From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 00:35:16 BST
Scott and Steve,
Scott: “In contrast to this, the "rigorous rationalism" is about using
reason deliberately to work out for oneself certain Buddhist truths, namely,
that of emptiness in all things, that all things are what they are due to
dependent co-origination, not through inherent self-existence. So it is not
a matter of suppressing thought, nor of "just let[ting] it float on like a
cloud", but active reasoning.”
I can agree with you, if I understand correctly. I see that contemplation of
Buddhist truths can guide one to find the “emptiness in all things”
material, psychological, social and cultural. In this manner, I see a ‘zen’
realization as transcending the control these realities can have on the
person by realizing that we give these institutions control and power
ourselves. Transcendence, would therefore, be the ‘art’ of living counter to
all forms of oppression (present or impending), which, in part, is to learn
to live actively rather than re-actively, through affirmation rather than
bad conscience, to affirm the multiple over the solitary, the organic over
the manufactured.
Just some thoughts,
Max
>From: "Scott Roberts" < >
>Reply-To:
>To: < >
>Subject: Re: MD Zen & Reason
>Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:30:23 -0600
>
>Steve,
>
>I'm not sure if you saw my last post to Ant McWatt, but it addresses this
>question. In particular, I quoted Robert Magliola:
>
>"The nature and history of the ... koan, for example, is subject to great
>academic controversy, with some researchers claiming it operates quite
>purely in Nagarjuna's mode, viz., a rigorous rationalism whereby logic
>cancels itself out -- leaving devoidness to lapse (slide) by, interminably;
>and others seeing it as operative in a Yogacaric mode, as an intuitionism,
>so the monk does *not* through the assiduous use of reason *deduce*
>self-contradiction, but rather *transcends* reason "in a flash"."
>
>Pirsig is clearly on the side of the latter interpretation, while I have
>been arguing for the former interpretation (which I call employing the
>logic of contradictory identity). But it should be noted that this is
>considerably different from your description:
>
>"In practicing I was told that, if I became aware of a thought, to justice
>notice it without 'thinking' it, to just let it float on like a cloud. And
>the next and the next. If one was to strive to cease thinking one thinks
>all the more."
>
>In contrast to this, the "rigorous rationalism" is about using reason
>deliberately to work out for oneself certain Buddhist truths, namely, that
>of emptiness in all things, that all things are what they are due to
>dependent co-origination, not through inherent self-existence. So it is not
>a matter of suppressing thought, nor of "just let[ting] it float on like a
>cloud", but active reasoning.
>
>Now there is, as Magliola later notes, not much of this attitude in Zen
>these days, and whether there was in earlier times is subject to debate.
>However, this "rigorous rationalism" is certainly alive and well in the
>Gelukba strain (which the Dalai Lama heads) of Tibetan Buddhism
>
>- Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis
> To: MOQ
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:59 PM
> Subject: MD Zen & Reason
>
>
> Greeting All,
>
> I can see we have some pretty knowledgeable people here who may know
>something about Zen.
>
> That Zen is anti-cognitive seems to me too simplistic. Could this be
>image be grafted on due to our own rejection of square classical reasoning
>in the 60s?
>
> My reading and experience with meditation suggest that thinking is not
>somehow bad, but that attachment to our thoughts might not be preferable.
>In practicing I was told that, if I became aware of a thought, to justice
>notice it without 'thinking' it, to just let it float on like a cloud. And
>the next and the next. If one was to strive to cease thinking one thinks
>all the more.
>
> It is these individual thoughts that clutter up the mind and interfere
>with both voracity and prejudice free reasoning.
>
> Thinking patterns are habitual, actually pathways of neurons in the mind
>such that with each repetition the same pathway is easier and easier to
>use. If that's true, then we become, over time, incapable of developing
>new responses for our resources are all tied up with our habits of thinking
>(the full teacup). A 'free' person, IMO is one who has the maximum
>resources available for the moment and that must mean little to no
>preconceptions. it is these preconceptions, these habits of thinking, that
>Zen's techniques are trying to disrupt, is it not?
>
> If we develop 'suspension of judgment to such a degree that we do not
>form habits of thinking with each new experience would it not follow that
>we have actually maximized our reasoning potential, not got rid of it?
>
> Live well,
> Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 00:52:49 BST