Bodhidharma's Tomb
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Robbydharma |
Bodhidharma's Tomb |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2 (03/31/08 03:05 AM) No Holiness |
|
||
|
Robbydharma |
Briefest Of Introductions To Zen Buddhism | ||
|
Posts: 3 (03/31/08 03:09 AM) No Holiness |
There is some beautiful imagery and some interesting history, but if it is Empty Form and Empty Perception then why all that bowing?
The emperor [Emperor Wu] of southern China asked the great master Bodhidharma, 'What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?' |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 39 (03/31/08 03:36 AM) |
My understanding of Zen is underpinned by very little reading of primary texts, so it may be somewhat off, but basically what I understand of it is that
through paradox one comes to realise that there is no point in asking fundamental questions, and that one should simply live a decent, moral life. I also
understand, though, that Zen does say something about the fundamental nature of reality: the crucial word in not only Zen but Buddhism in general
seems to be the word "empty". I once found a web page that described what is meant by emptiness in Buddhism. From what I remember, it said something
like this: consider a cup. Now there are sides to the cup, but is this the cup? No. There is a handle to the cup but is this the cup? No. In the end, then,
when we try to find the essence of "cupness", we come up empty. Is this your understanding of what Zen means by emptiness, Robby? And what is the
essence of Zen to you?
|
||
|
Robbydharma |
|||
|
Posts: 4 (03/31/08 04:49 AM) No Holiness |
'No essence' would be the Zen masterly answer but that might not do us much good doing 'message board Zen'. Those 'fundamental
questions' seem never to have answers and simply living 'a decent, moral life' would make one a Confucian or a Christian or a red-blooded American
and such people are useless. Zen will help you in your life or it won't, and if it helps, and if it is properly Zen help, it is liable to touch on
emptiness.
The mind's capacity is limitless, and its manifestations are inexhaustible. Seeing forms with your eyes, hearing sounds with your ears, smelling odors with your nose, tasting flavors with your tongue, every movement or state is all your mind. At every moment, where language can't go, that's your mind. 'where language can't go', 'don't know', '"empty" is an empty word' (Nagarjuna), all speak against language or more precisely thinking. Are those fundamental questions really fundamental to living or are they simply examples of how thought cannot solve the problems thought itself creates? Zhuangzi wrote, 'When there is division, there is definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates. Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.' He implies a 'way' beyond language and which is what Zen purports to be, although knowing that is of doubtful assistance to anyone. Emptiness is where language cannot go and meditation is where thinking is not. Zen helps you or it doesn't but it cannot help you if you do not examine its primary sources. That hardly makes those primary sources necessarily important in human life, only in considering whether Zen has helped you. Hui-K'o, the great general, (retired), was troubled in his search for the way. Many times he beseeched Bodhidharma to teach him and to pacify his mind. Always, Bodhidharma refused. To show his utter sincerity, Hui-K'o cut off his own left hand. If only it was always that easy. There, I have pacified your minds. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 41 (03/31/08 07:34 AM) |
Perhaps you can pacify (or rather, excite) my mind on this then: you quoted Zhuangzi as writing that "all things are again resolved into unity";
there is also the famous line from the Heart Sutra: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form". I note that "form" is recognised as a tenable
concept in Buddhism, albeit that it is paradoxically equated with emptiness, a great explanation of which paradox I found on this page (this seems to be the page that I referred to in my above post as a
recollection). Ignoring for now this paradoxical equation of emptiness with form, I want to focus on the concept of form itself. If all things are, according
to Zhuangzi, a unity, but if at the same time form exists, then we could say that reality is some vast and complex singular structure. The question then
arises: are there any objective boundaries in this structure (do separate things exist), or are all boundaries merely arbitrary (separate things are an
illusion; non-inherent existence)? I have argued at
Genius Forum with Sue Hindmarsh that boundaries are not purely arbitrary, but are rather in a strong sense objective, being that for example physical
objects have differing chemical compositions and can be considered to be somewhat objectively separate by virtue of the chemical boundary between each
thing and the rest of its environment. Sue's response, after a couple of question/answer posts, was to argue that "separate" things are actually entirely dependent
upon their sets of causes (e.g. a cupboard is dependent on the wood in the trees from which it was created) and that any boundary that is drawn around these
causes is entirely arbitrary.
Please share with us your perspective on this discussion. (I have purposefully diverted the discussion because you indicated to me privately that you were interested in such a diversion) |
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3093 (03/31/08 06:19 PM) sui generis |
Actually Laird, no I didn't but no harm done.
|
||
|
Robbydharma |
|||
|
Posts: 6 (03/31/08 06:58 PM) No Holiness |
Please share with us your perspective on this discussion. No need to be so formal, admirable sir. The question then arises: are there any objective boundaries in this structure (do separate things exist), or are all boundaries merely arbitrary (separate things are an illusion; non-inherent existence)? I have argued at Genius Forum with Sue Hindmarsh that boundaries are not purely arbitrary, but are rather in a strong sense objective, being that for example physical objects have differing chemical compositions and can be considered to be somewhat objectively separate by virtue of the chemical boundary between each thing and the rest of its environment. Sue's response, after a couple of question/answer posts, was to argue that "separate" things are actually entirely dependent upon their sets of causes (e.g. a cupboard is dependent on the wood in the trees from which it was created) and that any boundary that is drawn around these causes is entirely arbitrary. You imagine the universe and ask if it isn't real. What can I do but answer what I can imagine cannot be real. If you respond, 'I am not asking you to consider the universe but just an aspect of it and isn't that real?' then a second hand universe is not real, neither in its whole nor in its aspects. Yet even if we could in this discussion take an object and say 'observe here its boundaries why don't you', a carrot perhaps or a stick, it is we who are assigning it its boundaries in an inseparable process of boundary and boundary-maker. All boundaries are the products of human language. If you think your focus upon an object has the power to make that object separate from the universe, then you are fantasizing because you surely cannot prove it. You believe they are separate and you ask me also to believe it, but I am content to understand focus as a useful acquisition from evolution and to not try and make too much of it. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 44 (03/31/08 10:23 PM) |
I like formality sometimes due to the air of respect that it carries, but if you prefer me to be more casual, then you got it buddy!
What if what you're imagining corresponds to something in external reality?
I try not to assert that I have proved anything, because it's such a bold claim. I thought, though, that I had at least demonstrated it in my discussion of chemical/phase boundaries. You didn't respond to that argument. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 17 (03/31/08 10:54 PM) |
That's because he's sharpening an objectively separate Zen stick to poke you in the eye with. You'll need these
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3115 (03/31/08 11:03 PM) sui generis |
Dan Rowden wrote: Ah yes the groovy glasses. We just need to get you a gg badge and you're set.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3116 (03/31/08 11:24 PM) sui generis |
You're imagining an object and imagining correspondence to an external reality you are also imagining. All of this is within the field of language.
'... a second hand universe is not real, neither in its whole nor in its aspects.'
You demonstrated (second-hand) focus on an object but did you in any way prove that objects exist independently or separately? Boundaries - amply discussed
- are the products of focus. You are certainly answered in 'You believe they are separate ...' You believe that the chemical constituencies of objects
make them separate from all other objects and while there are certainly worse beliefs they are all fictions. If an object has chemical constituencies how is it
separate from all the other chemical constituencies of all the other objects? What do you answer, 'But I'm measuring this one!' What you did fail
to answer is that of an object '... it is we who are assigning it its boundaries in an inseparable process of boundary and boundary-maker.' There is
focus and he who focuses, both necessary in human evolution, but he who believes his focus is magic is not.
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 19 (04/01/08 01:47 AM) |
Laird needs to show that "separation" means more than simple spatial distance. I went outside today and felt the sun, which they say is
149,597,870,691 ± 30 metres away. So far and yet so near.
|
||
|
vinny the hack |
|||
|
Posts: 1465 (04/01/08 02:24 AM) Administrunktorbot |
Once, this guy complained that the sun was in his eyes. I said "It can't be. It's up there".
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3120 (04/01/08 02:31 AM) sui generis |
I should have one of the enlightened sockpuppets say, 'That man is good'.
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 20 (04/01/08 02:54 AM) |
Thanks.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3122 (04/01/08 03:13 AM) sui generis |
Oh you too, Dan.
|
||
|
vinny the hack |
|||
|
Posts: 1469 (04/01/08 03:18 AM) Administrunktorbot |
That reminds me. I sent Robbydharma a msg today. Something along the lines "That man is good".
|
||
|
Robbydharma |
|||
|
Posts: 7 (04/01/08 03:28 AM) No Holiness |
I am one of the enlightened sockpuppets, and that man is good.
So is Rowden. |
||
|
B O Krishnamurti |
|||
|
Posts: 4 (04/01/08 03:35 AM) Anti-gurus' Guru |
I am the other enlightened socksuppet and you have the better avatar.
|
||
|
Lydia Knightjoy |
|||
|
Posts: 8 (04/01/08 03:51 AM) |
I am neither enlightened nor a sock puppet, but that Vinny is a good man.
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 21 (04/01/08 03:54 AM) |
But Ms Knightjoy, you must be enlightened, you're missing the "i".
|
||
