|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2019 15:03:22 GMT -5
Just because there are no intellectual answers to the existential questions doesn't mean that all the answers that people peeps get attached to are created equal. I think our definitions of what constitutes an existential question and what doesn't seem to differ. ZD seems to have a rather broad definition. Mine is rather narrow. Existential questions can be answered on an intellectual level, of course. But these answers don't really mean anything, except in a purely intellectual framework. And the answers will also vary greatly depending on what kind of model of perception someone prefers, like let's say science vs. new age. And here I always found it fascinating how these two seemingly diametrically opposed models of reality actually somewhat converge in the models that Seth and QM present. Yes, that is fascinating, but the root of it isn't really all that mysterious if you examine the cultural conditioning of the guys who invented QM. The problem with the intellectual answers is that they're open-ended, which is why, for instance, there will never be any end to scientific exploration, because every new answer simply gives rise to many new questions. The Taoists had this number from centuries ago as to how one movement carries the seeds and eventually gives rise to its opposite, and that's precisely what's going on with the scientific approach to the existential questions. Another thing that's going on, as I believe you've pointed out in the past, is that meta-physicists applying science to existential matters tend to conflate and confuse "how" with "why". One thing I was thinking of in that reply was what you wrote about koans a few years back. So as not to hold you to this I'll present it as my own idea: the koans rest on the culture of Zen Buddhism, and there are patterns to them. So the answers aren't necessarily free from conditioning. But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. An existential question is any that can ultimately be related back to one's sense of identity or reality. If you're willing to offer a similar succinct definition, I'll be glad to either agree that our definitions are different, or demonstrate how I perceive that they're not.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 4, 2019 16:02:04 GMT -5
I think our definitions of what constitutes an existential question and what doesn't seem to differ. ZD seems to have a rather broad definition. Mine is rather narrow. Existential questions can be answered on an intellectual level, of course. But these answers don't really mean anything, except in a purely intellectual framework. And the answers will also vary greatly depending on what kind of model of perception someone prefers, like let's say science vs. new age. And here I always found it fascinating how these two seemingly diametrically opposed models of reality actually somewhat converge in the models that Seth and QM present. Yes, that is fascinating, but the root of it isn't really all that mysterious if you examine the cultural conditioning of the guys who invented QM. The problem with the intellectual answers is that they're open-ended, which is why, for instance, there will never be any end to scientific exploration, because every new answer simply gives rise to many new questions. The Taoists had this number from centuries ago as to how one movement carries the seeds and eventually gives rise to its opposite, and that's precisely what's going on with the scientific approach to the existential questions. Another thing that's going on, as I believe you've pointed out in the past, is that meta-physicists applying science to existential matters tend to conflate and confuse "how" with "why". One thing I was thinking of in that reply was what you wrote about koans a few years back. So as not to hold you to this I'll present it as my own idea: the koans rest on the culture of Zen Buddhism, and there are patterns to them. So the answers aren't necessarily free from conditioning. But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. An existential question is any that can ultimately be related back to one's sense of identity or reality. If you're willing to offer a similar succinct definition, I'll be glad to either agree that our definitions are different, or demonstrate how I perceive that they're not. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 5, 2019 8:51:25 GMT -5
I think our definitions of what constitutes an existential question and what doesn't seem to differ. ZD seems to have a rather broad definition. Mine is rather narrow. Existential questions can be answered on an intellectual level, of course. But these answers don't really mean anything, except in a purely intellectual framework. And the answers will also vary greatly depending on what kind of model of perception someone prefers, like let's say science vs. new age. And here I always found it fascinating how these two seemingly diametrically opposed models of reality actually somewhat converge in the models that Seth and QM present. But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2019 9:07:23 GMT -5
But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. Exactly. (** bows low **)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2019 23:12:28 GMT -5
But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. Exactly. The monkey is reaching For the moon in the water. Until death overtakes him He’ll never give up. If he’d let go the branch and Disappear in the deep pool, The whole world would shine With dazzling pureness. – Hakuin
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2019 10:50:59 GMT -5
Yes, that is fascinating, but the root of it isn't really all that mysterious if you examine the cultural conditioning of the guys who invented QM. The problem with the intellectual answers is that they're open-ended, which is why, for instance, there will never be any end to scientific exploration, because every new answer simply gives rise to many new questions. The Taoists had this number from centuries ago as to how one movement carries the seeds and eventually gives rise to its opposite, and that's precisely what's going on with the scientific approach to the existential questions. Another thing that's going on, as I believe you've pointed out in the past, is that meta-physicists applying science to existential matters tend to conflate and confuse "how" with "why". Metaphysics is called meta-physics for a reason. The context a meta-physicist is operating in is a lot larger than the context of the ordinary scientist. So I think QM finally provides a large enough context for scientists that makes a meeting of science and spirituality possible (at least theoretically). One thing I was thinking of in that reply was what you wrote about koans a few years back. So as not to hold you to this I'll present it as my own idea: the koans rest on the culture of Zen Buddhism, and there are patterns to them. So the answers aren't necessarily free from conditioning. Yes, that's still my opinion, and I think this can be verified easily. There are different kinds of Koans, of course. Some require no background knowledge, some actually do. Recently I've been browsing thru the Blue Cliff Record again. And when you read case #1 where the emperor meets Bodhidharma, you don't really need to know anything about Buddhism in order to understand this particular case. However, when you look at case #3 (the famous Sun Face Buddha/Moon Face Buddha comment by Master Ma), you need to first understand what sutra he's referencing. But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. Well, in theory, there’s almost a method to it, like writing a haiku. And once you’ve cracked the code, it’s easy (or so it seems). Now, the questions is, will the master accept that answer and give you a pass based on your technical skills? Jan van de Wetering wrote in one of his later Zen books about a guy who once was one if his fellow monks in Japan, he was by far the most talented one, I think he was also fluent in Japanese and everyone always thought, if someone is going to get enlightened, it’s definitely going to be him. He cracked about 3,000 koans, got recognized by several Zen masters but decades later he finally confessed to Jan that he still had no clue what this Zen business was all about and actually just wanted to forget all this Zen nonsense, find a wife and live happily ever after like a normal human being. Ha! What does that tell you about koan practice? And more importantly, what does that tell you about those 'masters' who gave him a pass?! So, while it's easy to write a haiku from a technical perspective, it's quite another thing to write one that is both good from an aesthetic perspective as well as profound from a spiritual perspective. Similar with koans. From a technical perspective, there are certain standard answers that are acceptable, but that's usually not enough to give you a pass. Because that's not the point of koan practice. That's why I see koans as a bit of a double-edged sword. They can effectively be used to gauge someone's actual level of understanding but that can also be deceptive if the one doing the testing hasn't fully realized the truth behind these koans.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2019 11:52:35 GMT -5
An existential question is any that can ultimately be related back to one's sense of identity or reality. If you're willing to offer a similar succinct definition, I'll be glad to either agree that our definitions are different, or demonstrate how I perceive that they're not. I don't think there is an official definition. I just googled it. So it probably comes down to personal preferences. What I have in mind when I use the term existential questions is typical philosophical questions. And also not any kind of philosophical questions. Now, philosophy is traditionally divided into different branches, i.e. metaphysics (the fundamentals of reality), epistemology (what we can know), logic (proper reasoning), ethics (proper behavior) and aesthetics (what beauty is). So of all these branches, it would mostly be questions concerning metaphysics. And metaphysics is usually divided into ontology (the nature of being) and cosmology (the nature of the universe) again. And cosmology is very much science and new age related and so that leaves mainly ontology for me (plus basic of epistemology, of course). Which means, to me, your definition is way too broad, especially if you should insist on the word 'ultimately'. Because that opens the door to a lot of questions that I'd put into the psychology department but could be classified as existential questions in disguise by your definition because all it takes is a little rephrasing and refocusing in order to turn them into actual existential questions. So what I see here is a potentially inflationary use of the term existential questions as we've seen with the term realization already. And when that happens, these terms don't really mean anything anymore. That's why I prefer a rather narrow definition.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 6, 2019 12:29:52 GMT -5
An existential question is any that can ultimately be related back to one's sense of identity or reality. If you're willing to offer a similar succinct definition, I'll be glad to either agree that our definitions are different, or demonstrate how I perceive that they're not. I don't think there is an official definition. I just googled it. So it probably comes down to personal preferences. What I have in mind when I use the term existential questions is typical philosophical questions. And also not any kind of philosophical questions. Now, philosophy is traditionally divided into different branches, i.e. metaphysics (the fundamentals of reality), epistemology (what we can know), logic (proper reasoning), ethics (proper behavior) and aesthetics (what beauty is). So of all these branches, it would mostly be questions concerning metaphysics. And metaphysics is usually divided into ontology (the nature of being) and cosmology (the nature of the universe) again. And cosmology is very much science and new age related and so that leaves mainly ontology for me (plus basic of epistemology, of course). Which means, to me, your definition is way too broad, especially if you should insist on the word 'ultimately'. Because that opens the door to a lot of questions that I'd put into the psychology department but could be classified as existential questions in disguise by your definition because all it takes is a little rephrasing and refocusing in order to turn them into actual existential questions. So what I see here is a potentially inflationary use of the term existential questions as we've seen with the term realization already. And when that happens, these terms don't really mean anything anymore. That's why I prefer a rather narrow definition. I would probably define an existential question as "any question that cannot be resolved through thought." This would include anything from "Is there a God?" to "Who am I, really?" to "What is the meaning of life?" to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2019 1:13:39 GMT -5
An existential question is any that can ultimately be related back to one's sense of identity or reality. If you're willing to offer a similar succinct definition, I'll be glad to either agree that our definitions are different, or demonstrate how I perceive that they're not. I don't think there is an official definition. I just googled it. So it probably comes down to personal preferences. What I have in mind when I use the term existential questions is typical philosophical questions. And also not any kind of philosophical questions. Now, philosophy is traditionally divided into different branches, i.e. metaphysics (the fundamentals of reality), epistemology (what we can know), logic (proper reasoning), ethics (proper behavior) and aesthetics (what beauty is). So of all these branches, it would mostly be questions concerning metaphysics. And metaphysics is usually divided into ontology (the nature of being) and cosmology (the nature of the universe) again. And cosmology is very much science and new age related and so that leaves mainly ontology for me (plus basic of epistemology, of course). Which means, to me, your definition is way too broad, especially if you should insist on the word 'ultimately'. Because that opens the door to a lot of questions that I'd put into the psychology department but could be classified as existential questions in disguise by your definition because all it takes is a little rephrasing and refocusing in order to turn them into actual existential questions. So what I see here is a potentially inflationary use of the term existential questions as we've seen with the term realization already. And when that happens, these terms don't really mean anything anymore. That's why I prefer a rather narrow definition. I think I understand your preference as one for a limited, focused, clean and clear scope. So for you the existential question is, essentially "what is being?" or "what exists?". Disguise is certainly an apt term, no doubt. The reason I prefer the broader view is precisely because most of human culture is an elaborate disguise made-up on top of the root existential question, which I would say is the same as self-inquiry: "what does it mean to be a human being?". Scientists try to answer it by directing attention outward, objectively, using a left-brain neti-neti. The best and most sincere artists explore it, some even consciously, by expressing the poignancy of what the Greeks called "agape", all with various overtones of the emotionally bittersweet. Underlying the ethicists inquiry of how to behave is, what is it, exactly, that is behaving? So, for instance, some sort of answer to "what is a human being?" has to underlie any sort of definition of "human rights". And that's all just scratching the surface. For instance, most open-ended philisophical "why" questions can be translated into self-inquiry, and most religions offer some explanation of "what happens when I die?", which has at it's root: "what is it, exactly, that dies?". And that all happens mostly unconsciously by the ever-thriving mass of existentially benighted people-peeps. Sometimes there are cultural movements towards clarity, but the natural gravitation of ego-mind is certainly away from that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2019 1:23:24 GMT -5
Yes, that is fascinating, but the root of it isn't really all that mysterious if you examine the cultural conditioning of the guys who invented QM. The problem with the intellectual answers is that they're open-ended, which is why, for instance, there will never be any end to scientific exploration, because every new answer simply gives rise to many new questions. The Taoists had this number from centuries ago as to how one movement carries the seeds and eventually gives rise to its opposite, and that's precisely what's going on with the scientific approach to the existential questions. Another thing that's going on, as I believe you've pointed out in the past, is that meta-physicists applying science to existential matters tend to conflate and confuse "how" with "why". Metaphysics is called meta-physics for a reason. The context a meta-physicist is operating in is a lot larger than the context of the ordinary scientist. So I think QM finally provides a large enough context for scientists that makes a meeting of science and spirituality possible (at least theoretically). One thing I was thinking of in that reply was what you wrote about koans a few years back. So as not to hold you to this I'll present it as my own idea: the koans rest on the culture of Zen Buddhism, and there are patterns to them. So the answers aren't necessarily free from conditioning. Yes, that's still my opinion, and I think this can be verified easily. There are different kinds of Koans, of course. Some require no background knowledge, some actually do. Recently I've been browsing thru the Blue Cliff Record again. And when you read case #1 where the emperor meets Bodhidharma, you don't really need to know anything about Buddhism in order to understand this particular case. However, when you look at case #3 (the famous Sun Face Buddha/Moon Face Buddha comment by Master Ma), you need to first understand what sutra he's referencing. But the difference between the answers of intellect and the koan answers is how the latter leave no foothold for any process of induction or deduction. Answering one is very similar to an instant of creative inspiration and nothing like the process of solving a technical problem. The answer comes as a sudden realization, and there's nothing open-ended about it other than it offers a new facet of perspective going forward. Well, in theory, there’s almost a method to it, like writing a haiku. And once you’ve cracked the code, it’s easy (or so it seems). Now, the questions is, will the master accept that answer and give you a pass based on your technical skills? Jan van de Wetering wrote in one of his later Zen books about a guy who once was one if his fellow monks in Japan, he was by far the most talented one, I think he was also fluent in Japanese and everyone always thought, if someone is going to get enlightened, it’s definitely going to be him. He cracked about 3,000 koans, got recognized by several Zen masters but decades later he finally confessed to Jan that he still had no clue what this Zen business was all about and actually just wanted to forget all this Zen nonsense, find a wife and live happily ever after like a normal human being. Ha! What does that tell you about koan practice? And more importantly, what does that tell you about those 'masters' who gave him a pass?! So, while it's easy to write a haiku from a technical perspective, it's quite another thing to write one that is both good from an aesthetic perspective as well as profound from a spiritual perspective. Similar with koans. From a technical perspective, there are certain standard answers that are acceptable, but that's usually not enough to give you a pass. Because that's not the point of koan practice. That's why I see koans as a bit of a double-edged sword. They can effectively be used to gauge someone's actual level of understanding but that can also be deceptive if the one doing the testing hasn't fully realized the truth behind these koans. Interesting story about that Zen student, thanks. For me the koan culture represents an opportunity to understand a different mode of expression. QM was a major cultural milestone, absolutely no doubt about that. Heisenberg had a sense of humor about the problem he was working on at the time, referring to it as the " p/q swindle" (position/momentum). It is knowledge that contradicts the foundations of the science that led to it, and all a monkey that understands this has to do, is let go, and take the invitation to get wet.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 7, 2019 3:47:45 GMT -5
In a fundamental way, people use stories to make sense of experience, and depending on the context of the narrative, be it spiritualist, religious, philosophical or scientific, individuals become dogmatic with their bias. On this forum a 'non-dual' narrative will trump other categories, but essentially it is a pretext of truth that in all discursive contexts remains elusive. In math it is incompleteness, in physics it is a measurement problem or uncertainty principle. In religion it is mysterious ways and in in spiritualism it's just a finger pointing - and all narratives go on forever, often in a circular fashion, without ever arriving at conclusions - which is how it should be - because there there is no truth - only meaning - but there is influence to any form of authoritative voice, like Ramana's, Buddha's, or Teal Swan's for that matter.
I remember I thought I knew things and would speak with authority as if what I said was true, but things changed and the truth as I saw it was undermined by what I learned next, and that truth again undermined, and again, until I reached a point where I'm sure of one thing only: that what I take to be true now will be undermined in the future. This allows me to have a very loose grip on what I believe, and there is nothing I can say now with the conviction of certainty, nor do I believe the things which others such as Niz or Diaper Guy say. But that is not to say these said things are not meaningful. They are meaningful, but only in the way I ascribe meaning to them.
This implies the inanity of thinking a koan has a right answer. If it does, it is another form of right than correct. There are different kinds of right from being correct to having intentions, and different kinds of meaning from what you mean to say and what you mean to invoke by so saying. If someone calls me an idiot I know what they mean by what they say and I know they mean to denigrate me with such a characterisation... and the opposite 'meaning' (both connotations) is true of compliments.
I guess what I mean to say is, to communicate meaning is to exert an intention, and when saying what one means it's prudent to know the motive behind saying it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2019 11:47:17 GMT -5
I would probably define an existential question as "any question that cannot be resolved through thought." This would include anything from "Is there a God?" to "Who am I, really?" to "What is the meaning of life?" to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" That's a rather broad definition. I basically agree but would throw out the last question. I found this one on here, rather well written: That's pretty good, except for the final part about choices (but that's how a philosopher typically would look at it, I guess).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2019 12:05:57 GMT -5
I don't think there is an official definition. I just googled it. So it probably comes down to personal preferences. What I have in mind when I use the term existential questions is typical philosophical questions. And also not any kind of philosophical questions. Now, philosophy is traditionally divided into different branches, i.e. metaphysics (the fundamentals of reality), epistemology (what we can know), logic (proper reasoning), ethics (proper behavior) and aesthetics (what beauty is). So of all these branches, it would mostly be questions concerning metaphysics. And metaphysics is usually divided into ontology (the nature of being) and cosmology (the nature of the universe) again. And cosmology is very much science and new age related and so that leaves mainly ontology for me (plus basic of epistemology, of course). Which means, to me, your definition is way too broad, especially if you should insist on the word 'ultimately'. Because that opens the door to a lot of questions that I'd put into the psychology department but could be classified as existential questions in disguise by your definition because all it takes is a little rephrasing and refocusing in order to turn them into actual existential questions. So what I see here is a potentially inflationary use of the term existential questions as we've seen with the term realization already. And when that happens, these terms don't really mean anything anymore. That's why I prefer a rather narrow definition. I think I understand your preference as one for a limited, focused, clean and clear scope. So for you the existential question is, essentially "what is being?" or "what exists?". Disguise is certainly an apt term, no doubt. The reason I prefer the broader view is precisely because most of human culture is an elaborate disguise made-up on top of the root existential question, which I would say is the same as self-inquiry: "what does it mean to be a human being?". Scientists try to answer it by directing attention outward, objectively, using a left-brain neti-neti. The best and most sincere artists explore it, some even consciously, by expressing the poignancy of what the Greeks called "agape", all with various overtones of the emotionally bittersweet. Underlying the ethicists inquiry of how to behave is, what is it, exactly, that is behaving? So, for instance, some sort of answer to "what is a human being?" has to underlie any sort of definition of "human rights". And that's all just scratching the surface. For instance, most open-ended philisophical "why" questions can be translated into self-inquiry, and most religions offer some explanation of "what happens when I die?", which has at it's root: "what is it, exactly, that dies?". And that all happens mostly unconsciously by the ever-thriving mass of existentially benighted people-peeps. Sometimes there are cultural movements towards clarity, but the natural gravitation of ego-mind is certainly away from that. I think the link I just posted in reply to ZD goes in that direction. Yes, disguise, because if you dig deep enough, you'll get to the root of the issue, no matter from what direction or at what depth of the burrow you start digging. All roads lead to Rome, goes the saying. Let's take ZD's questions as an example: 1. "Who am I, really?" 2. "Is there a God?" 3. "What is the meaning of life?" 4. "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" Now, questions #1, #2 and #3 I would classify as existential questions, question #4 would be a technical question. And to me, the core question is "Who am I, really?" Questions #2 and #3 are basically question #1 in disguise because once this core question (#1) has been resolved (or better: dissolved), all those other questions (like #2 and #3) suddenly become non-issues as well. But until that happens, all these questions will seem to be separate questions. That's why I say, SR (the way I define it) is the end of existential questions (as I define them).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2019 12:27:02 GMT -5
Metaphysics is called meta-physics for a reason. The context a meta-physicist is operating in is a lot larger than the context of the ordinary scientist. So I think QM finally provides a large enough context for scientists that makes a meeting of science and spirituality possible (at least theoretically). Yes, that's still my opinion, and I think this can be verified easily. There are different kinds of Koans, of course. Some require no background knowledge, some actually do. Recently I've been browsing thru the Blue Cliff Record again. And when you read case #1 where the emperor meets Bodhidharma, you don't really need to know anything about Buddhism in order to understand this particular case. However, when you look at case #3 (the famous Sun Face Buddha/Moon Face Buddha comment by Master Ma), you need to first understand what sutra he's referencing. Well, in theory, there’s almost a method to it, like writing a haiku. And once you’ve cracked the code, it’s easy (or so it seems). Now, the questions is, will the master accept that answer and give you a pass based on your technical skills? Jan van de Wetering wrote in one of his later Zen books about a guy who once was one if his fellow monks in Japan, he was by far the most talented one, I think he was also fluent in Japanese and everyone always thought, if someone is going to get enlightened, it’s definitely going to be him. He cracked about 3,000 koans, got recognized by several Zen masters but decades later he finally confessed to Jan that he still had no clue what this Zen business was all about and actually just wanted to forget all this Zen nonsense, find a wife and live happily ever after like a normal human being. Ha! What does that tell you about koan practice? And more importantly, what does that tell you about those 'masters' who gave him a pass?! So, while it's easy to write a haiku from a technical perspective, it's quite another thing to write one that is both good from an aesthetic perspective as well as profound from a spiritual perspective. Similar with koans. From a technical perspective, there are certain standard answers that are acceptable, but that's usually not enough to give you a pass. Because that's not the point of koan practice. That's why I see koans as a bit of a double-edged sword. They can effectively be used to gauge someone's actual level of understanding but that can also be deceptive if the one doing the testing hasn't fully realized the truth behind these koans. Interesting story about that Zen student, thanks. For me the koan culture represents an opportunity to understand a different mode of expression. QM was a major cultural milestone, absolutely no doubt about that. Heisenberg had a sense of humor about the problem he was working on at the time, referring to it as the " p/q swindle" (position/momentum). It is knowledge that contradicts the foundations of the science that led to it, and all a monkey that understands this has to do, is let go, and take the invitation to get wet. Jan reminds me a bit of Zazeniac, hehe. Pretty much down to earth, he knows he hasn't got it yet and speculates that he probably never will, but he stubbornly sticks with common sense, and compared to all the weird wannabe gurus that crossed his path, at the end, he still seems to be the sanest and most enlightened, even though he actually may see himself as some sort of failure. Jan's books are pure gold. Jan went to Kyoto and stayed there in a Zen temple for a while, but left because he didn't see this going anywhere and went on with his life. He left Japan and the temple, but he never left Zen. Some decades later, he went to the US (Jan is Dutch) and spent some time with an American Zen 'Master' (rumor has it that it's Paul Warwick). And he has a lot of weird stories to tell about what was going on there. Basically, the entire Zen group became extremely dogmatic and things just went totally nuts. So he left. Later he stayed a while with a Tibetan monk in England (I think it was Chögyam Trungpa). That community dissolved into chaos as well. Lots of weird stories again. And then he met this guy from Kyoto again. Fun read. All his books on Zen. I gotta read them again and then I'll post a review.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 7, 2019 12:29:20 GMT -5
I would probably define an existential question as "any question that cannot be resolved through thought." This would include anything from "Is there a God?" to "Who am I, really?" to "What is the meaning of life?" to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" That's a rather broad definition. I basically agree but would throw out the last question. I found this one on here, rather well written: That's pretty good, except for the final part about choices (but that's how a philosopher typically would look at it, I guess). I agree that the more-narrowly focused existential questions regarding life, death, meaning, etc. are the most important ones, but I threw in the last question because Zen is also interested in exposing the limits of logic as well as various unconscious assumptions and misconceptions about the nature of reality. For example, there are koans about things that people usually never think about. If we start removing parts of an automobile, when does it cease to be "an automobile?" This kind of koan challenges assumptions about the boundaries that define thingness. Other koans challenge language and logic based issues. How does one answer a question like, "Answer yes or no, are you still beating your wife?" If you've never beat your wife, and you answer "no," you accept the implication that you did so in the past. How do you answer such a question that avoids the language trap? For a past high school reunion I posed a koan as part of a skit that was based on an actual conversation with a friend. The guy owned a cheap economy car, a standard sedan, and an exotic Porsche, and he couldn't decide which car he should drive to his reunion. His thinking went like this, "If I drive my exotic car, people will think I'm showing off, but if I drive the cheap car, I'll be showing off in a reverse way (that although I own an exotic vehicle I don't need to show off which is showing off in a different way)." I posed the situation, and had an announcer ask, "Which of his three cars should the fellow drive to his reunion?" His quandary stemmed from the way he thought about his classmates' ideas about him and his self image. Other koans that are not existential in the narrow sense similarly challenge people to see through their ideas to what is actual, or to see through language/logic traps, in order to learn how to respond to the world directly and instantly without reflection. IOW, there is a significant reason that Zen includes lots of existential questions that are not directly concerned with life and death issues. Many of them are designed to reveal unconscious thinking patterns and various types of cultural conditioning. The question about the baseball team in which no man scored a run exposes the culturally-indoctrinated bias that baseball players, airline pilots, and neurosurgeons are always men. All of these questions challenge one to find a way to see through the situations and escape the conceptual frameworks from which they arise.
|
|