I am not currently enrolled in or formally practicing Zen meditation under a teacher, which is the only context within which koan practice is meaningful.

I am not currently enrolled in or formally practicing Zen meditation under a teacher, which is the only context within which koan practice is meaningful. — Wayfarer

Oh, I see. A teacher must earn faer keep too. Is there no possibility of doing koan practice one one's own - go solo with koans so to speak?

Why don't we two, if you're up to it, analyze the notion of Satori (sudden enlightenment) against the backdrop of koans (paradoxes) and epiphanies (Eureka moments)?

For my money, Satori is - bottom line - an epiphany but it differs from other epiphanies in scale and thus grandeur. Archimdes' Eureka moment, though a great scientific feat, is restricted to a particular area of knowing which is, if you'd like to know, buoyancy. Satori, on the other hand, is the mother of all Eureka moments in that once one experiences that aha moment, everything, and I mean everything, will begin to make sense. Whatever truth or theory that Satori emobodies is the fountainhead of all knowledge and explanations. Up to this point it's been about the enlightenment aspect of Satori.

Satori also has to be sudden i.e. Satori shouldn't be attained by a long process involving chains of reasoning (sorites), each step carefully considered and reconsidered. Au contraire, Satori is supposed to be like a bolt from the blue, striking us, I gather, when we least expect it.

Given this is how Satori is conceived of, what role do koans play in all this? Koans, if Google is to be believed, are either paradoxical or are riddles sans solutions and therein, I suspect, lies the rub. Ask around and I bet you'll never find a person who has, in every sense of the word "figure", everything figured out. Why is this the case?

Firstly, what does it mean to figure things out? In the simplest sense, to figure things out means to comprehend things. Comprehension, insofar as current paradigms matter, has a lot to do with consistency and coherency. If anything is inconsistent/incoherent then, the received opinion is that it hasn't been understood. This is a big hint as to why a person, to quote myself, "...who has, in every sense of the word "figure", everything figured out." is nonexistent. The world is itself incoherent/inconsistent as indirectly evidenced by the absence of such a person.

Therefore, to my reckoning, if we are to aim for Satori, we should get to the heart of the matter - the underlying inconsistency/incoherency in our world - ASAP and that's what koans do. Koans, by, sometimes gently and other times cruelly, exposing us to incoherency and inconsistency, help us catch a glimpse of both the nature and magnitude of the problem on our hands - the problem of innate inconsistency or incoherency of the world.

Furthermore, it might even be true that koans are actually scaled-down models of our world, designed specifically to capture that one essential feature of the world that stands in the way of our efforts to comprehend (the world), that one essential feature being incoherency/inconsistency. That would mean that, ultimately, at the end of the day, all things considered, realizing this inherent inconsistency/incoherency is precisely what enlightenment is. The point of a koan then is not to kickoff a search among the students for a coherent answer but to make them realize the incoherent nature of our world. :chin:

Why don't we two, if you're up to it, analyze the notion of Satori (sudden enlightenment) against the backdrop of koans (paradoxes) and epiphanies (Eureka moments)? — TheMadFool

I don't know why but I really like speculating about this specifically so I'm going to chime in.

To start, our experience is always, and immediately filtered automatically by our brains. You can easily test this by trying to read what I am writing as individual letters without actually reading the words, or harder yet by trying to listen to what someone is saying without automatically understanding it.

All of these "models" we employ arise out of thin air spontaneously. They are sort of like Jordan Peterson's "Order" or the pragmatists' notions of how we think. We automatically filter experience so as to allow us to act. These filters or models are by nature fallible and are always intended for a particular purpose. If you are walking in a forest and you see a lion your brain will instantly make the distinction "Threat" and "Not threat" and will put the lion in the former. You can't just not see the Lion as a seperate thing from the background and you can't not see it as a threat (nor should you!)

We usually get attatched to these models. It is difficult for us to actively seek out alternative views or to seriously consider them because no one wants to be in the "pre-model" chaotic state. As far as I understand it Enlightenment or Satori is being able to see these models as they are, and not to grow attatched to them. It is to develop the ability to sit in this "pre-model" state (which is what I believe "Dao" is) and to understand that whatever model you employ to be able to act is not some objective infallible thing, and so not to grow attatched to it. Koans are trying to accomplish this by breaking the models. You come up with a hundered different "models" to explain the Koan which in turn shows you how inconsequential these models are, so you don't get attatched to them.

For perspecitve, the other way to deal with the chaotic "pre-model" state is to come up with the "perfect model". Some sort of "infallible knowledge" similar to what Descartes was trying to go for. These two ways are not contradictory. It's just that the more you fear uncertainty, the more angst you have, the more motivated you are to want the "pefect model" whereas if you are fine with uncertainty you will likely opt for a less rigorous model, as you won't need much more than that.

I've said this on another thread before, but it seems there is a big cultural rift between the East and West in this regard. In the East the primary way to deal with suffering is to learn to live with pain and uncertainty, in the West, the primary way is to try to get rid of them (heaven).

Thanks for your input but the question is, if we're trying to come up with a model of the world, what model fits the bill, comes up with the goods so to speak? I'm probably referring to that "perfect model" you're talking about. Either there is such a model or there is not. I'm going to bet that there isn't for the simple reason that if there were, it should've been made available to us, the more than willing audience. So, there is no "perfect model" that describes the world or predicts the future of this, our, world. Why, may I ask?

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment. — Wayfarer

Whatever epiphanies and enlightenment may be, I'm not claiming they are not real, as I'd have no way to know that. It seems reasonable that in this field, as in any other, there will be rare people out at the end of the talent bell curve who accomplish things not available to most of us. Mozart in music, Einstein in physics etc.

It may even be possible that such experiences, whatever they may be, are widely available in the appropriate situations. Again, I don't know, and am not arguing against the possibility.

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here.

As I've likely said too many times already, it seems to boil down to whether the problems we are addressing arise primarily from the content of thought, or the medium of thought.

To the degree the problems arise from bad philosophy, incorrect understandings etc, then philosophical fancy talk may prove useful.

My own inclination is that the primary source of such problems is the medium of thought itself. As evidence I would point to the universal nature of human suffering. To the degree this is true, then piling on more and more and more philosophical fancy talk may be like the alcoholic trying to cure his addiction with a case of scotch.

As example, imagine for a moment that it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that philosophy is a step backward in addressing these issues? What would be our response? If we were to choose to continue to do philosophy anyway, that would suggest it is the methodology of philosophy which is our priority and not the topic itself. There's no crime in that, but to the degree that were true, we shouldn't expect to make much meaningful progress on investigating the topic, as we're not really that interested in it.

As example, imagine for a moment that it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that philosophy is a step backward in addressing these issues? What would be our response? If we were to choose to continue to do philosophy anyway, that would suggest it is the methodology of philosophy which is our priority and not the topic itself. There's no crime in that, but to the degree that were true, we shouldn't expect to make much meaningful progress on investigating the topic, as we're not really that interested in it. — Hippyhead

I shouldn't have to point this out but there are various ways of investigating something, and investigation can be understood as something besides that which is investigated. Investigating a murder, for example, isn't necessarily committing murder, or philosophical discussion about ethics isn't necessarily practicing ethical conduct.

It's foolish to think that investigating something can't be beneficial to the practice of what's being investigated.

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. — Hippyhead

It's a philosophy forum.

The Piya Tan article you linked to above has a good brief account of the development of Koan. I learned from it that the Chinese name was derived from the ‘cases’ overseen by magistrates.

The point about ‘working with’ a koan is however that it fully occupies your attention for days or weeks of intensive contemplation. There’s no single outcome or answer, it’s not like a logical syllogism. Only the teacher is able to gauge the degree to which you’ve penetrated the meaning.

what does it mean to figure things out? — TheMadFool

The way I think of it is that scientific and mathematical hypotheses have a left-hand and right-hand side. On the left, the prediction, equation, hypothesis. On the right, the result, proof, observation. Of course the mathematical sciences have brought this technique to an amazingly high pitch. We all use it every moment of the day. But notice that the separation of knower and known, subject and object, is assumed or implicit in all such analyses.

But the scope of Buddhist enquiry is different - it concerns the factors that give rise to suffering, and the cessation of suffering, with a minute analysis of those factors as they arise in experience. In that sense it’s empirical, but very different to modern empiricism, because it’s also based on critical awareness of the operation of the six sense spheres and the underlying conditioning factors which cause our reaction to them. This is not ‘objective’ in the normal sense, but it’s also not ‘subjective’ in that it doesn’t only pertain to one person or another, as these processes are universal, they're the same for everyone. Hence the perceived connections between Buddhism and phenomenology, which is similarly about rigorous investigation of first-person experience.

But as far as 'realising Zen' is concerned, it is really a very difficult and elusive goal. I'm like a lot of people who read 'zen books' in my formative years, and felt it offfered a kind of short-cut to spiritual awareness. Alas, not. Which is not to say I haven't benefitted from studying it and from meditation, but it has to be admitted there's a lot of scope for self-delusion in such engagement and fulfilment of the goal is by no means certain.

this is worth a read.

Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army. — Harold Stewart

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here. — Hippyhead

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice. Then, also, it create an intellectual fog that any future practices must get through. The 'Oh, is this subject/object monism.' type internal commenting and expecting and incorrectly expecting as being like X, will get in the way of actually experiencing X.

It's foolish to think that investigating something can't be beneficial to the practice of what's being investigated. — praxis

Depends on the tradition and practices. In Buddhism, many of the forms, and nearly all of them in practice, there are warnings about being in your head, trying to understand things that one has not laid the meditative groundwork for, creating ideas of things one has not experienced. That these can be blocks, slow down advancement. There's also a huge aspect of hubris.

I’m pretty sure that most people understand that there’s a difference between “being in your head” and the various practices of meditation, and that a person can practice meditation for a time without being in their head and at other times think freely without practicing meditation.

I think it’s true that we can develop a habit of introspective thinking or self-conditioning that is not conducive to meditation, or rather, deep meditation, and that a sustained practice of mental austerity may be most conducive deep to meditation (samadhi, satori, realizing emptiness, or whatever). Nevertheless, there’s really no reason that investigating the practice can’t be beneficial, is there? Religious folk make all sorts of claims and warnings, many of which are known to be false.

Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold . . . — Harold Stewart

I was once told by a practitioner that there were several dogs beneath the thin floor of their meditation building that kept up a racket. They were told to get used to it. :smile:

I’m pretty sure that most people understand that there’s a difference between “being in your head” and the various practices of meditation, and that a person can practice meditation for a time without being in their head and at other times think freely without practicing meditation. — praxis

Yes, and if I'd said one cannot do both these things this would be a good point. The context of the thread is a Zen Story and what it means. In Zen you will not find it recommended, in fact you will find the opposite, that one sit around and discuss in abstract terms what stories mean that likely to not fit where you are in your process. You will find the other activities, the non-meditation practices or dailty activities, to be practical, grounded, and ones to focus one's attention on. Getting and preparting the food, for example, and being present for that. There are suggestions in every branch of Buddhism I've encountered to focus away from abstract thought and also there is this idea that doing so ABOUT the spiritual ideas and stages and meansing can interfere with growth.

Nevertheless, there’s really no reason that investigating the practice can’t be beneficial, is there? — praxis

I don't really see the type of discussion in this thread as investigating the practice. And sure, religious people can be be wrong, but implicit in most of the posts I read here is 'there is wisdom in this story, what is that wisdom?'. Well if the working assumption is that these guy have wisdom and the issue is what is the specific wisdom and at the same time these traditions recommend against precisely this sort of activity, to me it doesn't make sense. For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense.

Obviously people will do this, I can't stop them, and frankly I don't really want to. I'm not a fan of Buddhism, though I have a lot of experience with it. But, I wanted to point out the issue.

There are in fact a lot of subjects where if the idea in the background is 'this expert is wise' and then also, I am moving towards the goals of this expert, and the person is up in their head, there's a problem. All sorts of physical activities, from sports to carpentry, and then also all sorts of activities where you simply have to have built up knowledge to understand what you are talking about: particle physics, neuroscience, whatever. I think the talking and writing as if one knows or has the tools to understand is actually an obstacle. In Buddhism, well, they come right out and say this, especially in Zen.

It's a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

And so we can apply reason to the discussion, and inspect and challenge the value of philosophy for a particular task just as we would anything else. If philosophy itself is judged to be above challenge, then it's not a philosophy forum but a dogma forum.

I would certainly agree that no none is obligated to pursue such an approach, and that "to each their own" and "whatever works" are a good rules, but we can note for the record that it's possible to discuss such subjects without the philosophical fancy talk. Should we conclude the problem of human suffering arises more from the nature of thought than the content of thought, then this is more of a mechanical issue than it is a conceptual one.

It seems reasonable to view the mind as just one more organ of the body which requires ongoing management to operate at an optimal level, and such management can be approached in a purely mechanical manner. For example, overthinking can be regarded in much the same way we consider overeating, or under sleeping.

An obstacle to such a mechanical perspective is that it's not glamorous, and the pursuit of glamour is largely what philosophical fancy talk on such issues is really about. A philosophical approach to human suffering can make vague promises about all kinds of exalted states and permanent solutions sold by impressive authority figures claiming to be experts etc. A philosophical approach has an appealing ego feeding story line which a mechanical approach can't match.

To return to the philosophical approach, we might start by examining the evidence provided by the universal nature of human psychological suffering. If everyone suffers to some degree or another, doesn't that suggest that the primary source of such suffering is something all humans have in common? What could that be other than thought itself?

To return to the philosophical approach, we can ask what it is about the nature of thought that may make overthinking a source of suffering.

We can go round and round and round analyzing all of this for years, for centuries. Or, we could get serious.

The person who is dangerously overweight may wish to analyze what deep philosophical factors brought them to this point, and perhaps that could have value for some. But in the end, if they are serious, they're going to have to eat less, exercise more, or both.

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice. — Coben

From the mechanical perspective, the required understanding can be reached pretty much immediately through the use of common sense, by anyone who is at least a bit serious.

If eating too much is giving me indigestion, the solution is to eat less.

If thinking too much is making me nutty, the solution is to think less.

For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense. — Coben

This seems like a good solution. If a poster can state that their goal is not to solve a problem but rather to talk about it, ok, fair enough, go for it. If such a dividing line is made clear I withdraw all complaints and comments etc.

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. — Wayfarer

It can be argued that the reason that few of us ever learn how to forget about our self importance is that the self importance is built in to the nature of what we're made of psychologically, thought. It's proven remarkably difficult to think oneself out of an obsession with "me", probably because such thinking feeds the division machine which creates and sustains the "me".

As example, while Buddhism appears to be a sincere well intentioned attempt to transcend our obsession with "me", we can observe that Buddhist principles and practices appear to be overwhelmingly about "me and my situation, me and my situation, me and my situation".

In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards. — Wayfarer

In order to prove that this is possible, and scalable, it would be helpful to provide examples of those who have transcended the obsession with "me" by this method. While admitting vast ignorance of Buddhist culture, what I tend to see in all related traditions is that the acknowledged experts of a tradition are typically sitting on pillows in sheltered situations surrounded by adoring supporters. And you know, even I could appear transcendent in such favorable conditions.

If Buddhism is to be a kind of science and not just another dogma chanting religion, it would be very helpful if the experts of these methods would move out of the ashram, tell the adoring supporters to get lost, move in to a one bedroom apartment in a not so great part of town, and work 50 hours a week for minimum wage shoveling french fries at McDonalds. Their roommate should be a real scientist who carefully documents the emotional life of the Buddhist expert in such real world conditions. If the roommate could be an annoying sort of person that would add additional value to the experiment. :-)

I really don't think most Buddhist experts are scam artists. But it does seem reasonable to wonder why such experiments aren't a routine part of Buddhist culture.

I don't really see the type of discussion in this thread as investigating the practice. And sure, religious people can be be wrong, but implicit in most of the posts I read here is 'there is wisdom in this story, what is that wisdom?'. Well if the working assumption is that these guy have wisdom and the issue is what is the specific wisdom and at the same time these traditions recommend against precisely this sort of activity, to me it doesn't make sense. For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense. — Coben

There is just as much necessity to determine where the wise man goes wrong, as there is a necessity to follow the direction of the wise. No one is capable of perfection in guidance. Just because the person is wise, does not mean that we ought to mimic every action of the person, or follow every word. The wise, like the geniuses, are the ones who surpass the boundaries of existing knowledge, so it is very important to determine where they are wrong and where they are right in those endeavours. If our attitude is to think, Einstein said it, he's a genius therefore it must be correct, we will all be misled.

This is how philosophy proceeds, we look at the wisdom presented by the various respected philosophers (wise man), and discern correct from incorrect within those writings. And even if we look at the actions of various religious or mystical practices, as to whether, or whether not, to engage in them, we still must discern desirable from undesirable, just like we do with philosophical writings.

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. I hope that the presence of president Trump serves as a wakeup call, as to how deceptive this idea can be.

So if a wise man says to you "don't doubt my wisdom for it is true wisdom, therefore you ought not doubt it", and the man has proven himself to be truly wise, by amassing a multitude of followers, would you say that we ought not question that man's wisdom? Because this is what you appear to be saying.

There is just as much necessity to determine where the wise man goes wrong, as there is a necessity to follow the direction of the wise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I certainly could have missed it but that wasn't what I was reacting to in the thread. It seemed to be trying to find out what the wise person meant via symbols and metaphors in the story. .

No one is capable of perfection in guidance. Just because the person is wise, does not mean that we ought to mimic every action of the person, or follow every word. The wise, like the geniuses, are the ones who surpass the boundaries of existing knowledge, so it is very important to determine where they are wrong and where they are right in those endeavours. If our attitude is to think, Einstein said it, he's a genius therefore it must be correct, we will all be misled. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't make that assumption at all. But 1) it is one of the core ideas of Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, and again, it seemed like people were trying to glean the master's meaning, not to critique it.

This is how philosophy proceeds, we look at the wisdom presented by the various respected philosophers (wise man), and discern correct from incorrect within those writings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then someone could have said 'no, Buddhism is wrong about that, those recommendations are incorrect.' But that wasn't the response.

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. I hope that the presence of president Trump serves as a wakeup call, as to how deceptive this idea can be. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't presented this as a moral issue, nor, I think have the others. It seems to me a practical issue. If the goals of Buddism and this, is behavior X a good one. Buddhism itself suggests it is not effective and in fact it is counterproductive to X. Unless one is saying the Buddhism is wrong about that, it is odd to be on the one hand treating a story in a sense as scripture while at the same time ignoring what the same sources say about analyzing and abstracting and focusing on mental verbal thinking.

So if a wise man says to you "don't doubt my wisdom for it is true wisdom, therefore you ought not doubt it", and the man has proven himself to be truly wise, by amassing a multitude of followers, would you say that we ought not question that man's wisdom? Because this is what you appear to be saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's not what I am saying. I think the above should make clear what I am saying. In a context where people are treating something as authority and trying to work out what it means, it seems odd to me that what they are doing goes against those same authorities without at least, at the same time saying they are not authorities to be completely trusted. They would also, it seems to me, say why they trust the wisdom of the story, but have decided the Buddhism is incorrect on other issues. It's a bit like if I find a group of people treating a teaching story of Ghandi as total authority while at the same time advocating hitting people who disagree. I would immediately want, in that situation to say, Hey, you are treating G as an authority while ignoring an even more to G idea around non-violence. It seemed to me Ghandi was saying that non-violence is not only a more moral approach but a more practical one. If you think his other story is correct and threat it like scripture, why are you ignoring his core idea. And honestly are you in a place to judge either one yet?

But sure, if someone had said. Oh, the teaching stories have wisdom I trust, but that stuff in Buddhism about avoiding thinking about states and processes and getting bogged down in abstract ideas about practice there the Buddhists were wrong. Fine. Then they have taken a stand against a portion of Buddhism, not implicitly like they have here, but explicitly. Now one can ask, so 'why do you think the wisdom in that story is correct or correct for you and what you want?'

There's a cake and eat it too happening here.

Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations.

Isn't the old master attempting to hand Shoju a badge of authority? Shoju seems to take a purest position by throwing the badge of authority in the fire.

Is the old master perhaps wiser than the story suggests? Does the old master realistically recognize that if a teacher is to have any students they must put on some kind of show to attract the students, because the students are after all students, and not themselves masters.

And so the teacher says something like, "I am a great master and I will teach you how become something grand and glorious etc etc" Grand and glorious sounds appealing to the "everything is all about me" students, so they gather round and give the teacher their attention.

Hopefully somewhere down the road the master weens the students of these becoming trips, but before that can happen the students have to be reached where they currently are so that they will listen to the master.

This is an argument with my own positions. Like Shoju I tend to gravitate towards the purest positions, but the survival of the major religions over thousands of years is pretty strong evidence that a certain amount of show business is an essential ingredient of the stew.

I certainly could have missed it but that wasn't what I was reacting to in the thread. It seemed to be trying to find out what the wise person meant via symbols and metaphors in the story. . — Coben

You must have missed my posts then. I was trying to determine whether the person's action, of burning the book, demonstrated a valid point. First I said the successor was wrong to burn the book, because as a symbol, the book was necessary to transmit meaning, regardless of whether the meaning is directly represented by the symbol as in the case of literal language. But then I reconsidered, and concluded that this idea was just part of my western attitude, and the influence of semiotics, the notion that all instances of meaning require signs or symbols, as a language. Then I realized the vast multitude of meaningful acts, agricultural production, labour in general, and creation, which are meaningful acts, and are fulfilled without the need for signs or symbols.

I haven't presented this as a moral issue, nor, I think have the others. It seems to me a practical issue. If the goals of Buddism and this, is behavior X a good one. Buddhism itself suggests it is not effective and in fact it is counterproductive to X. Unless one is saying the Buddhism is wrong about that, it is odd to be on the one hand treating a story in a sense as scripture while at the same time ignoring what the same sources say about analyzing and abstracting and focusing on mental verbal thinking. — Coben

You cannot divorce any practical issue from morality. Any practical question involves issues of right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, and these are all ultimately grounded in morality. That's what Aristotle demonstrated. Any means itself is an end, but also, any end can be viewed as a means to a further end, until you get to the ultimate end, which he posited as happiness. Therefore, ultimately only moral principles can determine whether behaviour X is a good one. The Buddhist seems to be saying that we cannot resort to scripture or language in any form, (these being always a means to a further end), to provide such guidance. Of course, we cannot refute this by applying principles based in words, because that would be begging the question. So only by turning to the practice itself can we determine its moral character. But that's already consistent with good ethics anyway. It's what Plato insisted, judge the action, not the narrative.

No, that's not what I am saying. I think the above should make clear what I am saying. In a context where people are treating something as authority and trying to work out what it means, it seems odd to me that what they are doing goes against those same authorities without at least, at the same time saying they are not authorities to be completely trusted. They would also, it seems to me, say why they trust the wisdom of the story, but have decided the Buddhism is incorrect on other issues. It's a bit like if I find a group of people treating a teaching story of Ghandi as total authority while at the same time advocating hitting people who disagree. I would immediately want, in that situation to say, Hey, you are treating G as an authority while ignoring an even more to G idea around non-violence. It seemed to me Ghandi was saying that non-violence is not only a more moral approach but a more practical one. If you think his other story is correct and threat it like scripture, why are you ignoring his core idea. And honestly are you in a place to judge either one yet? — Coben

This is the subject matter of hypocrisy, and it is not a simple field of study. I think that you are intentionally making it even more complex in the way that you portray Buddhism. I think you represent Buddhism as intrinsically incoherent in relation to hypocrisy, as unknowingly promoting the sort of activity which they say ought to be avoided. However, if the point is to deny the authority of words, then the saying that the authority of words ought to be avoided, itself must be disqualified. So for example, the master might present you with a story in words, and tell you not to think about anything presented in words. You see the inherent hypocrisy? But since both are presented in words, the story, and the instruction not to think about the story, the student has the choice of which to reject. Or, the student can reject Buddhism altogether, as hypocritically incoherent. But that's just a feature of your representation. Anytime you use words to represent philosophical principles which advocate transmission of meaning without the use of words, hypocrisy cannot be avoided. In reality, it is more evident that what Buddhism advocates is to accept the meaningful act for what it is, a meaningful act. But since such acts are prioritized in relation to importance, we cannot necessarily hand priority to the acts which use words. But in no way does this necessitate that we ignore the meaning of acts using words, as it does not exclude them from the classification of meaningful act.

However, if the point is to deny the authority of words, then the saying that the authority of words ought to be avoided, itself must be disqualified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and then the entire house of cards collapses, and we are left with nothing.

In my mind at least, it seems relevant that the vast majority of reality at every scale consists of space, that which we commonly refer to as nothing. Thus, a philosophy which has succeeded in destroying itself, a philosophy which has become nothing, might be considered a philosophy well aligned with the nature of reality. And isn't that generally the bottom line goal of philosophy?

Philosophers might be compared to astronomers. Astronomers are typically focused on physical things, while philosophers are typically focused on conceptual things. In both cases most of the attention is aimed at that which makes up the tiniest fraction of the picture. As example, the space which separates the above words from each other is essential and dominates this page, but is taken for granted and deemed not worthy of mention.

Why is our attention drawn away from the vast majority of reality and towards the tiniest fraction? Why the compelling preference for something over nothing?

We are made of thought. Thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects. We are a thing making machine.

This is not ‘objective’ in the normal sense, but it’s also not ‘subjective’ in that it doesn’t only pertain to one person or another, as these processes are universal, they're the same for everyone — Wayfarer

The logico-epistemological format of this sentence which you employ often, almost all the time, is intriguing to say the least.

You said, "this is not objective...but it's also not subjective..." Subjective is the opposite of objective, in fact they're contradictory. Suppose that O = it's objective; then ~O = it's not objective= it's subjective

The trademark logico-epistemological format of Buddhism is expressed in the statement ~O & ~~O = Neither O Nor Not O = Neither is it objective Nor is it Not objective = "this is not objective...but it's also not subjective..." [your words]. This is the so-called Middle-Path or in Sanskrit, Madhyamaka achieved by what is known as double refutation; as you can see O has been refuted and ~O too has been refuted in ~O & ~~O. It must take constant training and mindfulness to maintain this logico-epistemological stance and I commend you on it. As far as I can tell, it's become somewhat of a habit with your good self. Congratulations if you treat that as an achievement.

The Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path is reportedly achieved through Nagarjuna's Tetralemma aka Fourfold Indeterminacy (Pyrrhonism) and it's here that I face difficulty because I couldn't arrive at the ~O & ~~O position [neither is nor not is, the essence of the Middle-Path] despite multiple attempts at logically manipulating the 4 propositions of Nagarjuna's tetralemma.

According to Pyrrhonism and Nagarjuna, given a proposition p, there are only 4 possibilities
1. p [p]
2. ~p [not p]
3. p & ~p [p and not p]
4. ~(p v ~p) [neither p nor not p]

Nagarjuna denies/rejects all 4 possibilities and so,

1. p.............................................................NO! So, ~p [not p]
2. ~p...........................................................NO! So, ~~p [not not p]
3. p & ~p.....................................................NO! So, ~p & ~~p [neither p nor not p]
4. ~p & ~~p = ~(p v ~p)..............................NO! So, p & ~p [p and not p]

By denying all 4 possibilities, Nagarjuna effectively renders both a proposition and its negation as errors. Given a proposition p, Nagarjuna's stance would be, neither p nor not p. In two-valued logic i.e. one in which there are only two truth-values T and F, neither p nor not p would violate the law of the excluded middle (p v ~p) because neither p nor not p is equivalent to [~(p v ~p)] and that is just another way of saying that there's a third option in addition to p and ~p which, as far as I can see, is what Madhyamaka means.

What is this third option? Well when we deny the the law of the excluded middle, in classical logic we get a contradiction like so, ~(p v ~p) = (~p & ~~p) = (p & ~p) and that's why, my intuition suggests, Zen Buddhism, koans and all, is about paradoxes which are, all things considered, contradictions or, at the very least, attempts at contradictions.

What say you?

The context of the thread is a Zen Story and what it means. In Zen you will not find it recommended, in fact you will find the opposite, that one sit around and discuss in abstract terms what stories mean that likely to not fit where you are in your process. You will find the other activities, the non-meditation practices or dailty activities, to be practical, grounded, and ones to focus one's attention on. Getting and preparting the food, for example, and being present for that. There are suggestions in every branch of Buddhism I've encountered to focus away from abstract thought and also there is this idea that doing so ABOUT the spiritual ideas and stages and meansing can interfere with growth. — Coben

I think you know that this isn't really true because in all the activities that you list you've neglected to mention things dharma talks and the like, which are quite abstract and full of spiritual ideas. There may be some really austere Zen temples in the world but they're rare, and even so, must still be replete with abstract religious thought, because an essential feature of religion is meaning. Religious clergy of any tradition must supply meaning in the form of abstract spiritual ideas.

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would go a step further and say that individual moral development is suppressed because moral development leads to independence.

From the mechanical perspective, the required understanding can be reached pretty much immediately through the use of common sense, by anyone who is at least a bit serious.

If eating too much is giving me indigestion, the solution is to eat less.

If thinking too much is making me nutty, the solution is to think less. — Hippyhead

The problem with relying on common sense is that it can be dangerously simplistic.

We are social beings with the capacity of reason, which means that we must necessarily apply reason to social living, and therefore in order to live well we must develop our reasoning. Trained animals do fit in society, but they can cause a lot of trouble if mismanaged or if conditions change.

I think you know that this isn't really true because in all the activities that you list you've neglected to mention things dharma talks and the like, which are quite abstract and full of spiritual ideas. — praxis

The ones I have sat through - and I am quite sure this is standard practice - were 1) moving often from the abstract to the concrete and 2) led by experienced teachers and 3) it was meant to be tailor-fit to the specific listeners - their level in terms of meditation and focus, where they were in the process. Not, for example, like what is happening in this thread. Number two and three are built into the system. I would guess that number 1 is also.

Religious clergy of any tradition must supply meaning in the form of abstract spiritual ideas. — praxis

Sure, under, in this case, what they consider well controlled and guided circumstances and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid.

And heck, I'll throw out another problem in a Zen context for analysing stories. In the West we have a container model of language. The communication contains the truth. In Zen the point of stories is what they ELICIT. And that's why level of listener and setting are so important. It's not what the story means, it's what hearing the story does - which may include the meanings in the tools that elicit.

You get the 'right answer' or 'right interpretation' in words in your head and that may very likely be an obstacle.

Anything worthwhile about religions relates to the idea of transcending self, which is a lot harder to do than to say. — Wayfarer

We haven't yet demonstrated that transcending self is even possible, except perhaps for a tiny few who are so rare as to be largely irrelevant. It seems that before we invest many more centuries in discussing the transcendence of self it would be rational for someone to provide some compelling evidence such a thing is possible, and scalable to more than a rare few.

It seems far more rational and serious to focus on managing the reality of self. But such a topic isn't that glamorous, so let's just forget it and get back to the fun fancy talk.

The fact that transcending the self is so elusive could be quite instructive, as it suggests the primary obstacle lies not in the content of thought (that which can be changed) but rather in the nature of thought (that which can not be changed). This is actually good news (except for philosophers) as thought itself can be managed by relatively simple mechanical means.

Self is a pattern of habits, associations, graspings, ideas, and judgements - a cultural construct, a psychological mechanism, and the centre of our imaginary world. — Wayfarer

And it is this same collection of graspings which urges us to go to war with what we're made of, to try to overcome and defeat it. We're like the silly person looking for the magic food that once eaten will forever end our physical hunger.

Seeing through that, letting go of it, surpassing it, is certainly the aim of Zen. — Wayfarer

And so, to be credible, Zen teachers bear the burden of demonstrating that reaching such a goal is possible. We can gauge the degree to which Zen teachers believe in the value of their methods by how seriously they are attempting to meet that burden. I don't claim to know what efforts are being made to provide such evidence and would welcome education on that point.

....and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid. — Coben

It's the ill who typically show up at the hospital.

So it seems it would often be chronic overthinkers who have suffered from that excess who would go looking for solutions, and perhaps wind up on the Zen teacher's doorstep. If there is a big sign posted on that door that says "NO THINKING ALLOWED!" then the student will likely turn away because, as an overthinker, they have a thousand questions which they probably feel the need to analyze.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling.

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat.

I'll throw out another problem in a Zen context for analysing stories. In the West we have a container model of language. The communication contains the truth. In Zen the point of stories is what they ELICIT. And that's why level of listener and setting are so important. It's not what the story means, it's what hearing the story does - which may include the meanings in the tools that elicit.

You get the 'right answer' or 'right interpretation' in words in your head and that may very likely be an obstacle. — Coben

Insight or intuition is highly valued in Zen, if that's what you're essentially referring to, but it's hardly alien to the West. If you're talking about koans, I don't know much about them. I understand them to be a form of contemplation (meditation).