For those interested, I am posting an email dialogue Ken and I shared after the last meeting. I have written Ken's words in black and mine in red. After explaining that I did not take his comments personally but rather that I was poking fun at myself, the following perspectives were shared. Anyone having comments about our comments are encouraged to post them. If you have trouble doing so, please contact Nadine for all technical assistance.
Hello Bob,
I have been thinking about your comment of my astute observation. It was not aimed at you and I am sorry if that was implied.
What I was inarticulately trying to say is something that I learned many years ago when I worked at a science museum and had to try and explain complex stuff (lasers, holograms, biodiversity, AID’s, simple machines, dinosaurs, climate, DNA...) to the general public. The lesson was to try and explain everything in as simple a language as possible considering that the general public has a seventh grade reading and vocabulary level. Its tough but it is possible to explain the most complex and arcane topic, and avoid jargon, undefined words and concepts and ambiguity. I think the same communications concepts apply to philosophy.
I would agree that in order to explain complex ideas to people who have little or no knowledge about the subject, it is imperative that the explanation be simplified and given in terms with which they are familiar.
I have one caveat however that may or may not be salient. When we are dealing with an explanation for something that is part of a larger, more general subject, and is somewhat familiar to the audience (like science for instance), we can draw from ideas or aspects of that familiar subject matter in order to elucidate some arcane subject within it. This situation lends itself more easily to finding terms or ideas that are somewhat familiar to the average listener and will act as a bridge to the more difficult.
The problem I think becomes more difficult when we are trying to address issues or subjects that are not subject to the scientific process, i.e. those metaphysical in nature. This is also what happens when we encounter terminology from different languages and cultures which point to something that might, or might not, have a word in the English language, or is not part of the lexicon of science. Oneness comes to mind here, which actually points to something that we can easily extrapolate from the results of accepted scientific process. More on that below.
I believe that Buddhism and Zen are like other fields of human endeavor in that it is easy to get the impression that things are more difficult and complex than they actually are. I am sure that coincidently this also benefits the teaching and book writing folks. While it may not be their goal to be obtuse, it may not be in their interest to be otherwise. In some cases complexity is associated with importance and the dharma is considered very important, so it must be complex. If we told people it was simple (which I think it is) the fear is that most folks would take that as meaning trivial.
I agree one-hundred percent with what you have said here. In the world of money, power, and prestige the human tendency is to create a situation where there is only a privileged, or erudite few who can understand. However, I don't see this as being the case with Taoist or Buddhist basic tenets and of course the highly vaunted Zen to which I am so attracted.
The subtlety is that the concepts are simple and should (can?) be stated in simple terms, but the difficulty is completely integrating them into life, at a level that becomes second nature.
I do agree that the difficulty of integation is the major obstacle and for the most part the simplicity of the 4 Noble Truths and what they point to is much easier to understand than to implement into daily life.
However, I also think that for people with different modes of expression and understanding, there needs to be more in the way of explanation for them to reach the point where they can accept the teachings as worthy of integration. Now that's a very clumsy way of saying what I'm meaning here, but that further points to why some explanations are too simple to be taken seriously for some minds.
I personally don't value anything just because it is complicated or difficult to understand. I value highly some very simple scientific notions but they do not necessarily answer questions that gnaw at me and scream for answers.
I find that integration requires understanding first, and there are some things that Zen writings make clear for me but only after much work. And my type of "work" is not needed by everyone; it's not enjoyed by everyone, and it is in no way to be construed as being any more enlightening than someone elses belief system. We all have a "way" that is dictated by our history and the particulars of each person's biology.
I find it hard to understand that concepts about the perception of reality should be so obscure as to be difficult to explain. Maybe I am just missing the point.
I don't know what point it is you might be missing but let me ask some questions that are of the "gnawing" type for me and seem not to be explained in simple terms. Perhaps you can help me see it another way.
1. Scientifically speaking we can agree (I think) that our world of vision is only partial within certain parameters dictated my our brain chemistry, as is the case for all our senses. If I accept this as fact, then two possibilites seem to arise;
a) what we sense is not ultimate reality because science has shown us that there is more beyond our natural ability to apprehend. It is partially real at best
- or-
b) science lies.
Now, if I choose to believe a) then how will I be able talk about, theorize about, or come to understand or know all that lies beyond our biology?
Enter the world of Zen.
It seems to me that if I must use familiar terms to describe what is now only a theory or an "imagining," I will be accused of obfuscation (for instance; self, or Self, or real-self). On the other hand, if I make up a new word for the subject of my theory, I will be further impaled on the stake of mysticism or new age fuzzy thinking at best.
So, let me ask this; if one understands Dependent-Arising as the inter-relation of all things in the ongoing creation-destruction process which is our universe, how much simpler could it be than to use the term "Oneness" as a metaphor representing that overall process?
And if I can understand Oneness as simply a name signifying the totality that it points to, why would it be confusing to understand that there was a culture that used the term TAO to represent that very same idea. And if this is accepted as possible, is it not a somewhat simple stretch (though again seemingly difficult) to understand what is pointed to in the statement, "the tao that can be named is not the true tao." That is, if I have a word that "stands for," (represents, points to) the totality of everything (all-things)......does it not make sense that "it" (the word that functions only as a "finger pointing") could not possibly be the real or actual totality itself?
The "map is not the territory" catches my meaning here, but the Taoist phraseology is part of a different culture and a broader issue, or subject, that is even more nebulous to our way of thinking about life.
The "work" I referred to earlier is, for me, the path by which I can integrate the notion of interconnectedness which leads me to compassion. It is a term (work) that I use to represent an actual process of wrestling with terminology and ideas in order to become less self-centered or perhaps one might say "ego-oriented" depending on how they process the same confusing writings. I don't think anything here is intentionally abstruse....it's the nature of the subject.
If you can help me explain more simply the ideas represented here, I would be very grateful and bow at the feet of simplicity?
I think I've gone off again into that fuzzy thinking you abhor but it is so clear to me, that I can't seem to avoid it. But my last - (I know, thank god!) - point - (if I've made any at all so far) is that none of this, as far as I can see, is equivalent to intentional obfuscation or the human need for money, power, or one-up-man-ship. Thank you so much for sharing your vision and understanding.
And now your dissection is eagerly awaited.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Topic for January Has Arrived
Constance chose Metta as the topic for our January meeting and has offered the following information to direct our attention to our own personal relationship to Loving Kindness.
Specific to our meeting, we might consider what Loving Kindness means for us personally, what place it occupies in our lives, how we nurture it, and what benefits we may have received as a result.
- Metta -- loving kindness -- is one of the "Four Immeasurables" or Four Divine States of Buddhism.
- These are mental states or qualities cultivated by Buddhist practice. The other three are compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.
- Metta is sometimes translated as "compassion," in the Pali language. Karuna connotes active sympathy and gentle affection and is manifested in the Bodhisattva's willingness to bear the pain of others.
- Metta is a benevolence toward all beings that is free of selfish attachment.
- By practicing metta, a Buddhist overcomes anger, ill will, hatred and aversion.
Specific to our meeting, we might consider what Loving Kindness means for us personally, what place it occupies in our lives, how we nurture it, and what benefits we may have received as a result.
For those interested in the Sharon Salzberg's thoughts on the subject you can read her book titled Loving Kindness, or simply read an excerpt from that work at the website below:
Sunday, December 19, 2010
December Synopsis
We all enjoyed another spirited meeting. Special thanks were in order as we took a moment to reflect on the season. I will take this as another opportunity to tell you all how much our meetings mean to me. They are a very important part of my practice. And I respect each of you as teachers as well as fellow travelers. I consider myself honored and extremely blessed to have you all as my friends.
Nadine began the discussion by reiterating our topic and offering personal examples. She brought out the importance of recognizing that the idea of "letting go" is but one aspect of a three part process. A process that can be understood by having a solid grasp of impermanence as the fondation on our intellectual, as well as material, existence.
First we need to recognize our reactions (anger, fear, etc.) to what is presented to us, and then we must "let go" of the emotional or judgmental component of our reaction, and finally, with the resulting openness or objectivity that arises, we can skillfully decide on an action based on the issue and not attachment to our emotions or intellectual stories about the issue.
Ken pointed out - astutely I might add - that I tend toward what appears to be obfuscating explanations for simple ideas. With that in mind I offer what may be a more concise sentence; we let go of emotional baggage so a solution can be seen based on the issue and not my feelings about it.
The issue of self and real-self was brought up with regard to those aspects of ourselves that we are aware or conscious of, versus those that we come to know only when we are elightened by others observations. This brought observations about the notion of a metaphoric "psychological" versus a "spiritual" self in the literature. Specifically, the self being synonymous with the psychological construct called the ego and the real-self (or Self) being understood as being akin to the idea of "cosmic unconscious," or Buddha Nature, or Oneness, depending on one's spiritual proclivities: all of which point us to the interconnectedness which is our true nature. A reminder that words are all simply metaphors; fingers pointing to the moon.
Mary Ann once again shared her heart in the following poem which beautifully embodies both the place and the process.
How much we are blessed!
The Practice
The Practice isn’t David Kelley’s creation!
Its practitioners meet at Ginny’s and Claudine’s, a shrine where the outdoors breathes indoors.
Large trees hug the parameters.
Talk grows in the air, fast forwards and reverses.
The practice has become a home for the heart of matters - an attempt to iron out the creases of the soul in thoughtful action.
It’s another name for love in action, authentic in deed and word.
Practice is sitting with thought, bowing in prayer, walking to faith.
The road home is on the way.
The path is the practice.
It holds the tears, the joy, the open air balloon that sails next to the puffy clouds aside the lark’s nest.
It opens the windows of gratitude and compassion.
Love just naturally grows from the practice.
Thanks Ginny, Claudine, Nadine, Bob , Elizabeth, Mary, Ken, Constance, and Mary Beth, for adding a new dimension to my practice.
I find healing in our Sunday shrine.
Mary Ann Weatherman 12/19/10
And thank you, Mary Ann, for so open and offering your self to us through your beautiful writings.
We decided the next meeting will be on January 16th and the topic is forthcoming and will be forwarded as soon as it arrives.
I will continue to dialogue with the Chapel Hill Zen Center regarding our visit and will pass on information as it arrives.
May you all have a safe and rewarding holiday season.
Nadine began the discussion by reiterating our topic and offering personal examples. She brought out the importance of recognizing that the idea of "letting go" is but one aspect of a three part process. A process that can be understood by having a solid grasp of impermanence as the fondation on our intellectual, as well as material, existence.
First we need to recognize our reactions (anger, fear, etc.) to what is presented to us, and then we must "let go" of the emotional or judgmental component of our reaction, and finally, with the resulting openness or objectivity that arises, we can skillfully decide on an action based on the issue and not attachment to our emotions or intellectual stories about the issue.
Ken pointed out - astutely I might add - that I tend toward what appears to be obfuscating explanations for simple ideas. With that in mind I offer what may be a more concise sentence; we let go of emotional baggage so a solution can be seen based on the issue and not my feelings about it.
The issue of self and real-self was brought up with regard to those aspects of ourselves that we are aware or conscious of, versus those that we come to know only when we are elightened by others observations. This brought observations about the notion of a metaphoric "psychological" versus a "spiritual" self in the literature. Specifically, the self being synonymous with the psychological construct called the ego and the real-self (or Self) being understood as being akin to the idea of "cosmic unconscious," or Buddha Nature, or Oneness, depending on one's spiritual proclivities: all of which point us to the interconnectedness which is our true nature. A reminder that words are all simply metaphors; fingers pointing to the moon.
Mary Ann once again shared her heart in the following poem which beautifully embodies both the place and the process.
How much we are blessed!
The Practice
The Practice isn’t David Kelley’s creation!
Its practitioners meet at Ginny’s and Claudine’s, a shrine where the outdoors breathes indoors.
Large trees hug the parameters.
Talk grows in the air, fast forwards and reverses.
The practice has become a home for the heart of matters - an attempt to iron out the creases of the soul in thoughtful action.
It’s another name for love in action, authentic in deed and word.
Practice is sitting with thought, bowing in prayer, walking to faith.
The road home is on the way.
The path is the practice.
It holds the tears, the joy, the open air balloon that sails next to the puffy clouds aside the lark’s nest.
It opens the windows of gratitude and compassion.
Love just naturally grows from the practice.
Thanks Ginny, Claudine, Nadine, Bob , Elizabeth, Mary, Ken, Constance, and Mary Beth, for adding a new dimension to my practice.
I find healing in our Sunday shrine.
Mary Ann Weatherman 12/19/10
And thank you, Mary Ann, for so open and offering your self to us through your beautiful writings.
We decided the next meeting will be on January 16th and the topic is forthcoming and will be forwarded as soon as it arrives.
I will continue to dialogue with the Chapel Hill Zen Center regarding our visit and will pass on information as it arrives.
May you all have a safe and rewarding holiday season.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
December Meeting Musings
The following excerpts are food for thought leading to the December meeting:
"When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive....This apersonal momentum is what moves the fingers of the pianist; it seems as if no one is deliberately playing the piano, as if the player has become the instrument and the music is making itself." Griggs, The Tao of Zen
“He who gives up action, falls. He who gives up only the reward, rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result….He, who….is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engaged in the due fulfillment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruits of his action…..When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth….Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to attain the cherished end.” –Ghandi
"May I give an example of the perfect act? You are walking to the station with a friend. Someone in front drops his umbrella, and as you come to it, you pick it up and hand it to the man who dropped it. You then walk on, still talking to your friend, and in two minutes have forgotten the whole incident. Here is the perfect act - no motive, no desire for gain, no thought of self. The right time, place, and means - you have forgotten it." - Christmas Humphreys, A Western Approach to Zen
"Th[e] Taoist sense of virtue shares with Zen a standing aside from self so that things are left to do themselves. Detachment from doing permits doing to arise thoughtlessly and spontaneously, without the labored self-involvement that imparts ulterior motives. Such doing, consequently, becomes something more than ordinary doing because it is allowed to happen within the flow of a larger, selfless wisdom. The highest form of doing in Taoism and Zen occurs without any interference from a deliberate or contriving self. The doing is happening but no one is doing it." –Griggs
“Spiritual practice must be carried out quietly and calmly {do you hear mindfulness, acceptance, “letting go,” non-doing?....Bob} because a passage to freedom opens to you only when you deal with right now, right here. So under all circumstances, whatever feeling, emotion, or idea your dualistic human consciousness has produced, just accept it. Then next, don’t attach to it, just let it go, let it return to oneness. Then you can return to oneness. This is nothing but practice in action. {Wu-Wei} This practice is naturally pure and clean.” –Dainin Katagiri, Each Moment Is the Universe.
Reconciling Non-attachment but still Working for Change
"When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive....This apersonal momentum is what moves the fingers of the pianist; it seems as if no one is deliberately playing the piano, as if the player has become the instrument and the music is making itself." Griggs, The Tao of Zen
"When an archer is shooting for nothing
He has all his skill.
If he shoots for a brass buckle
He is already nervous.
If he shoots for a prize of gold
He goes blind
Or sees two targets -- He is out of his mind!
His skill has not changed. But the prize
Divides him. He cares.
He thinks more of winning
Than of shooting --
And the need to win
Drains his power." - Chuang Tzu
“He who gives up action, falls. He who gives up only the reward, rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result….He, who….is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engaged in the due fulfillment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruits of his action…..When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth….Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to attain the cherished end.” –Ghandi
"May I give an example of the perfect act? You are walking to the station with a friend. Someone in front drops his umbrella, and as you come to it, you pick it up and hand it to the man who dropped it. You then walk on, still talking to your friend, and in two minutes have forgotten the whole incident. Here is the perfect act - no motive, no desire for gain, no thought of self. The right time, place, and means - you have forgotten it." - Christmas Humphreys, A Western Approach to Zen
"Th[e] Taoist sense of virtue shares with Zen a standing aside from self so that things are left to do themselves. Detachment from doing permits doing to arise thoughtlessly and spontaneously, without the labored self-involvement that imparts ulterior motives. Such doing, consequently, becomes something more than ordinary doing because it is allowed to happen within the flow of a larger, selfless wisdom. The highest form of doing in Taoism and Zen occurs without any interference from a deliberate or contriving self. The doing is happening but no one is doing it." –Griggs
“Spiritual practice must be carried out quietly and calmly {do you hear mindfulness, acceptance, “letting go,” non-doing?....Bob} because a passage to freedom opens to you only when you deal with right now, right here. So under all circumstances, whatever feeling, emotion, or idea your dualistic human consciousness has produced, just accept it. Then next, don’t attach to it, just let it go, let it return to oneness. Then you can return to oneness. This is nothing but practice in action. {Wu-Wei} This practice is naturally pure and clean.” –Dainin Katagiri, Each Moment Is the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)