Originally posted by Pianoman1I bow.
Taoman, Black Beetle, karoly aczel, vistesd. I bow to all of you. Pure reason untainted by emotion. Thank you.
An old silent pond...
A frog jumps into the pond,
splash! Silence again.
It's nice to be thrown in with that lot even though my posts aren't nearly erudite as theirs are.
Splash 🙂
Originally posted by Pianoman1When a certain person needs to play a concert, interpreting the music of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, fortunately Pianoman1 can do the interpreting.
🙂
A question......
When i play a concert, interpreting the music of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, who is doing the interpreting? When Glenn Gould interprets Bach, who is playing?
When I practise za-zen at the piano, who is playing?
Namaste
When Glenn Gould interprets Bach, the person that plays is Glenn Gould.
If you actually practice zazen at the piano, you are aware of the fact that Pianoman1's self is empty.
Self/ I is a false projection that is caused solely from constitutive and instantiated properties whose difference does not bear the slightest ontological weight. For our convenience, when we speak for the individual Pianoman1 having a property “bodymind”, we nominalize the predicate expressing the property we take to be constitutive (physical body, sensation, perception, intellect and consciousness) and ascribe the instantiating properties to an inherently existent Self/I thus created. Hopefully, when the point of our attention focuses on the falsification of this common view as regards what are the constitutive and what are the instantiating properties, we see that this view is not ontologically tenable and so we are not forced anymore to infer the existence of an inherently existent substratum or an nderlying individual (Self/ I) from the existence of a quality.
How we do it?
We simply prove that Self/ I is not inherently existent because of not being its parts, not being other than its parts, not being in its parts, not being that within which its parts exist, not possessing its parts, not being the composites of its parts, and not being the shape of its parts. Then, concluding that our common projection “I” is not inherently existent, we see that our own personal self is empty (of inherent existence)
😵
Originally posted by black beetleI bow.
When a certain person needs to play a concert, interpreting the music of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, fortunately Pianoman1 can do the interpreting.
When Glenn Gould interprets Bach, the person that plays is Glenn Gould.
If you actually practice zazen at the piano, you are aware of the fact that Pianoman1's self is empty.
Self/ I is a false projectio ...[text shortened]... not inherently existent, we see that our own personal self is empty (of inherent existence)
😵
2 edits
The English language ( amongst others ) is a powerful instrument of communication. We need to appreciate its precision. Other languages have other subtleties. But English, with its nuances and 'borrowings' can be very precise. This is a fine quality, not to be lightly dismissed. Spiritual communication requires precision. French is pretty good too. So is Sanskrit. 🙂
'A master is a person whose Palace of Knowledge is built by him, a person that has the power to give the disciples to understand what exact part of the Palace has to be found, how it can be joined perfectly with all the other parts and how the construction must be done. Each Palace of Knowledge is unique but all are made of the same stuff, and each Palace has to be concrete. Each Palace is empty. The master will cause you Pain when you are stranded -and the disciple receives Pain as an indication of utmost Compassion.'
1 edit
Originally posted by Pianoman1May I?
🙂
A question......
When i play a concert, interpreting the music of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, who is doing the interpreting? When Glenn Gould interprets Bach, who is playing?
When I practise za-zen at the piano, who is playing?
Namaste
Does the question question the questioner,
Or does the questioner question the question?
Does there have to be an interpreter for an interpretation to arise?
Such humble limited bees, such wonderful organisation.
The orchid and the imitative insect, such a living interpretation, what a work!
Could it be the same interpreting Bach. Or building a road?
Seems like there is an interpreter, sure does.
Or a planner planning roads.
If there isn't, what is the feeling state?
- despair ?
- fear ?
- relief ?
- creativity ?
- wonder ?
Feeling state
dances with
the question,
experiencing
arises.
Can there be stopping, stilling,
yet still playing, in a clear light,
like some zen arrow or brush?
Letting go of a self is not easy, yet it is,
[Favourite composer currently, Saint-Preux]
Originally posted by karoly aczelMethinks the beetle is affirming your erudition, if with a gentle Zen whack on the head. 🙂
If you mean I am not keeping up, then yes. I am still back on page 1 somewhere ...
Doesn't mean I dont read and re-read yours and others posts.
Anyway, i just thought I would respond - I am not debating the point you have made here 😵