The Bunfight Forum? (Thanks Penquin)

Originally posted by Taoman
That's good. You have been a bit stuck. Thought I'd try a new tack. I am pleased.
Now have you anything of greater significance to say. If not - go.

Sorry, divegeester, there is truth in what you say. Flinching, I answered back without mindfulness. But communication does depend on both of us.

Have you something else you would like to get off your chest about fundamentalist attitudes? Now's a good time. Follow the rules, no personal abuse, and try to be creatively expressive and focussed as you can be. Feel good that you have said it, and how you said it. I want some powerful s--t here, if we can manage a bit.

Originally posted by Taoman
Now have you anything of greater significance to say. If not - go.

Yes...my master.

Originally posted by Taoman
Sorry, divegeester, there is truth in what you say. Flinching, I answered back without mindfulness. But communication does depend on both of us.

Have you something else you would like to get off your chest about fundamentalist attitudes? Now's a good time. Follow the rules, no personal abuse, and try to be creatively expressive and focussed as you can be. ...[text shortened]... you have said it, and how you said it. I want some powerful s--t here, if we can manage a bit.

It's just friendly banter Taoman.

I find much of the stuff Buddhists post in here to be prettily written but mostly incomprehensible and occasionally laced with spite when they are challenged on it.

Just the way I’ve experienced it buddy.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's just friendly banter Taoman.

I find much of the stuff Buddhists post in here to be prettily written but mostly incomprehensible and occasionally laced with spite when they are challenged on it.

Just the way I’ve experienced it buddy.

Honest and accurate. And the fault is not yours (if there is fault at all).

Imagine someone who knows nothing (or even just a small bit of this and that) of Chrsitianity: never read any part, or even synopsis, of the scriptures; never been to Sunday school; no home-schooling in that regard; etc., etc. Comes to a site like this, and asks Christians: “What are you guys talking about?” Gets a range of responses like the following—

—“Go read the Bible (the whole thing).”

—A lengthy theological discussion on sin and salvation, etc. (with lots of biblical referenes).

—A copy-paste of the Nicene Creed, with the comment: “This is all you really need to know.”

—Some statement about how you have to have “faith” before you can understand.

I can’t speak for other “buddhisms”, only Zen. But I suspect that we’re, in general, not a lot better on here. I spent a lot of time and effort a few years ago to “translate” Zen stuff into more ordinary English. Some people thought it was helpful, but it’s just not what I want to do these days. But some of us have a whole “cultural matrix”—let’s call it “Zen comes to the West”—that we’re a bit steeped in. It’s easy for us to talk the lingo of that “matrix”—especially with others who have a similar experience. But we can also become seduced into thinking that that matrix—and it’s particular language, stories, etc.—is Zen, or at least the only way to properly “express” Zen.

A fairly “traditional” Zennist response to your statement of incomprehension might be to simply throw the following Zen saying back to you:

If you understand, things are just as they are.
If you don’t understand, things are just as they are.

Appropriate in some contexts, depending on who you’re talking to, but at best a blind shot in the dark on a place like this (unless, again, the other person has some background context—perhaps not even Buddhist—that is apparent). At best, it is likely to seem trivial and ho-hum. Which Zen is not! In other words, the kind of reply that likely you precisely do not need, and you know it.

Truth is: not even the word “Zen” is necessary. For some of us, Zen, and the Zen literature and various teachers, was the attractive picture—that turned into a window (to speak metaphorically).

When someone asks what Zen is, they are either asking for a picture or a window. If I were to offer a picture of the Zen experience called satori—unfortunately translated as “enlightenment”—I would say, “Think of a mind-orgasm (yes, really) in which all concepts collapse and the mind opens to a kaleidoscope of reality just-as-it-is, including ‘I’ without separation . . .”.

Zen would also say that thinking-about things and conceptualization are good and important, but that that “mind-orgasmic” state is our natural “original nature”—and we just tend to forget it as we get caught up in the constructs of who we think we are, and other are, and reality is. At best, the colors of the kaleidoscope become muted, as we are almost always looking through some conceptual lens (sometimes subconsciously so).

That Zen experience, by the way, has no doctrinal content. But sometimes, the teachings that evolve (originally aimed at just satori) form a kind of “religious” matrix of their own.

Now, if someone is asking for a window, instead of a picture—well, the mixed-up metaphors start to break down I guess. 😉

Do you want a picture or a window? There’s no right answer. You may know perfectly well what I mean by the metaphorical distinction, and already have your window. It would be presumptuous and condescending of me to assume otherwise (though sometimes, we do play a kind of testing game with one another: two Zennists wrestling "eyebrow to eyebrow" as we say; you might take that into account). If you do have a window, it also will not be a matter of words or creeds or doctrines (pictures—what Zennists call “effective means”: to realize the window that is prior to all that).

By the way, “friendly banter” is good. I’ve always appreciated your graciousness in that regard, as well as learning from your more serious posts. Thanks for the patience.

Originally posted by vistesd
Honest and accurate. And the fault is not yours (if there is fault at all).

Imagine someone who knows nothing (or even just a small bit of this and that) of Chrsitianity: never read any part, or even synopsis, of the scriptures; never been to Sunday school; no home-schooling in that regard; etc., etc. Comes to a site like this, and asks Christians: ...[text shortened]... ss in that regard, as well as learning from your more serious posts. Thanks for the patience.

I'll get back to you on this vistesd; it looks worth a read, but I need to go to work now.

Originally posted by vistesd
Honest and accurate. And the fault is not yours (if there is fault at all).

Imagine someone who knows nothing (or even just a small bit of this and that) of Chrsitianity: never read any part, or even synopsis, of the scriptures; never been to Sunday school; no home-schooling in that regard; etc., etc. Comes to a site like this, and asks Christians: ...[text shortened]... ss in that regard, as well as learning from your more serious posts. Thanks for the patience.

I think some readers mistake this forum as being a “love and peace” forum rather than the debating platform which it is; a place where (often strongly held) opinions are exchanged and nuances of the written word are examined and re-examined. To expect a forum about spirituality and spiritual beliefs to be a place of peace and harmony is naive in the extreme; one would be more likely to find harmony in a political debating chamber.

I enjoy the cut and thrust; occasionally things can get a little heated; so what…isn’t a little passion about what one believes in a good thing. I think it is. Jesus himself said “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth”; he referred to bringing a sword, which is the sword of truth which divides bone and marrow, soul and spirit. Perhaps we all need a little more of that sword and a little less of the pen.

As for the Buddhist content here, (I note you are an exception) my experience here is one of often being spoken to in riddles; of sometimes being spoken down to in riddles; I rarely bother getting involved in those threads and I think some others take the same approach. I don’t find those who “talk” zen to be any different than anyone else here; to me the incomprehensible language appears as a mask to hide the real person who will rarely engage in other threads or topics; who will rarely reveal themselves without the safety net of the façade of the "matrix language" you describe.

I come here because I’m interested in people, what they believe and why they believe it. I come to argue and debate, to challenge and be challenged. Most often with the Buddhist posts I have no idea what they believe except that they appear to prefer to keep it inaccessible and sometimes, yes, a little supercilious and condescending. That is my perception; I'll leave you to decide whether or not perception is reality. 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
I think some readers mistake this forum as being a “love and peace” forum rather than the debating platform which it is; a place where (often strongly held) opinions are exchanged and nuances of the written word are examined and re-examined. To expect a forum about spirituality and spiritual beliefs to be a place of peace and harmony is naive in ...[text shortened]... g. That is my perception; I'll leave you to decide whether or not perception is reality. 🙂

Okay, you’ve piqued me (in a good way) to try one last shot explaining Zen (or at least its use of “riddling” language), which I really haven’t done in awhile. Hope you will bear with me. Then I have to go to the bookshelf, in part for a book I have by a well-known medical researcher/brain scientist called Zen and the Brain—

I come here because I’m interested in people, what they believe and why they believe it. I come to argue and debate, to challenge and be challenged.

And that is mostly what this forum is about (have you been here long enough to recall the debate about removing “spirituality” from the Debates Forum, after which this forum was created?). I’ve spent most of my time here over the years in just the “cut and thrust” that you speak of.

One of the things that have been discussed in the course of debate is the use and limits of language. There is descriptive language: “That tree is green and tall.” There is propositional language: “There exists a non-dimensional entity separate from the natural universe.” There is the language of (deductive) logic: “Q iff P; not-P; therefore not-Q”. There is poetic language: “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower drives my green age” (Dylan Thomas). There is also parable (whether or not that is specified by the surrounding text), allegory, myth, etc.

The Bible, just to take the example with which I am most familiar, includes various kinds of language. Where it uses some form of propositional language, its claims can be tested both by applying formal logic (to see if there is a contradiction); where it uses descriptive language, that can be tested by appeals to things such as recorded history or observations of nature; where it uses poetic language—well, then things are more open, and you have to deal with metaphors, and the fact that any metaphor can have multiple referents and meanings (often intentionally so), and what aspects of that particular metaphor are more important (in context) than others. In any event, if one treats the metaphorical language of Thomas (above) as descriptive or propositional, things are apt to get a bit silly.

Part of the job of hermeneutics (methodology of interpretation) is to identify what kind of language is being used. A great deal of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy is about the errors that occur when language that is perfectly understandable in one “domain of discourse” (e.g., describing a natural phenomenon) is transferred to another domain of discourse (e.g., metaphysics). When this happens, Wittgenstein says that we can become “bewitched “ by our own language into thinking that we are still making sense. Wittgenstein is interested in more subtle examples, where even very bright minds can become confused, especially in philosophy. But here is a gross example, deliberately silly, to make the point:

“There exists a non-dimensional entity that is green and tall.” But—what about: “There exists a non-dimensional entity”? Or the same proposition using other words? [This says nothing about the existence of some being called God—but it might question whether some concepts of god are inherently contradictory or incoherent. And that is the level where much of such debate on here takes place.]

All of this can, of course, be applied to the Quran, the Upanishads, the Sutras, and any metaphysics.

There is another kind of language: elicitive language. Elicitive language is not aimed at describing, explaining, proposing or arguing. Elicitive functions like pointing—“That, over there!” Example— If someone asks, “What does a ditch-digger do?”, one way to answer is to describe and define what the activity of ditch-digging entails. The other way, if a ditch-digger happens to be in sight, is to point and say: “That, what that guy is doing, that is ditch-digging”; this is called “ostensive definition”.

Elicitive language operates like that. It is often, though not necessarily, poetic. Zen language is mostly elicitive. As such, it attempts to point away from itself to some aspect of pre-conceptual reality. That is why it is so often riddling and paradoxical. It does not intend to point you to further concepts, ideas, beliefs—but to what precedes all that. (Various forms of meditation do the same thing.)

The form of most argument and discussion on here is concepts about other concepts; ideas about ideas; words about words; beliefs about beliefs; explanations of concepts, ideas, words, beliefs—and further explanations of explanations. All good, in itself. But we sometimes (I would say very often) forget what we are talking about, and—bewitched by our language—think that we are talking about reality itself. I have said several times on here that nobody here really argues about “God”—but only about this or that concept or idea about something they call “God”, whether that concept has an actual referent or not.

Some of this might seem trivial, and we know that really living may be much more about enjoying a glass of wine than all the philosophy in the world. And so we shrug, and say something like: “Yes, yes, I know that. You’re just being trivial.”

But what Zen says is that our very ability to perceive, clearly and vividly, reality-just-as-it-is—which, recursively, includes ourselves, in and of that reality, even as we are perceiving—that ability, or that clarity and vividness, is diminished by the over-activity of our concept-making functions. Zen further says that more explanations, with more words and concepts, just makes matters worse. Where possible, Zen teachers (roshis) use physical actions to “shock” their students (usually one-on-one) with a kind of intense “ostensive definition” to—as Alan Watts once put it—get out of their heads and come fully to their senses.

But, both because effective physical actions are not always available, and because people are hooked to words (thinking in words, talking in words) Zennists either recommend certain forms of meditation, or use elicitive language, such as koans (and sometimes mantras).

Zen argues, and I think the neurological research backs it up (why I have to go to my bookshelf), that the diminishment I mentioned above is not just mental. So you can’t get to that clarity and vividness of perception (which includes all senses) just by acknowledging it, and sitting back with a glass of wine for awhile. [You will note that I also just sit back with a glass of wine for awhile. 🙂 ] The neurological effects of that over-functioning of the “left brain” have to be released. Zen teachers over time went to great lengths to develop techniques for that—some work for some people, some for others. Some work “with a bang”, some more gradually. And western methods, like Gestalt therapy, likely work just as well. I was originally attracted to the Zen language, and still find it most useful. Zen has been called a religion, a spirituality, a philosophy, a psychology—maybe it’s a bit of all of them.

Wittgenstein also distinguished between saying and showing.* When someone makes a propositional claim, we might ask them to show it (rather than simply saying it) by showing how it is logically noncontradictory, for example—or by providing empirical evidence, etc. The same with Zen: I can try to say what it’s about, or offer an elicitive-language/ostensive-definition to show it. If you don’t get it, I might try again. You might become annoyed, and tell me that I’m just obfuscating.

But, as I wrote on the “anger” thread by Taoman, I now think that such showing does not generally work well on an open forum like this (except in cases where the recipient already has some contextual background), precisely because the showing is too de-contextualized. I have tried in the past to solve that a bit by using non-traditional koans in plain (or perhaps a bit poetic) English. But koans still have to be engaged—which means that you’ve got work on it away from here, come back and ask questions, try again, etc. [Those are all general “yous”, by the way, not you specifically.] So I’m not sure that the simple showing on here accomplishes much.

And I see no profit in annoying people. Now, off to the bookshelf to check those neurological claims. If I can find a case-story that better shows how the elicitive language of a Zen “riddle” might work, I’ll share it.

After all this, I need a glass of red . . . 🙂

___________________________________________________________

* I am not making the exact same distinction that he did, however—before some Wittgensteinian jumps on me! 😉

Originally posted by Taoman
Penquin is right. The Bunfight Forum.

Yeah, call it for what it is, rather than give it that other name, what a mockery. All the fundo Christians' fault, AGAIN. All the posts are going on about "blood" at present as they slug it out over some minor verse near the back flap.

Sorry, I couldn't resist anymore. Join in and have the bunfight of the year.
...[text shortened]... bunfight post and I'm the referee! I'll call out when there is a nasty transgression.

Romans 11:8
8 just as it is written,


“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”

As we live our lives day in and day out, we should ask for eyes that see and
ears that hear the truth, since there are so many out there wanting to pull the
wool over our eyes and feed us a bunch of ____. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by Taoman
Thanks sonhouse. A bit more intense and focussed than "lets' you and me fight thing". Make it matter by being clear and as precise and logical as you can. Be real. What really gets up our noses about fundamentalism?
So right about the women.
***
The treatment of half the human race, our mothers, our daughters and our sisters as lesser and to be kept in t ...[text shortened]... ebrate them, don't reject them or hide them away.

Joan of Arc, where are you?

Is this thread supposed to be a bunfight, or not? Or does it matter?

Originally posted by JS357
Is this thread supposed to be a bunfight, or not? Or does it matter?

Some of decided to take the buns
and munch them,
whilst talking of this and that
and other thingy things...

Originally posted by Taoman
Awww! I like it when you roar. If anyone insults you personally, I will stand beside you. "Hmmmph! Stay away!" She glares.

All paths have errors, or is that too much to handle?

I could tell where I think good fervent rational Christianity has it over the Buddhists sometime if you like.

Come on, throw a few well aimed buns!

She's gotta glare initially, she's a chick


I still aiming my buns at RJ although I'm not the one leaving thumbs down on his posts. And he actually has gotten better, but if you want to wake up and find a zinger to get you going in the morning, just goto an RJ post. He's the master.

Originally posted by vistesd
Damn, I can’t do it! I want to, I really do. Instead, my first bun-jerk response is to commend your Shunryu Suzuki quote. I’m hopeless! I look at a print on my wall by Hakuin of Bodhidharma with his round-eyed, bearded scowl, and I think—he could do it! There’s surely a koan in here somewhere—

Student: “What is the meaning of Zen, roshi?”

...[text shortened]... atori[/i]:

[b]Bunfight! [Big laugh; really, big big laugh here]

I bow to Taoman! 🙂[/b]

Yep, definately worth a koan.

What is a bunfight?

(just make sure your asking a dog and you'll have your koan there 🙂 )

Originally posted by vistesd
Those who are not attuned to our Zen lingo might think I am being facetious. Not! My bow is deep and real—even as I laugh and laugh!

For those who think that “hardcore Zen” must be more “serious”, I can only say: Bunfight!

The weight of recent
unanswerable tragedies
is dispersed—

question after question,
koan after koan
is shattered,
in waves of tearful laughter.

Yes. I bow.

I'm dead serious about not being serious. Seriously.

Originally posted by Taoman
Thanks sonhouse. A bit more intense and focussed than "lets' you and me fight thing". Make it matter by being clear and as precise and logical as you can. Be real. What really gets up our noses about fundamentalism?
So right about the women.
***
The treatment of half the human race, our mothers, our daughters and our sisters as lesser and to be kept in t ...[text shortened]... ebrate them, don't reject them or hide them away.

Joan of Arc, where are you?

Sign the petition people, you know it makes sense - it's music after all

Killer thread, what are you guys waiting for?
As for those condescending Buddhists , let 'em know , Dive. You tell those bums...er buns .