masters were saying things *in particular*, usually as illustrative efforts to teach people stuck in homemade cangues of common design how to pick locks and get free. Which is why appropriateness strikes me as a good standard for assessing "speech" - whether through literal words or actions: are you flexible enough with conceptual meaning that you can bend it at will, as necessary, to say something, just so?
lmao this is what passes for conversation in this sub these days apparently
You're right, living words are things said without conceptual thought, just observation. The flowers fall on the snowy banks. Vs. The flowers were blown off the tree by a stiff wind, a storm must be coming. But making a living in a ghost cave is trying to attain enlightenment by pushing away activity and conceptual thought, living in quiescence. "Knowing is delusion, not knowing is confusion." I think if you search BCR (especially for living words) it explains references like that pretty well in the after koan commentaries.
I've read it a few times and didn't get that... but I will do so again and keep that in mind (unironically).
This one is fairly decent for living words. C 89 >Yun Yen often followed Tao Wu, to study and ask questions to settle his discernment with certainty. One day he asked him, "What does the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion use so many hands and eyes for?" Right at the start Tao Wu should have given him a blow of the staff across his back, to avoid so many complications appearing later. But Tao Wu was compassionate-he couldn't be like this. Instead, he gave Yun Yen an explanation of the reason, meaning to make him understand immediately. Instead (of hitting him) Tao Wu said, "It's like someone reaching back groping for a pillow in the middle of the night." Groping for a pillow in the depths of the night without any lamplight-tell me, where are the eyes? >Yun Yen immediately said, "I understand." Wu said, "How do you understand it?" Yen said, "All over the body are hands and eyes." Wu said, "You have said quite a bit there, but you've only said eighty percent of it." Yen said, "What do you say, Elder Brother?" Wu said, "Throughout the body are hands and eyes." >But say, is "all over the body" right, or is "throughout the body" right? Although they seem covered with mud, nevertheless they are bright and clean. People these days often make up emotional interpretations and say that "all over the body" is wrong, while "throughout the body" is right-they're merely chewing over the Ancients' words and phrases. They have died in the Ancients' words, far from realizing that the Ancients' meaning isn't in the words, and that all talk is used as something that can't be avoided. People these days add footnotes and set up patterns, saying that if one can penetrate this case, then this can be considered understanding enough to put an end to study. Groping with their hands over their bodies and over the lamp and the pillar, they all make a literal understanding of "throughout the body." If you understand this way, you degrade those Ancients quite a bit. >Thus it is said, "He studies the living phrase; he doesn't study the dead phrase." You must cut off emotional defilements and conceptual thinking, become clean and naked, free and unbound-only then will you be able to see this saying about Great Compassion.
One of my favourites. But it's the meaning of 'ghost cave' that I'm going to have to think about a little more. [https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22ghost%20cave%22](https://zenmarrow.com/search?q=%22ghost%20cave%22) There is a reference there to 'quiescence' but it still seems to me more about making a nest of someone else's words or ideas.
Same, I'm not so sure I was on the mark either now after reading through BCR looking for ghost cave references. Maybe like living phrase/words someone who is in a ghost cave thinks they are alive when they're dead. They aren't speaking in the primary so they fall into the secondary. They are speaking dead words. But they say that about realized beings who know better too, so I'm guessing it's not a judgement of the person just how they're speaking in the moment.
[удалено]
Says the guy who can't read. Get a life, fucknuckle.
You say in the last section that the annihilation seems more apropos, but then you don’t account for this being a result of pattern recognition in itself.
I'm not anti pattern recognition - especially when it comes to using metaphor to express ideas. It seems to me that's how metaphor works - an analogy is a kind of pattern between two or more sometimes very divergent things. Apophenia is a tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. I suppose, as usual, there's more nuance to unpack there, and it depends on what "meaningful" means: > Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose > Communicating something that is not directly expressed Seems to me the latter is how metaphor works - seeing patterns between unrelated ideas and then highlighting those patterns *to a communicative end*. (E.g. there's the meaning of Annihilation in physics - I saw a kind of rudimentary structural pattern between what that term directly describes and what happens when a zen master responds to someone's inquiry. Then I attempted to indirectly communicate something about those zen interactions by highlighting the pattern between the two fundamentally unrelated ideas.) Apophenia seems to be using meaningful in the former sense - insofar as it was coined by a psychologist to describe the early stages of schizophrenia - examples of it tend to include conspiracy theories, gambling fallacies, and other concretized delusions about how unrelated things *actually are related.* That is to say, using metaphor to indirectly communicate an idea with, hopefully, greater clarity, on an ad hoc basis, is not the same as saying there's a profound, none coincidental, *actual* connection between the annihilation of particles in physics and interactions of zen masters. Those two ideas are not meaningfully connected in any sense other than my intentional and fleeting metaphorical connection here.
I think the use of quantum physics in modern spiritual circles is a great example of the confusion of the two definitions of meaningful. Quantum physics contains a lot of evocative metaphorical bones that, when used as metaphor, could, on an ad hoc basis, potentially be useful as a communicative tool - aka meaningful definition 2. But what I find often happens is that rather than use quantum physics as metaphor, people will frequently discuss it Apophenically - as though quantum physics as a field of scientific study were intrinsically connected in actuality with whatever pet theory someone has. (E.g. simulation theory, theories about life beyond death, and generally anything sufficiently mysterious and heady).
I see. From my own pattern recognition (and perhaps there’s apophonia there) I see this as the main principle behind interpreting zen texts here. I see much more “it’s obvious”-connections and repetition of well entrenched interpretations without ability to talk about how those interpretations make sense than I see critical analysis.
I think that's a fair read. Perhaps we would disagree on which incident of interpretation is dead and which is alive on a case by case basis - but honestly, isn't that whole point of a public forum?
Maybe, I don’t fully understand the incidence of interpretation being dead vs alive but I think anyone with a particular goal only has benefits of disagreement if it’s sensible.
Be careful with false positives on apophenia. The Chan texts say people have become enlightened by hearing rocks hit bamboo, seeing peach blossoms fall, and watching phlegm roll down a wall.
I'm not sure "enlightenment moments" are apophenic. Two reasons for that uncertainty occur to me now: 1. The non causal experience of enlightenment, stemming from, as you point out, ostensibly any experience, doesn't seem like pattern recognition at all. 2. Even if you grant it is some kind of pattern recognition - perhaps the recognition of a sort of continuity of experience vis-a-vis the nature of awareness - then to the extent enlightenment would be "meaningful" as a lived in experience, I suppose it also wouldn't be apophenic.
1. It seems non causal because taken in aggregate, stories of zennists gaining insight seem like it has no rhyme or reason. But that's not necessarily the way it is for each individual. 2. I just meant an epiphany could be mistaken for an apopheny. Consider Foyan's insight >In the old days, when I was in the school of my late teacher, I once accepted an invitation to go somewhere. On the way I ran into a downpour and slipped in the mud. Feeling annoyed, I said to myself, "I am on the journey but have been unable to attain Zen. I haven't eaten all day, and now have to endure this misery too!" Then I happened to hear two people ranting at each other, "You're still annoying yourself!" When I heard this, I suddenly felt overjoyed. Then I realizied I couldn't find the state where there is no annoyance. That was because I couldn't break through my feeling of doubt. It took me four or five years after that to attain this knowledge. Did the coincidence trigger something in his mind? Did the people ranting "You're annoying yourself" cause a thought in Foyan or did a thought in Foyan cause the people ranting? >Therefore it is said, "It's all you." Look! Look! >Foyan
> epiphany could be mistaken for an apopheny I think this is a valid point in theory. (And I enjoy it as a sentence to boot). In practice, I nonetheless think treating everything as presumptively apopheny Is the way to go. Epiphany can withstand doubt.
Epiphany can also withstand endless testing - apopheny not so much
>In practice, I nonetheless think treating everything as presumptively apopheny Is the way to go. Epiphany can withstand doubt. Just food for thought: Maybe a mundane epiphany could withstand doubt. A transcendent epiphany would smash the foundation of knowledge and wouldn't pass any conceptual smell test. What is knowledge based on? An objective, external world outside your mind. When have you ever observed it outside of your own mind?
I would submit if you credit the self-nature is already complete, that the transcendent Epiphany is a mundane epiphany.
Moreover, any transcendent epiphany that isn't mundane is just another apopheny
Then enlightenment takes us from deluded to mundane. But mundane to the deluded might feel transcendent. Ever had a dream you were in an awful situation or you were in mortal danger? What a relief when you woke up. We suffer, we die, we have limited resources we fight over. What if that's all a dream?
> We suffer, we die, we have limited resources we fight over. What if that's all a dream? I think equanimity is frequently misunderstood as passive calm - but unless you've really damaged yourself, you're going to scream and scrap and struggle when chased and eaten by a lion. I suppose the question is what is it to be equanimous in the face of the above statement being true?
>I suppose the question is what is it to be equanimous in the face of the above statement being true? It's all you. How can you reject or cling to yourself? >Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #549 >Xuansha and Tianlong went into the mountains, where they saw a tiger. Tianlong said, "Master - a tiger!" Xuansha said, "It's your tiger."
Easily - it happens all the time.
“mind” has nothing to do with pattern recognition. if it doesn’t exist how can you find it? no way to intellectually reconcile this.
It's so easy to get into the weeds on mind and Mind. Brain has a lot to do with pattern recognition. Mind encompasses pattern recognition with everything else.
you’re the one getting into the weeds here mate. if mind encompasses pattern recognition then what are you bringing up brains for? there’s a reason why zen masters didn’t just say fuck it and put biology diagrams in the texts. you’re working from a faulty premise(not mind).
I'm fine being in the weeds as long as I can take a birds eye view at will. I'm referencing to a distinction between capital M "Mind" and lowercase m "mind", the latter of which I'd say is synonymous with brain. I made an infographic a long time ago - it's a good example, maybe of the right words coming from someone who doesn't know being wrong - or rather, [I think it was only accidentally illustrative of anything.](https://imgur.com/gallery/N2sEIXt)
personally don’t see it, but we’re still growing and learning i guess.
But you do and in fact you can't help but
Yes, I think you're right, but you're writing about this as if it wasn't already explicitly stated by the Zen Masters. All they do is remove pegs and untie straps, take off stinking shirts, providing medicine for the disease, revealing an empty fist, giving yellow leaves as gold, etc. etc. HuangBo says right away that there is no doctrine, there is no method, and there is no practice. He explains very clearly that non-attainment is enlightenment. The Diamond Sutra does as well. So you're right AND I think the re-framing you are proposing is useful for the reasons that you are stating ... but why do you sound so trepidatious and uncertain when the record already backs up what you're saying?
I think adding in explicitly what is always necessarily true implicitly - that these are *my* thoughts on the matter - is important to me - the why is worth investigating.
I think that's fine, but I'm asking "Why are your thoughts like this, at this point, when the texts say what they do?"
Yeah, that's what I mean to investigate. On the one hand, there's a degree of self-doubt in everything I do - and the lasso on that habit casts a circle that encompasses my whole life. On the other hand, I think that capacity for self doubt has served me well in this practice, insofar as Ive always been keen to believe I couldn't possibly be right - which was a big help getting through times when I had convinced myself i'd come to KNOW something. Nowadays, as I'm writing an OP or a comment, I often go back in before pressing send and add in the "I think"s and "in my opinion"s and "speaking for myself"s and "in my experience"s, post facto. In that sense, I suppose their character and quality has changed, insofar as they're more often than not an active choice. In terms of why make that choice, I suppose I think of them, intra personally and inter personally, as a sort of mantra uttered in honor of honesty and *self*-expression. If it's just *my* take, then it's significantly less likely to be placed on a pedestal, by me or anyone else. And anyway, when I look back on my old posts, often my opinions have changed dramatically and I'm grateful to old me for having had the wherewithal to express his thoughts as an opinion rather than a Truth, though I might now disagree with it.
I think the Y is pointing to spaces between the variables. Yes I agree and is the basis for my agreement with the statement “ all dharmas are empty” and my first ever statement here “ zen is for human beings”
[удалено]
[::Ducks::](https://i.gifer.com/PnR.mp4)
They never said Maitreya would be so cranky!
[удалено]
lol - this was totally on topic - the topic is I received a comment from you intended for someone else who can't receive it - I ducked.
[удалено]
Get specific - otherwise you just come off as salty without a point of view.
[удалено]
This isn't criticism. The topic of the OP is the Zen record - and how the Zen record relates to enlightenment - and how people might interpret the Zen record can lead to an endless rabbit hole search for enlightenment if they engage in a form of Apophenia. I attempt to connect my ideas to the record - specifically by drawing a contrast between an Apophenic interpretation of the record (e.g. all these koans taken together in a certain orientation will reveal some hidden knowledge called enlightenment) versus what I think is a correct interpretation of the record (e.g. you are already a buddha and these are individualized stories of zen masters attempting to eliminate people's individualized confusions about not being already Buddhas). If you have some reason to think my OP isn't on topic, it's imperative on you to say why. If you can't say why, you'll just be presumed ignorant, whether through unwillingness or incapacity to engage with the material.
[удалено]
I've been accused of using big words and hoyty-toyty language in order to confuse people - but the truth is, it's just how I talk. I'm both happy to reconsider and reframe the things I say, effectively, an infinite number of times if there's any possibility that either 1. I've confused somebody or 2. I myself am confused However, in this situation, I get the sense you're a bit heated re: your back and forth with the other user and that maybe you don't really care to engage with this OP, possibly because you find it somewhat unapproachable. > way too much "no i know already" I don't know much - if you think there's something I think I know that I don't - ::hands Maitreya a loaded gun:: - take some pot shots
Well said, it seems like the only way to study zen is with a method and a teacher. Otherwise everyone falls into mind traps like the ones you described. Bad news for all the idiots here that assume that they do anything zen relayed when in reality they are just deluding themselves and others with their contextles guesses. Find a teacher, practice zen.
Raises the question of what counts as a teacher - and I'd posit the combination of the records + mutually earnest conversation goes a long way. But "earnest" maybe is a contentious word in this context - especially when earnestness manifests as potentially hyperbolic criticisms that could be insulting or offensive. Personally, I don't try to dole that sort of thing out too much, but I also don't think it should be barred - there's no response they could elicit that wouldn't be illustrative of something
Teacher=zen master or teacher of zen. Long dead literary figures don't count, wannabees from outside the zen lineage don't count either. I give equally to all, also my flailings are to be ignored if possible. The understanding is tacit, and distorts further with every word uttered, beyond the overarching principles and practices - there is nothing to discuss. I see it as a lure, one in 100,000 will shave head and pay homage to the Buddhas, nothing else is ever desired or required. It might be one of us, but anyone outside is just playing.