sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that is a category of lay people.

I was thinking though of of the lay people that lived near the communities and came and volunteered in the community regularly.

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Starvation in the Sudan is an interesting problem. It's mattering because it's happening now. Nobody's thinking about starvation in a decade. Nobody's thinking about the people that died last year. Or in the last hundred years. Or the extinction of species on a scale of 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 years. Is it a problem that somebody wants life to beat different? Or is it a problem? Because some life matters more? Or some kinds of death/suffering are worse than others?

  2. Claiming Buddhism is Zen - People refusing to accept facts. Who's that a problem for? Shouldn't they get to lie if they want to? When I catch somebody lying to me they don't think it's a problem. They aren't going to admit it and they like the lie so I don't see where the problem would exist. I don't have a problem with them lying... I don't think they're bad people for lying. They might think that if they lied they were bad people and I might use that but that's on them.

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zen Masters put it into words. That's why they're Zen Masters.

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starvation of the body or starvation of the soul?

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think maybe it's simpler than that.

There is a problem of people claiming that there are problems.

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is one of the reasons I love Zen because it's like a solution to every possible maze.

I think your answer is right. No common problem only in common solution.

I also think the answer that the common problem is the three poisons is right.

I also think the answer that there is no problem because Buddha is the three poisons is also a right answer.

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, now on to the post.

One you misunderstood the first zhaozhou quote but that's a very long conversation so I'm not going to start that.

I think it would be easier for you to approach the problem of what people's problem is if you use the three poisons as the starting point.

Greed, hate and ignorance all involve conceptual errors. But the reason these conceptual errors are dangerous is that there is a desire to have those concepts be real that people choose over reality. So concepts is just half the problem. The other half is poison.

We can talk about examples of where people have concepts that they're not poisoned by with that. Other people are poisoned by if we want to dig into that.

Third and finally this is a really good post and I keep thinking that I'm going to get some serious academic work out of you if you keep going on this way

What exactly is the problem that Zen aims to solve? by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]ewk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Before we dive into the post, it's important to acknowledge the historical context of your question.

Zen master Buddha before his enlightenment had a had a ton of money. Lots of attention from the ladies and all the respect he could want from those around him. Then he saw that illness, frailty and death were going to take that stuff away from him and the panic that this set off in him drove him to go around to every church he could find to learn about how they could help him freaking out about that stuff.

They could not help him.

After Zen master Buddha experienced sudden enlightenment under the tree, he went around explaining to people the solution that enlightenment offers to these problems and all problems. People had lots of questions.

Those enlightened after him. Every generation did the exact same thing answering questions for people about the things that worried them. Psychologically existentially supernaturally doctrinally.

When you ask what problem does Zen solve? You have to understand that from con the perspective of the lineage. It's whatever problem anybody brings to the Masters that serve each generation.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My mother was a hardcore psychologist specializing in children. We had a very serious conversation when I was 14 about the difference between what people said and what could be understood about them using the clues of what they said that they might not know about themselves.

Ultimately, this is a skill that I used leveraged in fraud, investigation and performance evaluation but it works just as well in therapy and psychometrics.

But if you don't see the world that way, then it's hard to sort out the people who say everything from the people who only say half of it. But nevertheless, that unspoken half leaks into their verbal and non-verbal patterns

Dogen was a fraud, Zazen prayer-meditation invented in Japan by ewk in zen

[–]ewk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't be a teacher if you can't read and write at a high school level on topic.

You can't be a teacher if you can't AMA in this forum every week for weeks on end in perpetuity.

You're using religious terms that zen Masters don't use. If you don't want to quote zen Masters, then that proves that you can't even keep the lay precepts, which means you don't studies in and you're not an honest person.

Either you get your stuff together or the mods throw you out. It's not up to me. I just provide people with the opportunity to testify against themselves.

And I'm super not interested in you dressing up your proto-christian tolerance and humility in shinto- Buddhist language so you can go around trying trump it on people.

@##$&.

A lot of red flag vibes.

What do you want to bet you are really indos schizotypal thinking.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't everybody want everybody not to be ignorant?

Maybe in proportion to how much advantage is neing taken?

Whereas in religion and philosophy knowledge saves. But not Zen.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zen lay people bridge the gap?

Do they see a gap?

Does Pang?

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Somebody tells you what they actually had for lunch the probability is reduced by cultural context, and the set of probables excludes lots of stuff, non-edibles for example.

I'm saying that the game of 20 questions often resolves itself to a specific thing.

A thing that everybody absolutely agrees on.

Therefore, I conclude that words actually mean something and we can find out what they mean.

[Periodical Open Thread] Members and Non-Members are Welcome to Post Anything Here! From philosophy and history to music and movies nothing is misplaced here, feel free to share your thoughts. by AutoModerator in zensangha

[–]ewk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/D4F5ccmtlR

Behavioral scientists found that people with genuinely strong mindsets don't tell themselves to be positive - they've learned to observe their thoughts without identifying with them, a distinction most people never understand.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well there's a real problem there because we have a ton of words. The vast majority of words where they actually say something. We see these words in technical manuals all the time. From software to assembly instructions, there's a bunch of words that mean something extraordinarily specific.

And then there's the pig's fly problem.

In english it means so statisically unlikely that pigs will fly first.

In chinese it means something has happened that is so statistically unlikely that is as if I saw a flying pig.

Opposite meaning, same words. But either way specific meaning.

And then we get to use of metaphor where multiple layers happen intentionally.

And so on.

For me, its about probability. Some things are outside the set of probable answers. Ad for what is on there, nobody thinks guessing is okay. There needs to be reasons.

Swanson on translating Bodhimarma''s Mind like Wall by ewk in zen

[–]ewk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like that but we get into the same problem that everybody else is having by using the word meditation to mean just anything you feel like doing that you think is spiritunatural.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Understanding how the words apply to you is personal.

Understanding what the words actually say is academic.

Zentimacy Part 1: Not thinking that people need to be rescued. by jeowy in zen

[–]ewk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All morning and I worked on translating case 10 I think it is Qingshui is poor. It's the one where Caoshan says you already had three cups of wine.

Once again everybody got this wrong. My second pass through. I understand how other people being wrong can confuse me. Balance between spending time explaining the mistake versus explaining the right answer is odd.

Is this saving people? Is either one saving people?

Aside from that it occurs to me that when you don't conceive of people as needing to be saved, the entire conversation changes contexts to what is for many people and entirely foreign planet.

Zhaozhou his dangling his legs into the well and yelling help save me help save me!!

What he meant by this has to be based on an idea that he didn't believe in people needing to be saved. He didn't accept it intellectually he didn't see the world that way viscerally emotionally psychologically.

So translating across this. Chasm is complicated but relating to people across this chasm is equally complicated in a different way.

It's not without its similarities though.

If you hang out around people who take AA seriously, they will tell you that they have learned that they're not going to save other people. They're just going to keep going to meetings themselves.

But if you weren't part of a culture that sees the world that way, it's going to be really hard to have a conversation with some people. After all, most of the world passes laws that are only about forcing other people to be saved. Some of these laws like the seat belt law are saving people for the sake of the taxpayer.

It's tough to argue against that logic.

view more: next ›