Emptiness

[Kevin]

Re: Emptiness

Unfortunately, you may come to an intellectual realization of some of these things and mistakenly think you really know something. Intellectualizing this leads you invariably away from seeing it. It's the mind, the ego, that has to know that is responsible for all this chatter. What's telling here is the motivation. The part of the mind that needs the security of an intellectual understanding is the part of the mind that doesn't, cannot in fact, stop seeking and simply look plainly at one's experience. You have to be brave enough to not know.

I absolutely agree that this is a dangerous and common trap of intellectualization, where the mountain is no longer a mountain, but is a bunch of conceptualizations about the mountain. But, what's on the other side of the intellectualizations? I'd say you could plow through the intellectualizations, be deluded by them, continue to meditate and recognize the delusions, then see the mountain as a mountain again. To some this may seem a diversion from the true course. To others, it may be seen to enrich the experience of the mountain.

But, again, what other way is there? How else to describe the experience to others but through conceptualizations, which must, of necessity, then be proven to be inadequate by the experience itself? The Shobogenzo isn't the true path, but it helps us find it. The Tao Te Ching isn't the Tao itself, but it helps us recognize it. "Sweet" describes a part of the experience of tasting vanilla ice cream, and is far from the totality of the experience itself, but, nonetheless, may help point us in the right direction by showing us that vinegar, when tasted, is most certainly not vanilla ice cream. Unless, that is, we're lucky enough to taste vanilla ice cream without having to be shown the cone...

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

But, again, what other way is there? How else to describe the experience to others but through conceptualizations, which must, of necessity, then be proven to be inadequate by the experience itself? The Shobogenzo isn't the true path, but it helps us find it. The Tao Te Ching isn't the Tao itself, but it helps us recognize it. "Sweet" describes a part of the experience of tasting vanilla ice cream, and is far from the totality of the experience itself, but, nonetheless, may help point us in the right direction by showing us that vinegar, when tasted, is most certainly not vanilla ice cream. Unless, that is, we're lucky enough to taste vanilla ice cream without having to be shown the cone...

You must intellectualize to describe the experience to others - but as you've argued, the experience and the description are nowhere near the same thing.

Wouldn't it be better instead to use conversation in a way that inspires others to taste for themselves?

Chet

[Kevin]

Re: Emptiness

Wouldn't it be better instead to use conversation in a way that inspires others to taste for themselves?

If someone is seeking to taste, then sure. But, is there one way to use conversation that would inspire all others to taste? For some, mysterious semi-poetic statements so common in Zen literature are intriguing and inspiring (I like these quite a lot). For others, intellectualization may be inspiring (I like this mode, as well). For still others, a wise teacher silently holding up a single flower is their preferred technique (when my mind is ripe (not often, sadly), I find this effective, too). Perhaps, as my parentheticals suggest, the same person may find different methods useful at different times.

To me, these are like Dogen's different modes of discourse in Shobogenzo: just different fingers pointing toward the truth.

I think we agree that the experience is the best, the only, way to fully understand. I think what we're discussing here are merely the maps and signposts that lead the seeker to the experience.

Gassho,
Kevin

[will]

Re: Emptiness

The Shobogenzo isn't the true path, but it helps us find it.

First, I wouldn't say the Shobogenzo is only intellectual. It is also instructional and poetic. Infact, when we drop intellectualizing and follow the teachings, we have a clearer understanding of it and of Dogen.

Let's not forget Ryokan, Basho and the many others expressing the Dharma as the Dharma. Sure, we can talk. We can think. We can write books. But in a sense one should have an idea whether or not they are over intellectualizing, creating something useful, or just forgetting that all together and just creating.

Gassho

[will]

Re: Emptiness

Also:

The Shobogenzo is big. Lot of stuff in it. Some might choose to read it all, some not, and some might pick it up now and then (all cases varying). If I recommended any part of it that should be read, it would be Zazengi (fukan zazengi) and Genjo Koan. I think these are the core of Dogen's teachings.

Gassho

[Jundo]

Re: Emptiness

I, personally, am in favor of the intellectualism (as my wordy posts can attest... sorry, Rowan :lol: ). It's not reality, but it's the tail of the Truth, which gives us something to hold onto while we pull ourselves up to rise on the shoulders of the Truth.

I think others have already said it, but ...

Zen in general, Dogen and Shobogenzo in particular, are not "anti-intellectual". Old wives tale. Almost without exception, all the old Zen teachers were intellectuals of their day, well grounded in literary arts and philosophy. They were trying to convey a definite set of ideas and experiences about how to taste life ... sometimes in prose and philosophy, sometimes in poetry as Will said, sometimes with action and 'just doing', sometimes with silence.

In fact, without an educated familiarity with many aspects of Buddhist philosophy and history, the experience of Zazen on the Zafu easily turns to mush. We would just be adrift, lost. The philosophy guides us, and helps us see with understanding, what we encounter in our Practice.

However, a couple of twists on that:

First, some of that philosophy, and the "new ways of thinking" we encounter are NOT our normal, "common sense" ways of thinking about reality, for example, it is not normal to think that the "self" is rather a dream, time a state a mind, etc.etc. We are taught some very new ways of thinking and perceiving.

Second, our practice teaches us very often how to "know" some things by dropping thoughts and emotions which get in the way: Sometimes intellectualizing, and other thoughts and biased emotions, get in the way. Stop philosophizing about the ice cream ... just taste the ice cream.

So, sometimes we philosophize about life's ice cream (its chemistry, it's history, the brain's reaction to it), sometimes we learn to think about ice cream in new ways that folks may not consider the "common sense" way to approach ice cream (you are the ice cream, the ice cream is you ... and, anyway, what ice cream?) ...

... sometimes we just shut up and taste the ice cream! 8)

Does that help?

Gassho, Jundo

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

I don't mean to imply that Zen is 'anti-intellectual'. I've been speaking to a particular person who over-intellectualizes the Dharma. I have simply not seen anything like it before, and it occurs to me that she uses as many excuses as possible to put the dharma into conceptual terms to the point that I feel I am always attempting to bring her back to her actual experience (not that that's my job, but we have many of these conversations).

Perhaps I see some of that in what you posted, Kevin.

Chet

[Mushin]

Re: Emptiness

Based on my personal experience...

Intellectualizing zen can help to a certain extent if paired with zazen. If you find your intellectualizing isn't getting you anywhere, maybe just focus on zazen. If you find your zazen isn't progressing as you like, perhaps some intellectualizing/discussion is in order. But, because we are all verbal humans, "intellectualizing" (that's a rather broad term) is to some extent inescapable...every post on this site is an "intellectualization."

Gassho,

Todd.

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

Based on my personal experience...

Intellectualizing zen can help to a certain extent if paired with zazen. If you find your intellectualizing isn't getting you anywhere, maybe just focus on zazen. If you find your zazen isn't progressing as you like, perhaps some intellectualizing/discussion is in order. But, because we are all verbal humans, "intellectualizing" (that's a rather broad term) is to some extent inescapable...every post on this site is an "intellectualization."

Gassho,

Todd.

Although intellectualization is broadly inescapable, complex and abstract cosmologies are really unnecessary, in my opinion. All the talk about 'planes of existence' is understandable, but ultimately very misleading. When we talk about these things as though they were distinct things, a lot of confusion is bound to be the result.

Also, you say, 'If you find your intellectualizing isn't getting you anywhere...'

Where is it supposed to get you? I ask this sincerely and not in a 'trying to be a clever Zen guy' sort of way. I'm not trying to play 'gotcha', I simply want to know where you think your zazen practice is taking you.

Lastly, for Kevin, things are not empty merely because of dependent origination. They are also empty from a 'felt-perceptive' sort of way. That is to say that what is called 'emptiness' does not simply derive from a logical everyday manipulation of concepts, nor is it merely surmised by the common-sense observation of the impermanence of objects - it also comes from a direct seeing that nowhere in our direct experience do 'objects' actually exist without conceptualization. Much of our confusion is in the mistaking of conception (and it's subject/object relationships) with pure perception.

This realization can be quite striking, in a 'Holy shit! I don't know any of the things I thought I knew!' sort of way.

IMHO, IANAT.

Chet

[Bansho]

Re: Emptiness

Hi,

To me, these are like Dogen's different modes of discourse in Shobogenzo: just different fingers pointing toward the truth.

I think we agree that the experience is the best, the only, way to fully understand. I think what we're discussing here are merely the maps and signposts that lead the seeker to the experience.

We mustn't forget that fingers, maps and signposts themselves are the truth. The finger may point at the moon, but the moon also moons the finger, and pointing just points at...this! Are we not - just now - experiencing what we're discussing? What makes 'this' true and 'that' not true? Can we not-experience the non-truth as opposed to experiencing the truth?

We don't discuss now and practice later. They aren't separate activities. Nor do we disscuss as a means of attaining the truth. Discussion itself is ultimate truth, just as sitting, standing and lying down, the rivers, stones and the grasses are ultimate truth. When we truly and exhaustively engage in something, whether it be discussion, study, Zazen, Kinhin, recitation, eating, etc. with our entire body-mind, there is nothing but that, and just that is, in that very moment, nothing but practice. It is itself the active expression of realization. How could there be two?

If one says that pictures are unreal, then all the myriad dharmas are unreal. If all the myriad dharmas are unreal, then even the Buddha-Dharma is unreal. If the Buddha-Dharma is real, pictures of rice cakes must just be real.
(Nishijima & Cross)

Gassho
Bansho

[will]

Re: Emptiness

Thanks Bansho.

Gassho

[CharlesC]

Re: Emptiness

When we truly and exhaustively engage in something, whether it be discussion, study, Zazen, Kinhin, recitation, eating, etc. with our entire body-mind, there is nothing but that, and just that is, in that very moment, nothing but practice. It is itself the active expression of realization. How could there be two?

What about when we insincerely and lazily engage in something. Isn't that just as much an expression of what we are? Otherwise won't we perceive a gap between what we are and what we think we should be? Don't we have to drop the idea of acting in a "Zen" way?

:Charles

[Bansho]

Re: Emptiness

Hi,

What about when we insincerely and lazily engage in something. Isn't that just as much an expression of what we are?

Of course. But it's a perfect expression of being insincere and lazy.

Otherwise won't we perceive a gap between what we are and what we think we should be? Don't we have to drop the idea of acting in a "Zen" way?

Sure, drop the idea - but don't be insincere and lazy! :wink:

Gassho
Bansho

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

When we truly and exhaustively engage in something, whether it be discussion, study, Zazen, Kinhin, recitation, eating, etc. with our entire body-mind, there is nothing but that, and just that is, in that very moment, nothing but practice. It is itself the active expression of realization. How could there be two?

What about when we insincerely and lazily engage in something. Isn't that just as much an expression of what we are? Otherwise won't we perceive a gap between what we are and what we think we should be? Don't we have to drop the idea of acting in a "Zen" way?

:Charles

We do. And yet, not all activity is expressive of the awakened mind.

Chet

[will]

Re: Emptiness

Look. Sometimes we're lazy, but when we are not lazy, then we're not lazy.

Gassho