T'san: The Mind of Absolute Trust

Originally posted by Palynka
I find these type of perspectives particularly empty.

Although I appreciate the concept of a fluid reality, I don't find the supposed paradoxes to be anything more than contradicting or meaningless soundbites.

Obviously if you approach the passage with the idea that non-dualism is all about pointing out "supposed paradoxes" or "contradictions" you're not going to get anything out of it. That just proves the wisdom of T'san and your lack thereof.

EDIT: Here's a pretty good Non-Dualism site for your perusal. http://www.nonduality.com/faq.htm

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I wouldn't say it's my goal to live completely in this state of mind. I don't know if it would be possible anyway, but even if it were, I am not sure I'd want to. I enjoy the duality and the maya.

I think you’re right. There’s a saying: “Zen mind and everyday mind are the same mind.” Thinking-mind is part of that, part of who we are. People (li ...[text shortened]... once put it, imagine a library full of books that are all about nothing but—other books.[/b]

Thanks. Interesting; I had read “Don't get entangled in the world; don't lose yourself in emptiness” as saying the same thing twice, talking about the emptiness of worldly pursuits. But your interpretation makes more sense.

Originally posted by Palynka
I find these type of perspectives particularly empty.

Although I appreciate the concept of a fluid reality, I don't find the supposed paradoxes to be anything more than contradicting or meaningless soundbites.

I find these type of perspectives particularly empty.

As opposed to what, for example?

Given what I take to be the critical nature of your comments, I am overlooking BdN's cogent remark about your choice of words here. On the off-chance that I am wrong, however, what do you think is a non-empty perspective?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously if you approach the passage with the idea that non-dualism is all about pointing out "supposed paradoxes" or "contradictions" you're not going to get anything out of it. That just proves the wisdom of T'san and your lack thereof.

EDIT: Here's a pretty good Non-Dualism site for your perusal. http://www.nonduality.com/faq.htm

Actually, I'm the one that use the phrase "paradoxical parallelism" to describe the style--perhaps that was a poor choice of words.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I find these type of perspectives particularly empty.

As opposed to what, for example?

Given what I take to be the critical nature of your comments, I am overlooking BdN's cogent remark about your choice of words here. On the off-chance that I am wrong, however, what do you think is a non-empty perspective?[/b]

As opposed to more normative perspectives.

I can see how, by hinting at concepts with obscure phrases, they may help your own thoughts to shape. But the problem is that if you see them as such, then its value is lost. The illusion that there is a normative value underneath is essential. Hence the inherently contradictory nature of these perspectives.

If you think about it, it's actually the same as Nostradamus or even, to a smaller extent, astrology. By not being clear (or more normative) you shift responsibility solely towards the interpretation and, therefore, can never right or wrong by itself. But then what's there to be learned? It's in this sense that I find them empty. They are simply a helping device, actually more alike a cane than a mold, for one's own thoughts.

If you find the cane useful then, by all means, take it. I find that it just hinders me, so I don't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously if you approach the passage with the idea that non-dualism is all about pointing out "supposed paradoxes" or "contradictions" you're not going to get anything out of it. That just proves the wisdom of T'san and your lack thereof.

EDIT: Here's a pretty good Non-Dualism site for your perusal. http://www.nonduality.com/faq.htm

I'm so wise, you're a fool. Here's a link.

Very ivanhoesque.

Originally posted by Palynka
As opposed to more normative perspectives.

I can see how, by hinting at concepts with obscure phrases, they may help your own thoughts to shape. But the problem is that if you see them as such, then its value is lost. The illusion that there is a normative value underneath is essential. Hence the inherently contradictory nature of these perspectives.

I nd the cane useful then, by all means, take it. I find that it just hinders me, so I don't.

EDIT: Scratch lengthy response.


Athletes and sports psychologists talk about being in the zone (generally in terms no less paradoxical-sounding than Seng T’san—wonder why?*), about their practices for getting into the zone. If you have ever experienced the zone, then you know what it is.

(Warning: From the outside, we sometimes have a habit of judging whether someone’s in the zone strictly by performance—and even scoreboard. Some of the talk from the inside does as well. Partly that’s because there is no mind-body dualism in the experience. But that also means that getting into/being in the zone is not strictly a physical affair.)

If someone thinks that getting into the zone is a fluke—then it will be for them. If they think it is only specific to a particular activity—then it will be for them. I don’t know if you can live in the zone for 24/7—but if you pre-set a limit, it will likely become a limit. (Some people also seem to have an “all or none” resistance: “If I can only do it 12/5, then it’s no good at all! Screw it!” Others: "Oh, well, if you have to practice...!" )

Treating Seng T’san as a kind of sports psychologist/coach, I find his approach quite helpful. But the same coach, the same approach, just doesn’t work for everyone. (I have found Dogen to be generally unhelpful; others the opposite.) What helps you helps you, what hinders you hinders you.



* I suggest that it’s because the experience is non-dualistic, but our language is almost all dualistic—which means that relying on your more normative expressions might conceal it’s own illusion: in fact, I think it does.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you find the cane useful then, by all means, take it. I find that it just hinders me, so I don't.

Hinders you in what sense?

Originally posted by vistesd
EDIT: Scratch lengthy response.


Athletes and sports psychologists talk about being in the zone (generally in terms no less paradoxical-sounding than Seng T’san—wonder why?*), about their practices for getting into the zone. If you have ever experienced the zone, then you know what it is.

(Warning: From the outside, we sometimes have a habit of ju on your more normative expressions might conceal it’s own illusion: in fact, I think it does.

If someone thinks that getting into the zone is a fluke—then it will be for them.

Nicely put. I guess you put it more diplomatically than I did (not surprisingly 🙂) but I think we actually have similar views. The difference being that it works for you, but not for me.

When I was younger, I used to play basketball for a club. Many players had rituals or superstitions that they believed helped them get into the zone (or, equivalently, not doing them would prevent them from being there).

Regardless of the causal relationship between what they did and the result, I agree that there was correlation. If you believe that you won't get in the zone because you didn't got into the court with the right foot first, then you're likely not to set your mind free enough to achieve it.

The thing is that if you don't believe that entering it with your right foot makes any difference, then that person's description of what helps him is actually unhelpful to you. Personally, I don't even believe that the zone itself is anything more than another self-convincing trick!

Thinking about it, this is actually very close to the concept of faith. If you have it, you'll feel and understand the divine, because you're predisposed to it. But for those that do not have the same faith belief, then believers' descriptions of their divine experiences are meaningless to you.

I could go on about why I personally don't appreciate Zennists more, but let's just say that I'm a dualist by nature. I find dichotomy essential to language and, therefore, essential to thought. Although in many cases, the dichotomy expressed is used as a simplification (a tool for understanding), I find that denial of dichotomy actually prevents learning, by avoiding contrast. Note that this is not defending a black and white world, which is the strawman usually attacked.

I suggest that it’s because the experience is non-dualistic, but our language is almost all dualistic—which means that relying on your more normative expressions might conceal it’s own illusion: in fact, I think it does.
Summing up: I don't disagree with this, at all. What I disagree is that this implies denial of dichotomy. Being aware of the limitations of dichotomy is different from celebrating non-dualism, or even denying dichotomy.

Edit: I didn't go into the aesthetic considerations of my previous post. Or tried not to. I appreciate the subjectiveness of that line of thought.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Hinders you in what sense?

In the sense that discussion under such terms almost immediately goes off on a tangent.

Originally posted by Palynka
In the sense that discussion under such terms almost immediately goes off on a tangent.

Perhaps discussion isn't the be-all and end-all? If you're trying to perfect a dance routine, sitting around jawing isn't likely to do you much good. Artists versus critics; perhaps.

I suppose the point is what is the point of such language. It's not exclusive to Zen; plenty of exponents of it in the Western tradition, too. William Blake, St. John of the Cross. Why did they express themselves in poetic images rather than lucid prose?

As for faith--I prefer the expression 'the moment of truth'. Don't spoil it by opening your yap. Just get on with it.

The Bodhidharma was an illiterate peasant.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Perhaps discussion isn't the be-all and end-all? If you're trying to perfect a dance routine, sitting around jawing isn't likely to do you much good. Artists versus critics; perhaps.

I suppose the point is what is the point of such language. It's not exclusive to Zen; plenty of exponents of it in the Western tradition, too. William Blake, St. John ...[text shortened]... t by opening your yap. Just get on with it.

The Bodhidharma was an illiterate peasant.

Reading is a form of discussion. Unless you read without any form of critical spirit and you swallow it all. I have no idea why you bring up physical activities like dancing into this.

William Blake, St. John of the Cross. Why did they express themselves in poetic images rather than lucid prose?
Perhaps because they weren't lucid. Perhaps because they simply liked it. Perhaps because it is the language of the universe. Did they write about why they do it or do we have licence to speculate?

As for faith--I prefer the expression 'the moment of truth'. Don't spoil it by opening your yap. Just get on with it.
Eh? We're talking about yap openings like the opening post here.

The Bodhidharma was an illiterate peasant.
And? I'm not defending the importance of literary aesthetics.

Originally posted by Palynka
I have no idea why you bring up physical activities like dancing into this.

None? Pointless to continue.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
None? Pointless to continue.

I stay in the thick corner. You can move next to no1's corner where the enlightened that cannot bother are.

Originally posted by Palynka
I stay in the thick corner. You can move next to no1's corner where the enlightened that cannot bother are.

I'm not calling you thick; I just can't get through to you. It makes me angry, so I prefer to drop it. There are more reasonable people around that you can have a discussion with.

Here's something on Wittgenstein and Zen--the kind of discussion I'd like to be able to conduct, had I the nous (naturally my intuitive grasp of the subject is impeccable): http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew23260.htm